The Student Room Group

Labour has voted to get rid of private schools

Scroll to see replies

I may be completely misunderstanding the distinction between state and private schools but surely the state can’t seize assets which are privately owned by these schools?
Reply 21
Original post by AlishaWhite
Who the hell cares about history? Might as well bring back the slave trade


What a foolish and ignorant comment. Many people do thank you very much. 🙃
This policy makes no sense politically and strategically. Politically, it leads to further regulation and outright Communist policies (redistributing property). Strategically, it will only be supported by hard-left Marxists who would vote Labour anyway.
This could be good though, if they invest in boosting the quality of public schools then everyone wins and it will be an equal playing field. Although I don’t see them doing this anytime soon because they promise the world and deliver nothing.
Where is the evidence to your claim that Labour votes to abolish private schools. Provide the link please
Original post by Welshvisitor
Where is the evidence to your claim that Labour votes to abolish private schools. Provide the link please

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/sep/22/labour-delegates-vote-in-favour-of-abolishing-private-schools
Original post by CTLeafez
I may be completely misunderstanding the distinction between state and private schools but surely the state can’t seize assets which are privately owned by these schools?

Labour's policy is incoherent rage.

https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6153390#post85347472

That makes it hard sensibly to comment on it.

Most independent schools are not private in that sense. You can't say a charity owns Eton. The charity is Eton, and charities are public bodies. Governments can and have interfered in how charities are run.
Reply 27
Original post by Nununu
The more destructive police is abolishing Ofsted


Original post by Greywolftwo
It’s ridiculous

I doubt it to be honest, it sounds like the usual political posturing which entails little more than a rebrand
Jesus. What’s next? The NKVD?
Well most likely only the privately educated would express outrage at this news (as I'm sure there are many on TSR.) Us commoners couldn't really give a monkeys.
Reply 30
It's easy for Corbyn and pals to try remove this when they've already been to private schools and become millionaire's themselves. It's easy to be a socialist when you're in the 1% funnily enough.
Reply 31
Labour supporters cite the Finnish system as a reason for abolishing private schools. This comparison is problematic, it sounds like they are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by xDron3
. It's easy to be a socialist when you're in the 1% funnily enough.


And of course if they're not it's "politics of jealousy", rather than admitting that the current system is failing, killing us and the planet for the lowest price possible
Reply 33
Original post by Eboracum7
Well most likely only the privately educated would express outrage at this news (as I'm sure there are many on TSR.) Us commoners couldn't really give a monkeys.


I'm a commoner that intends to prioritise private school education for my kids.
Original post by OR321
What about the ones they send their own kids too?? 🙄😂


agree. Diane should donate the fees she paid for her childrens' private education to her local comprehensive.

smh
Original post by the bear
agree. Diane should donate the fees she paid for her childrens' private education to her local comprehensive.

smh

they could establish an Hypocrisy Awareness program with the money :angry:
"Less bourgeoisie Nerds means higher grades for all and thats what Labour is about" - Lwajura - 2019AD - 23/09/19 - 11:02am The rise of Socialism is inevitable! :hat: (btw im a dapper gentleman gamer)
Edit: it is in fact 11:04am now, excuse me for the intense clarity
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Fruli
I'm a commoner that intends to prioritise private school education for my kids.

I think being able to afford an average £17,000 a year per child on private education, means you're hardly a struggling family.

I don't see why some kids should get a privileged start just because mummy and daddy can dig deep into their pockets.

Merit, not money.
Original post by the bear
agree. Diane should donate the fees she paid for her childrens' private education to her local comprehensive.

smh

She would never be able to work out the sums involved :confused:
Reply 39
And there goes the champagne socialist vote

Original post by Eboracum7
I think being able to afford an average £17,000 a year per child on private education, means you're hardly a struggling family.

I don't see why some kids should get a privileged start just because mummy and daddy can dig deep into their pockets.

Merit, not money.

Commoner doesn't really mean struggling family though?
Anyway I question just how much finance would play a role - to begin with there are still entrance exams and bursaries and scholarships which are supposed to sort them by merit (even if they sometimes make a pig's ear of that - some people you wonder how the hell they ever got in). Many of the richest people at my school got average-to-bad results.
Then again my school really wasn't anything spectacular for results despite the cost.

Quick Reply

Latest