Angela Raynor

[Pixxie7]

I think her comments today were spot on, although not really professional she makes a valid point.

Who would you rather trust with the country's finances?

Sunak had done a good job imo

Spent a lot but stopped unemployment from spiralling. Clear, reasonable and I pretty much agree with him when he explains it.

When I listen to Labour I get concerned it really could be bad for the country economically, it’s so pie in the sky.

Someone asked what I wanted from Labour to vote for them - positivity, non insularity, lack of infighting, opportunity at each level - and really not stuffing up finances. With their pledges they sound apart from reality

it’s so pie in the sky. What is?

With their pledges they sound apart from reality - such as?

BJ is the one for wild schemes that have consistently proved a failure.

The three I’ve heard

• £15 min wage
• remove charitable status from schools
• scrap business rates

Money from where? What knock on effects both here and with international investment?

Maybe detail will help but it doesn’t fill me with confidence. It’s easy to make things sound attractive but they have to work

Sunak has done some bold moves which have worked - even if some have unfortunate downside (fraud was one imo, but he’s pretty thorough so maybe best way)

How do you see removing charitable status from private schools as something that would have a negative effect?

And the proposals to scrap business rates to support small businesses sound good and workable to me:

Labour’s business tax reform would look to shift the burden from the high street to online giants, and end the tax relief afforded to private schools due to their charitable status.

The party would also aim to raise £440 million by closing the carried interest loophole which relates to private equity fund managers and the share of profits made by investment deals. Ms Reeves said: “Labour will tax fairly, spend wisely, and get our economy firing on all cylinders.”

If they can get money from online giants without repercussion on business here - I’d be interested I’d need to know more what impact it has.

Charitable status removal worries me due to

• students moving to state as schools close or additional fees push people out increasing strain in sector
• ‘soft power’ for U.K. as independent sector is well regarded and attractive. Generally people can afford it if they are o/s but the sector is an asset to U.K. so tinkering with it should be well thought out
• bursaries stopping - will they? That is very sad if so. Also outreach too. Schools have big bursaries here it’s no small thing for the children

How much per state student will it raise? £27 per head for example and you won’t get this idealistic result promised

It feels punitive. Someone said the other day Blair focussed on improving education without doing this and I think it’s a far better way

Make state more attractive without downsides

Also £15 min wage - what impact on inflation and businesses that need to pay it. Will they survive, how?

Make state more attractive without downsides

How? Where will the money come from? The only way state education will get better is if parents insist on it and vote for parties that prioritise it. It’s never going to be a priority for a party whose MPs predominantly pay for their kids’ education.

@Blossomtoes

Make state more attractive without downsides

How? Where will the money come from? The only way state education will get better is if parents insist on it and vote for parties that prioritise it. It’s never going to be a priority for a party whose MPs predominantly pay for their kids’ education.

Well people seem to think business rates can be scrapped and online giants will pay more

• so there?

Why force more into state as a result for little financial gain. It’s a bad strategy.

It appears to a certain psychology and that’s it.

Labour’s business tax reform would look to shift the burden from the high street to online giants,

I don't think anyone would disagree with this but no country has yet been able to do it, even by adjusting their own tax laws. There are international tax agreements that means certain things can't be done. So if none of the western economies have been able to do it to date, how is KS promising to do it. If he knows a way, he should contact the Inland Revenue. Its just another politician's empty promise that can't be delivered. Haven't we had enough of those?

Why force more into state as a result for little financial gain. It’s a bad strategy.

Is it? Or is it a recipe for greater social mobility? Sharp elbowed parents are an excellent way of forcing standards up.

Wouldn't scrapping business rates help businesses pay their workers a proper wage?

*Charitable status removal worries me due to

• students moving to state as schools close or additional fees push people out increasing strain in sector
• ‘soft power’ for U.K. as independent sector is well regarded and attractive. Generally people can afford it if they are o/s but the sector is an asset to U.K. so tinkering with it should be well thought out
• bursaries stopping - will they? That is very sad if so. Also outreach too. Schools have big bursaries here it’s no small thing for the children*

I thought the idea was also to redistribute private school assets and bring them into the state sector so it wouldn't necessarily mean the state sector would be overburdened.

I'm not sure I entirely understand your second point.

Bursaries wouldn't necessarily have to stop. It would probably mean that only the very wealthy could afford the full fees but the schools could still sponsor some pupils via generous bursaries.

@Blossomtoes

Why force more into state as a result for little financial gain. It’s a bad strategy.

Is it? Or is it a recipe for greater social mobility? Sharp elbowed parents are an excellent way of forcing standards up.

They are good at getting places so yes you might see house prices rise in certain catchment areas. We have this already in London. Or good at getting grammar through prep school / tutoring first.

It skews the mix in a school but it also creates schools people avoid.

If say 10 to 20% leave private they will use that money for better results in state but not necessarily in the way people would like.

And then you’ll have a ripple effect. It’s pretty bloody obvious to me.

@Blossomtoes

And then you’ll have a ripple effect. It’s pretty bloody obvious to me.

Really? I doubt it.

No ripple effect here between one school worth £1.5 plus houses and other people move away from.

