To marvel at privately educated Keir Starmer's hypocrisy?

[Bursarysadness]

Both Kier Starmer and his wife are privately educated. Kier's senior school converted into a private school in the second year of his attendance and he has received a generous full bursary up until his A levels. He has built his life and his success on this education, supported to the end by the bursary funded by the same schools and parents he is now trying to destroy. It pains me as my children receive 50% bursaries from a brilliant local school. We've worked incredibly hard to cover the remaining 50% but it has been worth it, seeing how my children blossomed. We had a very different experience in their primary state schools, including bullying and racism. We don't live in a great area. We have just been told that the school will probably reduce all their bursaries to be able to lower the fees for the non bursary parents who are now struggling because of the VAT introduction. I don't know what the future for my children is now and they have so many close friends where they are. They are both academically brilliant and work very hard - hence the bursaries were granted. I feel so depressed that, from what is becoming obvious, they won't be able to benefit from the generosity of bursaries the same way Kier Starmer did when he was a child ..

Spot on! Entitlement to continued subsidisation by full-fee paying parents! Private education is not a necessity, it is a luxury, you can't demand your caviar is funded by others.

I don’t think he should have chosen to move schools but he shouldn’t be expecting children to move MID YEAR as a result of the introduction of this policy. Even worse, parents are contacting their LEAs about state school places and are being told that there aren’t any or that there is a massive backlog of applications so this policy is putting even more pressure on parents and therefore children. He’s the prime minister, he needs to take some responsibility for this.

I think it’s quite naive to think that the Starmers would have sent their kids to a poorly performing state school had they not fortuitously bought in an area which became even more affluent

Oh for god sake this shit again. Stop moaning and just pay the fees or don't. Stop moaning. There is a lot mire important stuff going on in the world!

Because he claimed to be a socialist at 16 and the school was fee paying. It's quite common to want a change at sixth form.

Why what?

Oh dear.... So at 16 he was old enough to join Young Socialists but not old enough to have any say in his schooling.... Are you people joking? He is also the one campaigning for people to have a vote at 16! Also, I've just gone through this move - moving my son from a private secondary to a local state sixth form. Guess what?! He needed to apply not me! I just approved it but it has to be his application! You clearly have no clue. At 16 you apply to 6th form, not your parents

Cry me a river

it's your experience of ONE SCHOOL, not the entire uk state sector.

So yes, lol - clearly a massive hypocrite! How do you become a member of Young Socialists at the same time as applying for a bursary for a private school? I didn't know this .. I'm totally shocked and appalled

Oh fuck me some people are desperate. KS is a hypocrite because AT 16 he stayed in his school which turned fee paying during his time there, did not apply to a private school but remained there, and that now makes his opinions at age 61 invalid 🤦‍♀️

So when you were 16 you made decisions that as a fully developed adult, you stand by? Don’t be so ridiculous.

But would he be a successful lawyer, living in his expensive house in a catchment for an excellent and privileged local school for his kids if he didn't have that education? Clearly, this is the question you have to ask yourself? And he didn't even do so well at his A levels - Bs and Cs - quite pathetic really. So it's not like he did very well? He went to a posh school though, right? And in those times it mattered. Noone would do well or get a good law degree with these grades now!

I’m interested why you think it simply should not be an option?
Should spending your money on a Ferrari be an option ?
Should having a three week holiday be an option ?
Should buying a larger house be an option ? These are all personal choices in terms of how to spend money. Yes they are luxuries but they are also dependent on ability to do so.
It is actually quite a radical decision to add VAT to education. I think in Europe there is no VAT and we don’t seem (I don’t think !) to add VAT to nurseries, and university or other tertiary education. So in that sense it is ‘radical’.

No, but doesn’t the fact that being able to choose a great school through catchment perpetuate your privilege? Would you argue that schools should use more equitable application criteria ( % of children on FSM, % of children with parents in x income bracket, etc). Aren’t you just paying for a great education but in a different way?

Im against VAT by the way. I just think those in glass houses 🤷‍♀️

No she didn't. However she attended a Catholic secondary school with a faith admissions policy. I've just checked the free school meal rate for the school - it's 14.6% - one of the other secondary schools in the town has a free school meal rate of 54%. I don't know why Bridget Phillipson keeps going on about the good state school she attended when the admissions policy clearly discriminates against non-Catholics and therefore not open to all. Does Bridget Phillipson send her own children to a faith school?

@blueskies73 those grades were perfectly fine to go to uni 30 years ago. I had offers of BBC for all the Russell group universities I applied for and lots of my friends had DEE offers for Oxford.

I get that you dislike Keir Starmer but you're really scrapping the barrel.

I was offered EEE for a Russell group 30 years ago , not unusual

Why does Keir Starmer want to give 16 year olds the right to vote in general elections?

He's 61, when he did A levels those grades were okay. There's been massive grade inflation over the years. Also his school wasn't that posh. People on here are carrying on like it was Eton or Harrow.

Things must have changed pretty quickly because I had to get AAA to study law 25 years ago.

It isn't Eton or Harrow but then neither are most private schools - and that's one of the issues.

@Kitte321 "Would you argue that schools should use more equitable application criteria"

Personally yes, I would. But I'm not sure a political party with that as a policy would get very far!!

Well, exactly! Because that would directly impact the 93%. And let’s be honest, it’s dead easy to sit and argue for a policy that doesn’t impact you in the name of equality. Bit more difficult when it does. It’s like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Of course you are. People living in the catchment area of a great school - as we know - pay a premium for those houses. I think this is why people get a bit frustrated and feel it is hypocritical because no one on either side of the political spectrum are suggesting that those people (Keir?) buying into a great school for their kids via their ability to pay for an expensive house, no one is suggesting that this ability will be penalised.

He wants to give them the right at 16 to vote because the labour / left wing assumption is that 16 year olds are more likely to vote for Labour / left wing parties (or parties perceived to be left wing). He may be underestimating the swing in generational opinion making though. There has been recent research that suggests that for girls this might still hold true whereas for boys they are bucking this trend.