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.

I have nothing against private schools. If I could have afforded to I would have sent my DD to one near me that was far better than the local school. I have enjoyed a teaching career in both the state and private sector. Good luck to anybody who can afford it. However private schools are not charities. They are businesses and therefore I think they should have to pay the same Vat as any other business. There were advantages and disadvantages to working in the private sector, like any other job. During the last recession all of the staff has to accept a 10% cut in pay in order to keep going. That's life. That's business. Staff who couldn't afford this were free to leave for better paid jobs. The rest of us bit the bullet, didn't complain and got on with it. Most of the parents were completely unaware of the staff's loss of pay. How many would have campaigned amongst parents to up the fees to cover it if they had known. Very few ...and of course many struggled to afford the fees as they were and were, naturally, invested in keeping the school going by any means necessary. My very rambling point is this. If you can afford private school great but the system sector will not crumble if lots of formerly private pupils join state ranks. They will fill up empty seats and bring more money into the school. Parents in private schools are not doing the state a favour, they are, quite rightly in my view, paying to do what is best for their own kids, just like people do if they can afford it with private medicine. In fact private medicine has a greater case for claiming it helps the state as it does bring down queues a bit.
There is nothing wrong with Starmer. having gone to private school, however that came about . and in any event it was his parents decision not his. There is also nothing wrong with him bringing the taxing of private schools into line with other businesses. They've had a long run with charity status when they are businesses not charities. I do think that parents of pupils in private schools need to accept this and if they can afford it pay and if not go to state, just like teachers like me did in the last recession.

Yes. Parents moved area and he transferred to the grammar school there - which is now a comprehensive.

I mean judging by what went on in Russia and China back in the good old Socialism days, the more hypocrisy and one rule for them (vs everyone else), the better. So I would say, it is pretty classical Socialist 101 move from Starmer to have one rule for himself and another for everyone else.

I agree. Clement Attlee, the leader of the most transformative post-war government, was privately educated but brought in many policies to benefit the working class such as the creation of the NHS and the Welfare State and the building of many council houses.

It is a lot easier to afford those principles when you have already benefitted from others not having them.

This is 100% the norm for Labour

Shirley Williams (educated via 11plus scholarship at St Pauls) scrapped the 11plus scholarships

Blair (privately educated at Fettes College via the Assisted |Places scheme) took away the Assisted Places scheme

Diane Abbot (privately and grammar school educated) sent her children to private schools while criticising parents for choosing selective schools

Baroness Jay (privately and grammar school educated) lead the debate on the Lords to abolish grammar schools

Privately educated Kier Starmer slapped VAT on private school fees

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

(And his father was not a toolmaker, he was the owner of a toolmaking factory)

Other than Diane Abbott all those choices were made FOR children rather than by them.

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

Well the fees obviously helped with the quality of education (or are you claiming it doesn't?) and the cultural capital of mixing with a more middle class cohort.

Heh? He didn't attempt to get rid of private education (and academies and home schooling and anything other than a rigid state planned education for kids - oh hi Labour 2025) so his education is not really relevant to the second part of your sentence.

You are genuinely comparing Keir Starmer to the leaders of communist Russia and China? That's insane!

Anyway, the vast majority of this Labout cabinet were state educated. I don't know if any of them send their children to private schools, but if they do, they will be paying the VAT charge.

@shiningstar2
A lot of Private schools are not charities.

Everyone of the appropriate age sat the 11+. I wasn't aware it was part of the enormous raft of mid year exams at my - state - primary. Wasn't a choice.

“Anyway, the vast majority of this Labout cabinet were state educated. I don't know if any of them send their children to private schools, but if they do, they will be paying the VAT charge.”

I am more interested in how many have private tutors for their kids. Better hope none of them are accepting any free private tuition because sooner or later that will come out.

This has been done to death and explained repeatedly. For years. If you have a specific issues with his policies fine to discuss, but this again? Seriously? So boring, OP.

It was a selective grammar school. It was already plenty middle class.

And fees make a difference but not overnight.

The Government aren't getting rid of private education. They are removing an unnecessary and unjustified taxpayer subsidy for private education.

Yet here you are

So fees don’t make a difference to selective schools? Why then worry about private education?

None of the Cabinet went to private schools. First time ever.

Oh, fer fuck’s sake.

Were your social and political views - not to mention your long-term social and economic strategies for implementing policies on a national scale - fully-formed at sixteen?

Why not? My mum is from Redhill and passed her 11+ encouraged by her teachers. My grandparents couldn´t afford tuitions or any fancy stuff. My mum attended Reigate County School for Girls, basically the girls´grammar (you left this one off your list). My aunt failed her 11+ and went to Woodhatch. My grandparents were working class, they just happened to believe that education would get their kids places. My mum´s peers were also working class, she is in touch with a few still.

Subsidy???

Because no VAT? So still a subsidy on private healthcare and umm, GAMBLING to go then??

Private school parents pay tax, not do 'claim' the state education they could, saving £8k per child per year.

Subsidy my arse.

I clicked on it because I thought perhaps something new had come to light. And yet…

So you are saying the default situation is everything MUST be taxed, and there must be justification for not taxing things?

God this is just really, really silly.