Keir Starmer went to private school

[Asking4afrend]

AIBU to be shocked that Keir Starmer went to private school? Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. So he enjoyed an excellent education which increased his social mobility and then wants to bring down the system that helped him, even when they gave him a 100% bursary so that his parents didn’t have to pay the fees?

This is from wiki:

Starmer passed the 11-plus examination and gained entry to Reigate Grammar School, which at the time was a voluntary-aidedselective grammar school.[1][12] The school converted into an independent fee-paying school in 1976, while he was a student. The terms of the conversion were such that his parents were not required to pay for his schooling until he turned 16, and when he reached that point, the school, by now a charity, awarded him a bursary that allowed him to complete his education there without any parental contribution.

I only found out about this today when I was googling the school for another reason and looked up the alumni. What a hypocrite. You didn’t hear about this in the election during all his “my father was a toolmaker” speeches.

Not everyone has that choice.

Our nearest secondary (walkable, in the community) is a private school. Nearest state school is almost an hour by public transport or over an hour by school bus.

DD travels 90 minutes for a great comp, the 'local' private school I wouldn't pay for even if I won the lottery.

I’m not sure that’s a good thing. I don’t want someone average to govern me. I want someone exceptional.

It is akin to saying it is a good thing that your doctor has an education that reflects the educational experiences of the general public. I’d prefer one who has gone through lengthy medical training.

I think you're missing the point. Kerr Starmer enjoyed an education today that would be far superior to what the majority of state educated children receive today and would be more akin to a private school in terms of academic standards and results. It will have played a huge role in getting him to where he is now. Would he have done so well if he came from his background and was allocated a local failing comprehensive school? I would strongly argue that he wouldn't.

The fact that grammar schools were less elitist and were subject to less gaming of the system by wealthy parents is undoubtedly true but still the education he received was of a very high standard and incomparable to what other children would have received now and even back then.

So now he has enjoyed a successful career in law and even gone on to be PM, the first thing he does in the education sector is try to dismantle private schools. Why would he do this? Why wouldn't he focus on those who are recieving a crap education rather than those who are recieving a good one? Why wouldn't he try to raise standards for kids from deprived backgrounds instead of waste time, money and energy on a policy that realistically will have zero impact on those who need the most reforms? It's hypocritical and disingenuous to pretend he hasn't had a education that is very similar to a private education and that he is also trying to remove this privilege from the children that come after him

@Drizzle6183

The mere fact of attending a private school does not make the individual exceptional, nor does attending a state school mean that the individual is average

Shouldn't he, or any politician, be doing what is best for his constituents and his country NOW, not trying to be consistent with what his parents did in the '80s?

Nicola Sturgeon was absolutely hell-bent on retaining the bursaries which provide essentially free undergraduate education to Scottish residents because SHE had received this benefit and it would be hypocritical to take it away - and promoting let-to-buy schemes for council houses because her parents bought theirs when she was a child. She came in for a tremendous amount of justifiable criticism for both, because conditions and relevant factors had significantly changed and all she would say was "this stuff worked for me". I'm not saying she was necessarily wrong, but I also expect a little bit more nuance and critical thinking from someone at that level of politics, as well as a willingness to explore and extrapolate from current conditions and address substantive criticisms raised.

But I suspect Starmer is damned either way.

Most deceased people's wealth comes from the massive inflation of house prices, particularly in the South East and London, not from hard work. The increase in the value of houses hasn't been taxed already.

Bigger issue is that there was a Good School available for Kier, so good, that somehow it became FEE paying and then people DID indeed pay fees for that good education.

All schools should be good & the VAT on fees isn’t going to fix school and the
hatred & financial punishment of people with aspiration and motivation to work, save and invest which define modern Labour is a disgrace.
Stoking hatred of people who have done well, have a good education as a political platform treds too close to the politics of the Khmer Rouge and communists!

Why would you?

You are conflating many things here. Grammar schools were fantastic for social mobility. The fact that the state secondary education offered to children who did not earn grammar school places was not very good is not attributable to the existence of grammar schools (selection) but to the fact that the introduction of free and obligatory state secondary education for all was a complex process.

It changed to a private whilst he was there but the school allowed the 'grammar' pupils to continue without paying fees. TO NOT DISRUPT KIDS EDUCATION.