Good luck if you think it has a chance of raising standards with meagre amounts. It’s a dud and unfortunately appeals to some for obvious reasons.

pretty disgusting imo - there would have been absolute uproar if it was the other way around & Boris had said these things about her

Labour have been bleating on about removing charitable status from private schools for years and years. It's the politics of envy and why only sharp elbowed parents raising the standards if they go back into the state system? What about the parents who are already there...what are they doing to raise standards?

My DS's school is very well known, there were boys on scholarships and full bursaries and to say that schools would still give them out if the charitable status was taken away have no idea how business works. If you look at the history of Labour Cabinet Ministers and where they sent their children I think most be shocked. Its not just Abbott who says one thing and does the complete opposite. Look up Shirley Williams who effectively abolished grammar schools.

All that would happen is that house prices would shoot up in the more popular areas and nothing much would change.

As a PP says - other countries have been trying for ages to get the online giants to pay more. So far they have failed. How will Labour do this? Its a reasonable soundbite but realistically if they do have to pay more in taxes it will be us funding this through increased prices.

What about the parents who are already there...what are they doing to raise standards?

Well, personally I volunteer as a governor at one of the local schools in order to do my bit. I know others who help to raise funds for schools and others who volunteer in the classroom etc.

Personally, I'd prefer the government to invest more in state schools than to fund a handful of bursary places at private schools through tax relief.

@AlexaShutUp

What about the parents who are already there...what are they doing to raise standards?

Well, personally I volunteer as a governor at one of the local schools in order to do my bit. I know others who help to raise funds for schools and others who volunteer in the classroom etc.

Personally, I'd prefer the government to invest more in state schools than to fund a handful of bursary places at private schools through tax relief.

How much per student will the policy raise?

September 2019
Angela Rayner: 'MPs need to dial down their language.'

Andrew Marr spoke to Labour's shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p07pmq61

24 October 2020

Conservative MPs have faced "widespread abuse" after Labour's Angela Rayner used the word "scum" in a Parliamentary debate, the party's co-chairwoman says.

Amanda Milling has written to Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer asking if he will take action against Labour MPs "who perpetrate abuse."

Ms Milling, in a letter signed by more than 100 Tory backbenchers, wrote that Ms Rayner's use of the word "scum" towards Mr Clarkson was "unacceptable".

She said it had resulted in the phrase "Tory scum" trending on Twitter and had caused "widespread abuse towards members of our parliamentary party", including abusive phone calls and MPs' offices being targeted.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54675232

How much per student will the policy raise?

Not a huge amount. The estimate I have seen suggests about £1.7billion in total. I'm sure people will debate this but none of us really know for sure. Not sure how much that works out per pupil - £150ish per year? However, if it was focused on pupil premium kids rather than all pupils, it could make a significant difference to the most disadvantaged pupils.

@AlexaShutUp

How much per student will the policy raise?

Not a huge amount. The estimate I have seen suggests about £1.7billion in total. I'm sure people will debate this but none of us really know for sure. Not sure how much that works out per pupil - £150ish per year? However, if it was focused on pupil premium kids rather than all pupils, it could make a significant difference to the most disadvantaged pupils.

Ok good to see a figure - if it was only spent on disadvantaged pupils what would they get and how would it help?

And how do you raise standards for other students

Plus make sure that students leaving the private sector don’t just use up the tax they pay (but currently don’t use the place) and add burden to state system?

@elodie77

I don't agree - his ideas were sound and pragmatic, aiming to create a fairer society that works for everyone.

Fabulous soundbite. So what?

@MarshaBradyo, I think there are around 2 million pupil premium kids at the moment, so around £850 each if it was split evenly between them. Quite a big increase on what they get now, so it would be significant. It's up to individual schools to spend it in ways that are tailored to the individual child. At the school where I'm a governor, it funds a variety of things including 1:1 or small group interventions with the children in question - both academic and pastoral - as well as breakfast clubs to ensure that they get a decent meal at the start of the day, support for stuff like music lessons, participation in residentials etc.

Of course, it won't be enough to raise standards across the board - we need to do more from general taxation too. But it would help.

And yes, there may be a significant number who move to the state sector if they can no longer afford the fees. So be it. There will be plenty of others who continue to pay their private fees.

[quote AlexaShutUp]@MarshaBradyo, I think there are around 2 million pupil premium kids at the moment, so around £850 each if it was split evenly between them. Quite a big increase on what they get now, so it would be significant. It's up to individual schools to spend it in ways that are tailored to the individual child. At the school where I'm a governor, it funds a variety of things including 1:1 or small group interventions with the children in question - both academic and pastoral - as well as breakfast clubs to ensure that they get a decent meal at the start of the day, support for stuff like music lessons, participation in residentials etc.

Of course, it won't be enough to raise standards across the board - we need to do more from general taxation too. But it would help.

And yes, there may be a significant number who move to the state sector if they can no longer afford the fees. So be it. There will be plenty of others who continue to pay their private fees.[/quote]
But how can it be ‘so be it’?

They currently pay £5k per year? Tax that will then be used for the child that attends

This will add further burden to state. Why does £850 per child sound good but not the extra tax that isn’t currently used?

Actually maybe I should phrase that as a child will use up £5k per year that isn’t currently doing so.