To wonder if the Royal family will attend state schools once the private ones are abolished?

[Notcontent]

Or will there be exceptions for the mega wealthy and powerful?

It’s never going to level the playing field. It’s also never going to happen. Poor state schools will remain poor and wealthier families will congregate in wealthier areas with good schools and ensure those schools remain good. It will do absolutely nothing apart from increase the divide in education

Might as well ask what the royals are going to do when Labour ban tiaras and castles.

Re banning tiaras and the like, East Germany had a good wheeze: if the powers that be (usually by other citizens informing) that someone owned a valuable painting or work of art, they didn’t requisition it directly but sent the owner an enormous tax bill so they would be obliged to sell the art to pay it.
Same could be done for tiaras.

Private schools won't be abolished. If in some strange land, they are. Then I'm sure the royals (plus other very wealthy people) will be homeschooled by governess' like they were years ago.

It won’t happen. They have been saying they will abolish grammar schools since I was a kid and still not managed that!

I am a teacher. I work in a private school that members of the RF and peers, literally, may or may not have attended. I am on maternity leave.

I would simply home tutor my children with colleagues' children, we'd have co op. What are they going to do? Ban us? They could say my child HAD to attend a local school... then I'd move near the best one I could find and still home tutor to get the edge.

Note that I would not go into state teaching. Are they going to force me?

It isn't going to happen, but they wouldn't be allowed due to security.

The manifesto states that all cash, investment and assets of private schools will be "redistributed democratically and fairly across the country's educational institutions".

Did they explain how stealing someone's property is democratic and fair?

why do you think that any government is ever going to bother to do that when their kids are not the ones being affected?

What percentage of MP's children go to private school?

It's all bollocks! They seem to be picking off what they see as the benefits The Haves have. Yet most of us are The Haves to people who Have Less than us!

As others have said, that will soon include Brownies, swimming lessons, a second pair of shoes, more plates in the cupboard than people in the house...

Fucking idiots! They'll reduce us all to the very lowest standard of living and proudly puff up their chests at all that equality they have achieved.

Did I say TWATS yet?

Did they explain how stealing someone's property is democratic and fair? It's not stealing when it is redressing the balance - that's communism, socialism, stupidism!

They won't be abolished

Did they explain how stealing someone's property is democratic and fair?
According to jasjas on another thread, seizing schools and their assets is the same as compulsory purchase of land for Heathrow’s new runway and HS2.
If the Labour Party have to buy all the private schools’ land, buildings and other assets for their market value I dread to think what it’s going to cost!

Ridiculous that they are targeting education. EDUCATION! Of all the things.

Next it will be private medicine and the NHS will be flooded more than it is already.

Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Anyone else think they'd have preferred 'chaos with Ed Miliband'?

As I see it, any reasonable opposition party would easily wipe the floor with Boris Johnson and his motley crew of right-wing cabinet ministers. As is stands with Corbyn at the helm and these frankly bizarre policy suggestions almost invites, indeed welcomes, a hard 'no-deal' brexit with Boris Johnson at the helm and all manner of doing away with proper governance and rule of law. I despair!

Did they explain how stealing someone's property is democratic and fair?

These people don’t need rational explanations, they just have faith in their malevolent Marxist god.

And the more spiteful they are, the purer their devotion becomes...

I assume "policy" will also include abolishing schools which use religion as an admissions criteria? They can confiscate all that church owned property too.

How will that work then? Somebody must own Eton, for example and they run it as a business. How can a Labour government just force people to close their business down? Life's what you make it and money doesn't buy sense. I went to a scary comprehensive on a housing estate in the 80s, couldn't care less if people choose to spend their cash on private education.

They won't be abolished - time to learn some critical thinking skills OP and see beyond the spin.

As for reducing inequalities, successive governments have been trying to do this for decades - it's getting worse not better. What is the master plan to change this...

All that removing charity status from private schools will do is close the ones that are struggling and put extra pressures in to the state system.

Remaining private schools will increase their fees and remove bursaries (again disadvantaging poorer children) which will push even more children in to the state sector, whilst those that can afford the increase will continue to pay.

*How about increasing funding for state schools so that they could rival the pupil-teacher ratios and general facilities that private schools have?

I agree, but, again, why do you think that any government is ever going to bother to do that when their kids are not the ones being affected?*

For sure, I don't.

And I don't think it would happen even in the (highly unlikely) event of the abolition of private schools. The children of MPs would overwhelmingly go to 'good' schools - either private schools abroad, or very desirable, probably selective, state schools with wealthy catchment areas.

I guess my point was more about levelling down versus levelling up. We currently have a system where some kids get access to a much better education than others. Of course we need a more equal system. But it seems crazy to want to achieve it by removing some of the better providers, rather than by improving some of the poorer providers.

It's a bit like saying that it's unfair that some people are healthier than others, and so what we need to do to address that is to injure the healthy people, rather than improving healthcare for the sick.

but it will level the playing field to a greater extent than the current system does.

But of course it won't.
About 7% of children in the UK go to private schools.

I would very much imagine that a larger percentage of children in the state sector use tutors, attend extra curricular activities (in music, arts, drama, english, maths, languages, dance, etc.) and have more resources (a quiet area to study, books, paper, pens, a computer, a willing and able parent to help) available to them at home.

All of those above things have a greater impact on general educational inequality. And those who go to private school but who would be forced to move schools would still have those things thrown in, adding to the many thousands who already do.

Should we also scrap catchment areas? Because people will move to the 'right' catchment even more so, raising house prices in those areas.

Also we need to scrap grammar schools - unless we can guarantee no child is having extra tuition out of school, it's not level playing field.

It's not stealing when it is redressing the balance - that's communism, socialism, stupidism!

But someone owns those buildings. As a tax payer are you willing to pay them out, and then also pay for the upkeep of said buildings, many of which are old and possibly listed buildings.

I can't really understand why 93% of people wouldn't support this. Why would they want to give an unfair advantage to 7%. It's not an end to educational inequality but it's a start.

It's not going to happen as the rich always look after their own plus who gives a shit where they go tbh!

@wafflyversatile there are lots of “unfair” advantages in life - why choose this one? Especially when it will cost the system more.

@wafflyversatile
I can't really understand why 93% of people wouldn't support this.

Have you bothered to read the thread? People have come up with a long list of reasons as to why it a) would damage the economy and b) not level the playing field anyway