I am a Labour voter, a Labour supporter and I do not regret my vote.

[CurlewKate]

However, I think that Starmer has been incredibly stupid and/or very badly advised over this expenses issue. He has done nothing wrong, but his behaviour is not what he led us to believe he would do, and I am incredibly exasperated and disappointed.

In my opinion, he should admit that he made a massive misjudgement, and agree to take no more freebies from now on.

Apart from anything else anything which allows people to say "They are all as bad as each other" (they aren't) is a distraction from the real issues the country faces. He should be laser focussed on repairing the damage caused by 14 years of Tory misrule. Not scrambling around dealing with peripheral stuff.
Starmer-say sorry. Don't do it again. And get back to work.

Except that there are still top sets at the comps in the city that my DC’s grammar is in. There are some very good comps actually. And I personally know people who didn’t get in to grammar at 11 but did for sixth form as a result of doing really well at those comps.

@Boohoo76 . The schools in the town where your child's grammar is are not comprehensive-by definition. Incidentally-why isn't your child at one?

You never express yourself badly.

I just fail to follow the reasoning in this:

A child with educated professional parent is likely to see themselves in the same group. But not all children have that support. So having system that, at the age of 10, cuts off opportunities to those children has to be wrong.

How is the child without the parental support advantaged by having more supported peers in the school? That seems an odd proposition.

If the idea is that non-supportive parents - the ones who fail their “test” - realise that their children are getting less encouragement and so change their attitude, I have to say I would find that an incredible claim.

And why are the opportunities cut off? I just don’t see the basis for that.

Sorry for adding to the derail of your thread.

Yes they are comps. It’s not a full grammar area. If you are asking why my DC are not at a comp in that city the answer is that (1) my oldest DC is exceptionally bright and he goes to the most academic school within reasonable commuting distance (and I mean of all schools, both state and private) and (2) we are not in catchment for any of the comps in the city where DC1’s grammar is.

@Rummly
"If the idea is that non-supportive parents - the ones who fail their “test” - realise that their children are getting less encouragement and so change their attitude, I have to say I would find that an incredible claim"

I would too. My point is that in selective areas, the "top set" are creamed off into a separate school, which is inaccessible to unsupported 10 year olds. By 13 or so, kids are more self determining, and can make better decisions based on the principle that you can't be what you can't see. Of COURSE it's easier to achieve with parental support but it's possible without it. Not if you've been labelled a middle or low achiever at 10 though.

They are not inaccessible. They have fsm places accessed with a lower score. The bigger issue is those who nearly qualify for fsm but are just above it. Often they are quite similar families. I would like to see cheaper tutoring supplied in schools as clubs. However it’s true lower educated parents are less likely to have bright kids. Tutoring hardly moves the dial.

@TizerorFizz you are wrong about the lower scores. Most selective areas don't do this. And rich people are not automatically cleverer than poor people. That's a disgusting thing to say.

@TizerorFizz And you appear to be expecting disadvantaged 10 year olds to prepare for and enter the 11+ exams on their own initiative. And you are also assuming that disadvantaged = FSM.

Interestingly, I've found these sheds in Oxted, Surrey - where Keir Starmer grew up. It's quite impressive what you can turn a 'shed' into;

This project is the conversion of redundant agricultural sheds into two new dwellings.
http://levitate.uk.com/project/oxted-farm-buildings/

Of course, it was Starmer's own father who described his former business as a 'factory' in 2014. Rodney Starmer wrote a few paragraphs about his son for the local theatre newsletter when Keir received his knighthood (Starmer's parents had supported the theatre for over 50 years). Writing about his son's gap year he wrote; "The next 6 months were spent in my factory operating a production machine..."

Perhaps both generations are guilty of exaggeration?

Also, if I remember correctly from the biography - one of Keir's uncles (toolmaker's brother) was described as having 'laid tarmac roads somewhere in the Middle East' (or similar description). On this family tree website, Keir's uncle is described as a 'Civil Engineer (Retired)' - too middle class sounding for the book?
https://www.geni.com/people/Michael-Starmer/6000000187675510834

It would appear that Starmer has been on the website as well - several listings state;
Managed by: Sir Keir Starmer MP
Last Updated:
July 4, 2024 - !!

https://www.geni.com/people/Gustavus-Starmer/6000000187549663825
https://www.geni.com/people/Herbert-Starmer/6000000187549199881

(not all of the toolmaker's siblings are listed on the website - I thought he had two more in the biography - one a teacher?)

Oh come on Clav, you must know Starmers biography by heart by now.

Alas, I only borrowed the book from a friend for a short while - I'm going to buy Boris Johnson's memoir though!

Crack den rather than garden shed

Rodney Starmer's garden shed is not the same building he rented for his business.

The building he rented for his business was a derelict canteen. There are no Companies House records, indicating that he was a sole trader. I have the book open in front of me, incidentally.

BIossomtoes
The building he rented for his business was a derelict canteen.

Why did you say it was a shed?

There are no Companies House records, indicating that he was a sole trader.

I didn't say he wasn't - although you don't have to be a limited company to take on employees, sole traders can also employ staff - he obviously employed Keir for a few months and paid him a salary.

Because I’m not a pedant. It wasn’t a factory, which was the point I made. I think he gave Keir a few odd jobs for pocket money.

It wasn’t a factory, which was the point I made

And yet Starmer's father described it as a factory in the newsletter and Starmer didn't let on that his father was self-employed. Can't trust either of them.

I remember the biography states how much his father paid him per week - you can look it up.

It's quite staggering the lengths some of you are going to rake over Keir Starmers working class or otherwise roots.

I can almost see a documentary ' The Truth About Rodney's Shed'

Well, all this seems a bit academic now in any case. The Tories have just pretty much made themselves unelectable with two right wingers the only ones left in the running for Party Leadership. You couldn't make it up! I think you lot better get used to Labour.

Bet they’ve broken out the fizz in Downing Street.

Surely not. Aren’t they all total abstainers now 🤣

With everything that is going on in their own party I very much doubt any fizz is being opened

Not sure if they need to declare this gift

Oh I'm sure it is. What a gift and they don't even have to account for this one.

You’re just repeating what the previous poster said