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.

It’s already way past the revenue neutral position.

Also worth noting that many associated costs to the taxpayer have been ignored in calculations. These include lower income tax paid by those who no longer use private schools which is a significant sum that will have to be underwritten by taxpayers.

Exactly this. Both my parents' lives were utterly transformed by being able to attend grammar school ( and not paying for it thanks to the 1944 Education Act). Both came from extremely poor working class backgrounds with generations of ancestors working in mills and factories. My own grandmother left school at 12, then went straight to work in the mill.
Both my parents were clever and both went to grammar school where they thrived. They both did A levels, the first in both families to stay at school beyond the school leaving age, then went to a prestigious university where they met. They both got Firsts there and one did a PhD, and both had very successful careers.
Their children, my siblings and I, then grew up in a middle class environment and went on to have excellent careers. Our family's whole trajectory was changed by grammar school.

So what?

Hilary Benn gained no advantage from attending Norland Place School and Westminster Under School? Lisa Nandy gained no advantage from her prep school? David Lammy gained no advantage from his state boarding school scholarship? (Boarding fees paid - Lammy said he was transported to a world where his new boarding friends had swimming pools and French holidays...)

You would be happy with a true Gramnar system even if your own kids didn't pass the 11+ would you,?
And had to go to a less academic school?

Well not according to you because every decision they make is written off by you as fuckwittery so not much advantage at all apparently.

I didn't vote Labour and I am not a huge fan BUT I don't see how anyone could blame Starmer for this one

this, and lots of people have benefited from things in the past that they no longer agree with and attempt to change for others….otherwise nothing would ever change!

As pp have posted Sir Keir went to a grammar school which was state funded but later on was privatised. Not his fault the school changed so trying to attack him for where his parents sent him is silly.
Most MPs went to private school.

Lisa Nandy did do her Alevels at Holy Cross college in Bury which at time was outstanding ( it's has issues in more recent years) and regularly had pupils getting places at Oxbridge.

So what is justification to taxing private schools if there is no benefit from them?

I didn't realise that the UK tax system worked on a benefit analysis?

I mean there is no benefit to me from eating a bar of chocolate but I bet I pay tax on the chocolate.

Oh should say that I don’t like the way the VAT changes have been made but I do not know enough about whether its a good idea or not to comment specifically on whether its should have been done

I think you are mixing me up with someone else.

Love the idea that the 14 year old Starmer should have thought “Hmm. One day I might be a Labour PM. I’d better move schools.” Give me strength!

The Dutch system?

Closest school
Small classes
More choice over GCSE subjects
Strict discipline
No Police presence needed
No County Lines
No gang activity
No knife crime
Aspiration encouraged
Better extra curriculars
DD offered a part scholarship
Low staff turnover

These are just MY reasons though and I am referring to specific schools.

Your argument is so full of holes and truth twisting @Asking4afrendit is practically a pretzel.

Nigel Farage has 4 children - all of whom have passports from EU countries. What’s your take on that?

Suella Braverman has personally benefited hugely from the Erasmus programme but is proud that Brexit has removed it from the youth of today. Thoughts OP?

I am not a labour voter but I am getting thoroughly frustrated by the pathetic arguments of the weak minded.

Because they get no state funding. Ours makes no profit. The fees are nothing like Eton, there are no theatres or pools etc. It is just a normal school, with small classes but it is expensive because all the staff need paid, the property needs maintenance etc.

Suella Braverman has personally benefited hugely from the Erasmus programme but is proud that Brexit has removed it from the youth of today. Thoughts OP?

I know many young people who have benefitted hugely from its replacement - the Turing Scheme

The Treasury benefits from the tax on your purchase without any compensating loss.

VAT on school fees generates a sum of money while at the same time creating a larger opposing cost resulting in a net loss to the Treasury.

The more chocolate bars you eat, the more the Treasury benefits.

The more people who use state schools instead of private schools, the Treasury loses revenue.

If VAT had no impact on private school usage then your analogy would be true however that’s far from the case.

One of my sister-in-law's dad's life was transformed by being able to do an apprenticeship at a technical college in London. He subsequently became a builder then worked his way up to being the CEO of a large building firm becoming a multi-millionaire in the process.

Point is social mobility after the war could get achieved in multiple ways for the lucky few.

Oh and Neil Kinnock is open that he only got into grammar school because he's male. More girls got the grades to get into grammar school but there weren't enough places for them all.

You keep saying subsidy. What subsidy? The government has not been giving private schools money. Parents have not been given tax relief on fees. Private schools do not cost the taxpayer anything except when LEAs, the Foreign Office and the Armed Forces pay for a few children to go there, or in the case of a few exceptionally talented children going to music or dance schools. You seem to be using 'subsidy' to mean not being charged a tax you think the parents and/or schools could afford. Wrong word.

Well, he was active in Labour Party politics by 16 .

That doesn’t mean his parents allowed him to choose where he went to school.

State schools don't pay tax. This analogy doesn't work.

If a government funded/tax payer funded state school paid tax who would they be paying tax to? Surely it’s daft to effectively pay tax to yourself? Plus they don’t have fees/an income do nothing to be taxed on