Obviously they weren't mean old cunts - unlike him, Rach and Bridge.

Could not agree more! Our house would sell now for ten times what we paid for it decades ago. We have done absolutely nothing to 'earn' this. Of course our estate should have some tax deducted.

Many exceptional people have been to state schools and many very mediocre people have been privately educated.

You and other people on here have incorrectly stated that many members of Keir Starmer's cabinet have been privately educated and have accused Keir Starmer and his cabinet of hypocrisy. As other posters have posted evidence that this is completely untrue and that this is the most state educated cabinet in UK history, you have twisted around to say that not being privately educated makes them unqualified and unfit to govern.

Most people don't have autonomy over what type of school they go to at age 11. His parents chose the school he attended, same as everyone else. Why shouldn't someone who attended private school not believe in it in principle as an adult?

I don't get this. My kids went to a very average state school.

Doesn't make me support private schools. Why would it?

I don’t disagree which makes the comments regarding the state education background of the cabinet even more ridiculous.

Can you please explain how house price inflation has already been taxed?

Most money in deceased estates is from untaxed growth, not taxed earnings.
Any already taxed money from earnings etc is paid out of the estate, not literally by the dead person who has paid tax.
Anyone inheriting from someone else hasn’t already paid tax on that money.
All our money is taxed multiple times. My wages have already been taxed before I get them. I spend my money in a shop and 20% of it is taxed in VAT. Some will be used for wages which is taxed, some may be used for stock (taxed), equipment (taxes), maintenance (taxed), insurance (taxed) and any profit is liable for tax. Do you think business owners should only pay tax on takings they get from people who haven’t paid tax?

Besides, it’s piss easy to avoid inheritance tax, unless you want to have your cake and eat it of course.

Not at all. The evidence of their performance has led to the conclusion regarding their competence.

Regardless of that, many posters appear to be contradicting themselves. On one hand they say that educational background is irrelevant yet on the other appear to celebrate the fact that the cabinet mostly come from state school backgrounds.

You are right, you don't get it.
My point was that all too often people who claim they could have gone Private but chose not to always have a decent alternative.

Grammar schools are not and never have been “great for social mobility”

I think this is old news! It was definitely discussed here on Mumsnet back during the election, and elsewhere!

Reigate grammar is a v nice private school and I have no doubt that as a grammar school it also catered for only a privileged few. Reigate was, back in the 80s (and still today), a very expensive and privileged part of the UK (for most), and I expect there was little difference in the opportunities afforded at the school when it was a grammar and when it became private. He was lucky and v privileged to have received his education there.

I don't blame him or judge him for going there. It was his parents decision, he was a kid, and I'm pretty sure it was the best school in the area that his parents could find, and they felt would be a good opportunity him. Well done them.

My only issue with him, is this constant narrative about how he comes from humble beginnings. No he doesn't!! His dad owned the business. He wasn't just a factory worker. The family lived in leafy Surrey, Keir went to a great grammar, later private school. He had every opportunity afforded to him and I just wish he'd acknowledge it!

(I do know Reigate well, having grown up there. I also know the surrounding areas, where Keir lived etc.., very well. My siblings went to Reigate grammar school! So I feel like I know the kind of area and privilege Keir has come from, and it is far from what he portrays. He's hardly the son of a northern coal miner, or of Barry from the east London estate.)

OK, I get that.
You are talking about people who say they could have gone private but didn't.
I agree with you there.

Well Boris was exceptional. And a very poor example of the benefits of an Eton education. Laurence Fox thinks he's exceptional, another example of privilege from Harrow. People should be demanding their money back if pupils are simply being taught that shouting loudly and telling glib lies is a sound foundation for running a country.

Kerr Starmer enjoyed an education today that would be far superior to what the majority of state educated children receive today

Funnily enough my partner owns a cassette tape from his days at Reigate Secondary School in the 70s - a secret recording of a French lesson done on one of those old rectangular boxes with the microphone poking through the ink hole. Not that you'd really guess it was a French lesson since the teacher speaks almost exclusively in English on subjects unrelated to French.

Listening to it would instantly disabuse anyone of any notion of education being intrinsically better then. Delivering that lesson in front of an OFSTED inspector would be an instant fail.

Firstly you have to apply on tine, so need to be at a fixed address by I think mid January before the September when you need a primary place and end October before the September when you need a secondary place.