How many kids do you know definitely leaving private for state?

[Quodraceratops]

I'd be very interested to know how many children people know of who are definitely leaving their private school for a state school - not people with plans to do so in future years, solely those definitely going now / in 2025.
For myself - large Scottish all years school, I only have knowledge of my early primary kids's classes - no-one leaving so far (but I'm guessing early primary may be less affected as Labour have been signalling this policy for a while so you wouldn't start if you couldn't afford VAT).

If we are talking about social conscience, then if your motivation is to earn as much as possible and hang on to as much as possible yourself, and the only time your mind turns to a disabled single mother is to use her in an argument that she should be grateful that things aren't worse, then I don't think social conscience really gets a look in.

However, allowing those in power to abuse their power and tax education which will lead to harm for many children, including children with SEND, and affect teachers’ livelihoods is not the answer. I do not know a single teacher, state or private, in real life who thinks taxing education is a good idea.

I know quite a few who are completely against the existence of private education so I'm not sure they give a toss about it becoming more expensive.

We cannot keep letting these politicians walk all over us as a society and our investment in the future

Do you mean 'walk all over rich people'? Because again, this is a policy that affects a tiny minority, it isn't even on the radar of most people.

It doesn’t affect a tiny minority does it if it leads to rich people leaving, highly skilled people not coming in the first place or staying, a massive scramble for state school places in London or Edinburgh which are our financial centres. That’s the whole point. If it literally drives out the most aspirational who pay the highest taxes then we all will feel the effects.

The key word there would appear to be 'if'.

Social conscience is presumably not the aim in and of itself. A society where citizens can live their lives well is surely the goal.

In any endeavor - creating a good society to live in, building a new school, whatever - which do you think matters more? Motivation or outcome?

Thanks, you've answered the question I posted upthread.

And I think you've answered mine.

I believe that the instinct to favour ideology and theory over analysis of real outcomes for people is harmful. Far more harmful than self-interest.

Self-interest is literally making the planet uninhabitable.

Look at what happened to the Aral sea. That was ideology.

And the Holodomor.

But collectivization must be good, right? It aims to make all people equal.

? I’m not a communist.

I've inferred from you not answering my question that you don't think outcome is as important as motivation.

I strongly disagree.

Communism disasters have been the most extreme examples of purist ideology, where pragmatic local self-interest wasn't allowed to provide balance.

Labour's proposed policies are small-fry compared to communism. They don't have the same scale of power. But I see the same instinct to favour ideology and theory over analysis of real outcomes for people: both in Labour themselves and in people who support these policies.

Starmer has admitted that there was no analysis of the impact of removing the WFA. That's bad - given that vulnerable people will be affected - but at least WFA won't cause behaviour change, and can be reversed or fixed very quickly when problems are found.

His other policies like VAT on schools and pension changes risk changing behaviour in a way which won't be easily reversed when the problems become apparent. That's why proper analysis is so important, and why it's unforgivable that they are introducing it purely for ideology. Not because it harms rich people, but because they haven't bothered to figure out how much harm will actually result and to who.

You think I have no social conscience. You're wrong. I don't think there's a conflict between a certain amount of self-interest and contributing strongly to society. In fact, I think that's human - and powerful protection against the far greater evil of ideology.

I'm sure you won't believe me, but part of the reason I post so much about this is out of a sense of social conscience: I hope to nudge some reflection before it's too late to undo the harm. And also by doing my bit to raise the public profile (even by making everyone thoroughly fed up!) to ensure that harm is spotted and reported on when it occurs, not swept under the carpet. You might consider that misguided (or self-deluded!) but that's OK. I consider plurality of thought to be one of our greatest social protectors.

I've inferred from you not answering my question that you don't think outcome is as important as motivation.

and with Araminta thinking I’m posting out of ‘loyalty to a party’ it has been quite the evening for people trying to guess what’s in my head.

I asked you twice and you didn't answer (And still haven't! ) I drew conclusions from that.

If you'd like to elaborate, I will be happy to hear it.

I was at a party today - loads of parents talking about VAT (never heard them openly discussing it before) and those who were previously set on private have now started tutoring for the 11 plus - they all said the same- they'll only go private for any of their DC who don't pass.

The only conclusion that you should have drawn is that I thought it was a silly question.

The answer is, of course, "I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that".

And yet you lectured me on social conscience, and said that the social benefit my work brings doesn't count because "It is not coming across as your main motivation"

I don't think it's a silly question at all, and I think your view is quite clear.

🤷‍♀️ I've seen a lot of people adopt a 'social conscience' when it suits their aims. See the Daily Telegraph suddenly becoming very concerned about freezing pensioners when they take against a policy that loses their wealthy readers money.

The question was whether the impact on society was more important, or whether the motivation behind the action was more important.

Or if you like, which would you prefer:

A policy which intended to help society's vulnerable but wasn't analysed properly and ended up harming them?

Or a policy which was designed to benefit both the policy maker and the vulnerable in one neat (unseparateable) action, and turned out as planned.

The vulnerable are better off with policy 2. But the motivation wasn't pure.

@noblegiraffe - I thought you supported the Green Party? So did I get that wrong?

Gosh those are very neat scenarios aren't they?

No idea where you got that from.

Yes. And you won't even answer that. Wonder why?