This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Endless Shadow Ministers unable/unwilling to say where the students forced into the state education sector will go in September. This is a purely ideological policy based on jealousy. Logistically it can't work if you think about it at all. I can't remember an election where politicians from all sides have wheeled out more BS and simply refused to answer major questions assuming the voters are stupid. 2019 you had the likes of Rebecca Long-Bailey moaning the Labour vote had " not understood the manifesto " #prayfortheuk
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
I read - who knows it true - that Labour expect no more than 3% of pupils to drop out.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
@600K students so 3% is 18,000 or around 20-25 news schools depending on class size and perhaps 900 teachers. The private schools will tend to be in similar geographic areas . Suppose Alleyns and JAGS closed, that puts over 2500 students looking for state places in one area of South London 3% of the students would be 70-80, The more likely 20% would be 500
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
On the other hand, think of the scope for a re-boot of 'The Inbetweeners'.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
'Pray for the UK' because someone is suggesting we shouldn't subsidise the richest in society going to better schools than the rest of us do. I'm sure some people just oppose things because it comes from Labour - there is no coherent argument where a society claiming to be fair and meritocratic structures its education system as we do.
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
'Pray for the UK' because someone is suggesting we shouldn't subsidise the richest in society going to better schools than the rest of us do. I'm sure some people just oppose things because it comes from Labour - there is no coherent argument where a society claiming to be fair and meritocratic structures its education system as we do. Bring back The East India Company.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
'Pray for the UK' because someone is suggesting we shouldn't subsidise the richest in society going to better schools than the rest of us do. I'm sure some people just oppose things because it comes from Labour - there is no coherent argument where a society claiming to be fair and meritocratic structures its education system as we do. No Labour Shadow Minister has been able to say where the displaced students will be schooled is the point. I have no problem with the policy as it lets the market do it's work. The problem is it is being done for ideological reasons, has not been thought through and will unlikely produce the extra available money to spend on state education. The average govt spend per pupil is 7000 per year. Every student who quits private school where the annual fees are less than 35K means a net loss. This is simple maths I do not disagree with everything Labour does, I think Wes Streeting has a lot to offer in terms of NHS reform for example. I don't think you can run an election campaign on " we are not the Conservatives "
Edited by HKOwen (03 Jun 2024 11.02pm) Edited by HKOwen (03 Jun 2024 11.03pm)
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by YT
On the other hand, think of the scope for a re-boot of 'The Inbetweeners'. It definitely wouldn't be 4 straight white male friends in the reboot...
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by HKOwen
No Labour Shadow Minister has been able to say where the displaced students will be schooled is the point. I have no problem with the policy as it lets the market do it's work. The problem is it is being done for ideological reasons, has not been thought through and will unlikely produce the extra available money to spend on state education. The average govt spend per pupil is 7000 per year. Every student who quits private school where the annual fees are less than 35K means a net loss. This is simple maths I do not disagree with everything Labour does, I think Wes Streeting has a lot to offer in terms of NHS reform for example. I don't think you can run an election campaign on " we are not the Conservatives "
Edited by HKOwen (03 Jun 2024 11.02pm) Edited by HKOwen (03 Jun 2024 11.03pm) Surely this is the opposite of 'we are not the Conservatives'? It's a specific policy which is what everyone has been asking from Labour for months. You keep saying 'ideological reasons' as if that's a bad thing - the 'ideology' of our society being fair and meritocratic is shared by the majority of the population. I see no issue with policies pursuing that aim. The whole thing about state school places is a complete red herring - the reality is hardly any of these parents are going to pull their kids out of the school over a few grand a year difference. The schools will swallow some of the cost, the parents will begrudgingly pay the balance passed onto them, and hardly anything will change beyond the schools making a bit less profit and paying an appropriate level of tax. Can you make a case as to why the taxpayer should be subsidising the richest in society to go to better schools? Not logistical challenges that a change might produce (a la state school places), but an actual case as to why the current status quo is a good thing?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Surely this is the opposite of 'we are not the Conservatives'? It's a specific policy which is what everyone has been asking from Labour for months. You keep saying 'ideological reasons' as if that's a bad thing - the 'ideology' of our society being fair and meritocratic is shared by the majority of the population. I see no issue with policies pursuing that aim. The whole thing about state school places is a complete red herring - the reality is hardly any of these parents are going to pull their kids out of the school over a few grand a year difference. The schools will swallow some of the cost, the parents will begrudgingly pay the balance passed onto them, and hardly anything will change beyond the schools making a bit less profit and paying an appropriate level of tax. Can you make a case as to why the taxpayer should be subsidising the richest in society to go to better schools? Not logistical challenges that a change might produce (a la state school places), but an actual case as to why the current status quo is a good thing? Personally I don’t have an objection to VAT being applied; where I have a problem is when so many Labour MPs have sent their own children to private schools when some of them have been looking to close them down as being too elite; it’s the hypocrisy.
hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing. |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
Surely this is the opposite of 'we are not the Conservatives'? It's a specific policy which is what everyone has been asking from Labour for months. You keep saying 'ideological reasons' as if that's a bad thing - the 'ideology' of our society being fair and meritocratic is shared by the majority of the population. I see no issue with policies pursuing that aim. The whole thing about state school places is a complete red herring - the reality is hardly any of these parents are going to pull their kids out of the school over a few grand a year difference. The schools will swallow some of the cost, the parents will begrudgingly pay the balance passed onto them, and hardly anything will change beyond the schools making a bit less profit and paying an appropriate level of tax. Can you make a case as to why the taxpayer should be subsidising the richest in society to go to better schools? Not logistical challenges that a change might produce (a la state school places), but an actual case as to why the current status quo is a good thing?
Red and Blue Army! |
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
---|---|
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines
Personally I don’t have an objection to VAT being applied; where I have a problem is when so many Labour MPs have sent their own children to private schools when some of them have been looking to close them down as being too elite; it’s the hypocrisy. Well yeah but that's obviously a completely separate point - there is no proposal from Labour to close down private schools, so I don't think we should conflate the two. Who are the Labour MPs who have sent their own children to private schools while looking to close them down?
|
|
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.