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 don't think that logic works. Angela Merkel grew up in East Germany. Does that require her to support communist policies?

Is it wrong for a politician whose parents claimed benefits to vote to reduce (or change) benefit eligibility?

If you were born before 1949, must you support granting UK residency rights to everyone born anywhere in the British Empire?

The only schools that are closing are the ones that were teetering on the brink anyway. Many of those have been brought to that point by the fuel and other cost rises brought in during the last government. Well-managed in-demand schools are nowhere near closing.

We are going to need more straws.

I had a very average (if not below average) state education and my kids have been mostly state educated. I have experience terrible state schools, acceptable state school, fantastic state schools and private schools. I have learnt that the inequality amongst state schools is a far greater issue than private Vs state. It is absolutely disgusting that so many children in this country are sent to failing schools that do them a complete disservice whilst other children usually living in more affluent areas attend schools with results that beat the local private schools by a mile. Open your eyes! The rich that are paying for private school are at least paying for their privilege. They are a red herring!

I doubt we have seen the last of Boris Johnson in British politics. He is clearly just assessing whether to rejoin Tories or Reform and watching the show for now.

Grammars and private schools are not the same thing. My sons go to a grammar and there are kids there on free school meals. In theory they are open to anyone in the area. They are not fancy schools but there is definitely better behaviour than in state secondaries (I work in education).
Btw, my husband went to Reigate Grammar when it was private. He got a full scholarship due to coming from a poor background.

Most children who are happy at their school would stay. It's not his fault it's status changed.

I don't understand your point.

Vat on private education was in the Labour Party manifesto. They won a majority. It has become policy. It's not a suprise and has nothing to do with where Keir Starmer's went to school!

How is it not being applied consistently?

The poster that you quoted was saying that Boris Johnson should not be held accountable for the actions of his father, and that Starmer shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of his parents either. I'm not sure how that is inconsistent in any way, or where the double standards are.

It is not inconsistent to acknowledge that Stanley Johnson is known to have been a violent and abusive man. That very clearly wasn't the responsibility of any of his children, and nobody is suggesting that Boris should be blamed for this. If I am not mistaken, I believe that Starmer had quite a strained relationship with his own father as well.

So what? We should judge our politicians by what they do and not by the families that they came from.

I am not a fan or Starmer, but I think his reasoning for the private school tax is around leveling the playing field between private school and state by takikg money from one to boost finances of the other. Although im not sure in practice how that will turn out as I feel like it widens the divide between those that can afford it and those that can not.
Jury is still out for me on this policy.

Elections are now run on hate/division/and least worst option so Boris Johnson will surreptitiously swan in/jump in at the opportune time!

It could be quite amusing if he joins Reform, given the disastrous state he left the Tory party in.

I disagree. There are many things to judge Johnson for. And I certainly do. But His parents choice to send him to Eton isn’t one of them.

This is a good point, and so much of it comes down to family background. We give far too little support to families, especially in the very early years. Damage done there is nigh on impossible to fix later on. Many children are far behind even at Reception age and the gap in attainment and their social skills gets bigger and bigger as they get older. Any school which ends up taking a lot of children from dysfunctional families with a poor attitude to education is going to struggle to get good outcomes for those kids and will also struggle to get the higher ability, better behaved children whose parents will send them elsewhere.

ODFOD. He went to a state school where he passed an exam to go to that school with other non-fee paying kids. The school then converted to an independent school but he never paid fees and it would have been unbelievably stupid to leave half way through. Plus I imagine it was very much his parents’ decision at that point anyway.

If you can’t see the difference between this and the likes of Boris, Hancock et al then frankly I worry for your own education.

Plus the policy on VAT on private school fees will have been decided at party level with other major policy/ political brains. It’s not something Keir thought of in the bath! Because that’s how politics work.

Go on then, explain:

If a politician's parents claimed benefits then they benefitted from that policy. Would it be hypocritical of that person to vote to reduce benefits?

If you think "yes" then we simply disagree. I think policies and politics should be debated on their merits, not inherited and tribal.

If you think "no", then can you explain the principle that makes Starmer hypocritical (because he benefited from a private school), but doesn't make the benefits politician hypocritical.

If this is a straw-man then this will be very easy for you.

It absolutely does work like that. Schools are largely funded following the National Funding Formula. If a school has less pupils it receives less money. Simple as that. This is even more relevant for SEN pupils who receive additional funding. A SEN child moving from state to private will bring about a large saving.

Obviously at some point a state school will become unsustainable and shut down if pupil numbers get low. This may be unpalatable to some but will delivery huge savings that can be allocated amongst the remaining schools. There is no point in keeping half empty schools open unless there is a specific need such as geography. For example look at what's happening in London now.

You're arguments are nonsensical. The families who the addition of VAT is the tipping point as to whether they can afford to send their children to private school will not be from humble roots. They will be earning decent salaries.

Starmer's family paid nothing for his education. If a private school wants to offer a bursary to cover 100% of fees that family would still pay no VAT, so nothing has changed in that respect.

It wasn’t private when he joined.

His family did not have to pay fees.

Not sure what your point is?

Or is it just whining about VAT fees on school fees (ultimately not a bad thing. It’s a service. Like most services VAT is expected.)

I don't know what's more crazy: that you claim not to have known this, or that you believe his situation, as a child, is anywhere near comparable to the likes of the vast majority of PMs who have taken up office.

Nope- his parents and he likely decided it made the best sense at the time

In theory they are open to everyone. How many people can get in without expensive private tuition though? What is the percentage of FSM kids versus the national average? It tells you all you need to know about the relationship between privilege and grammar schools.

The fall in numbers has already reached the point where it is revenue neutral meaning further drop from Sept admissions onwards will end up being a cost to the taxpayer.

The reality is that taxpayers are being asked to pay more to harm the education of a relatively small subset of children on ideological grounds.

People should just be open and say this is what they want rather than pretending there will be additional funding for the state sector as a result of this policy.

By your standards my siblings and I had a massively privileged education. We were actually living in poverty with holes in our shoes and in a damp house. Did you want us to forgo our education and turn down the place that we'd won at grammar school for passing the 11+ and stay in our rightful place at a secondary modern?

For a lot of us, WE HAD NO CHOICE WHERE WE WERE EDUCATED due to what was offered in our borough! And we had the choice of grammar or secondary modern - no choice of comprehensive, and no 6th form colleges

A lot of the people on Mumsnet seem to have no understanding that things change over time

So what? Everyone has repeated the facts so I won’t. There’s nothing particularly relevant about this.

I went to state school. My children go to independent schools. I pay VAT on them. I think it’s bad policy not grounded in evidence. It’s not the most important issues and other political parties have far worse policy proposals. The end.

I wasn't aware the post was anything to do with VAT on private schools, that seems to have become evident later in the thread.