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.

This place is wild these days.

1. Starmer did not opt for private education for himself. Judging him because his school converted and he didn't leave is ridiculous.
2. There's nothing inherently inconsistent in someone who went to private school supporting VAT on private schools - just because someone benefitted from an unfair subsidy for their private education doesn't make that fair.

Knowsley Borough is always cited as having the worst schools in the country but even here there are kids getting good results , including one with 6 Grade Nines.

Knowsley?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-60768037

It's amazing that people actually think that because a 16 year old boy preferred to stay with his mates rather than move school he should not, fifty years later, be allowed to do what he thinks is best for the nation's school children.

Although if he'd been to a secondary modern he'd just be accused of implementing this policy out of "jealousy" and "having a chip on his shoulder". When this sort of silly nonsense takes over from reasoned discussion this is where you end up.

I don’t believe there is one parent on MN who wouldn’t actively seek the best state school for their dc.
The furore on here when a dc doesn’t get into the parents first choice of school.
That’s selective education right there.

As parents dh and I bought our home in the best school catchment so our dc would benefit.

Until every dc is forced to go to their nearest school then education will always be bought one way or another.

Dastardly Starmer. At 16 he chose to stay on at his school, whilst knowingly plotting to impose VAT on school fees some 45 years later.

The Tory bots are working so hard.

Ramblethroughthebrambles
Experiencing this privilege shaped their views about the unfairness of it

So that's why Starmer and co grabbed all the freebies, clothes and concert tickets they could get their hands on? And Starmer put his son in a luxury penthouse flat so he could study for his GCSEs? Where does Bridget Phillipson educate her children - do they go to highly selective faith schools in London?

My issue is that he is kicking the system that helped him. The VAT was supposed to be redirected back into education but now we are looking at more cuts. And don’t even talk to me about the threat to SEN provision.

I don't know what the situation was in the 70s. Did all chikdren sit the 11 plus.
I know both my parents had to sit it. Then they got told where they were going. But I know my mums parents said the uniform and bus fair was too much for the grammar so the girls went to the secondary mod instead. But back then this was significant as they were offered a totally different curriculum. They couldn't do O levels.

This is such a nonsensical point, that's thrown in like some kind of gotcha. People who went to private school are allowed to believe tax on school fees is fair.

You don’t see the issue with people who have benefitted from their privilege saying ‘it is unfair that I have done so well, so I will make sure others cannot benefit the way I have’? Champagne socialism.

Unfair. The fact that has been done to death by Tory supporters suggests OP is of the Reform persuasion and imagines flogging this particular dead horse is a fresh take.

But not VAT on private medical care? Or, in fact, on gambling? That industry well known for benefitting society left right and centre.

No other European country taxes education (have used Europe to not have another discussion about NZ yawn)

No he's not.

The system that helped him was a selective grammar school, not a private school. Unless you think the school changed overnight when it became fee-paying, of course.

But even then, it's ridiculous to say that if you benefit from a particular advantage, you can then never advocate to change that advantage.

Apparently -

The Labour leader spoke about how he "marched around east Surrey" as a teenager trying to convert people to socialism.

Well he's not a socialist now, so not sure what that proves

They would have had to send him to a secondary modern - you couldn't opt out of the selective system.

You were either "selected" for grammar or secondary modern - there wasn't a third option.

PlanetJanette
Unless you think the school changed overnight when it became fee-paying, of course.

The school admitted (fee-paying) girls for the first time so arguably it did change overnight.

No, actually, I don't.

In the same way that I don't think rich people who advocate for wealth taxes are hypocrites. If anything, I think people who advocate against the unfairness of systems that benefit them are more likely to be acting out of principle.

You are entirely correct - if GCSE results are the only thing you are interested in

That’s not correct for the current cabinet. The vast majority (I think all but two or three) were state educated.

Never said it was.

Doesn't invalidate the point that no-one "has" to send their child private.

The system that helped him was a selective grammar school, not a private school. Unless you think the school changed overnight when it became fee-paying, of course.

You don’t think private schools are different from state schools? What don’t you think changed overnight? The school finances? There freedom from state control? The freeing up of the curriculum? How exactly do you think private schools differ from state schools such as these changes don’t happen overnight when you change from state to private?

Even if he went to Eton I wouldn’t see the issue tbh. You cannot possibly think that politicians should never make policy decisions that go against something their parents decided on when they were a child.

What's that got to do with the quality of its education?

There wasn't some lightswitch moment when this school went from being a rubbish school to a high quality one. He was admitted to a state school and he stayed at that school as a non-fee paying student for his duration.

And even if he hadn't, people who have benefitted from private education are allowed to believe that its users don't need a taxpayer subsidy.