UKC

Labour decides democratically to abolish private schools and redistribute their assets thus handing a guaranteed election win to the Conservatives, a party so inept that they should be facing extinction not another five years in office.

I have to say, for once I agree with you!

Total madness

I don’t think schools should have names either. They should just have numbers 

Yes, I was thinking it's game over.

I think back to 1983 and the "dream" manifesto. All those ideologically pure policies which, being young and idealistic, I was sure would hand Labour victory.

I guess this generation of idealists have the same bitter lesson to learn as I did all those years ago.

How many UK voters are privately educated or send their kids to private schools and how many think private schools are indicative of the privileged establishment? Whatever the answer to that I doubt it will be the deciding factor in the next election.

Angela Rayner: "Myself and John McDonnell will set out further steps the Labour government will take, but I can say today that our very first budget will immediately close the tax loopholes used by elite private schools and use that money to improve the lives of all children."

Sounds like fairness to me. Why should private schools operate tax free again?

It’s not just the policy itself, although it’s bad enough, but the idea that a government can close down legally formed establishments and seize their assets.

This is the UK, isn’t it?

If it stops there then fair enough.

The policy has just handed the Conservatives a whole load of new ammunition.

Ah right, so rather than the OPs 'abolish'  it sounds like a much more reasonable 'removing charitable privileges for businesses'. Still, why let reality get in the way of a bit of hyperbole.

In Edinburgh 25% of children go to private school. The children of the upper middle class.

The reason I think it disastrous, as well as just wrong, is that there are a vast number of people who regard themselves as temporarily embarassed millionaires. They think they'll be rich one day and as such will be able to send their kids to "good" schools. It is those who will see their future "plans" dashed by a Labour government.

Labour needs to win over these people, not drive them into the arms of the Tories.

Have you read what they actually voted for?

Yes that's entirely fair in my view, in fact I think the government should be able to place gifted children in top class schools up to the level of perhaps 25% of the total number of pupils.

Unfortunately that wasn't the motion that was passed.

Labour seemed to be determined to hand the next election on a plate to Boris...at they very time they should be steam rollering them. 

The Tories should be facing an existential crisis but Labour seem hell bent on helping them out whilst digging their own pit....momentum has got its claws in so deep you wonder how they can get out of its clutches.

Indeed

No, I was just responding to comments on this thread.

OK

Well the current government has already closed down one legally formed establishment namely parliament so I suppose there's a precedent.

Even if you don't like private schools, they educate around 615,000 pupils, which would cost (at the approximate amount that governments pay to schools per pupil) the government an extra c.£2.8bn. I'm pretty sure the tax benefits that private schools currently have don't cost that much.

If your maths is right, that's a good point and one I hadn't considered. Private schools not as a burden to but unburdening the tax payer.

I’m sure the Labour conference gave the economic side of private schools as much attention as the ideological side.  

Presumably they could put up taxes for the rich which, because they would no longer be paying school fees, they could easily afford.

Has it also redistributed its assets throughout the country because that’s what the Labour plan involves.

At a time when the Labour Party should be trying to appeal to as many people as possible it, instead, comes up with something straight out of the communist playbook.

It’s like they don’t want to win the next election.

They’ll need the extra taxes to pay for the free prescription charges they’ve also promised.

Although at least that’s a more reasonable idea.

More reasonable but still ridiculous...if they want to give hand outs aim the money at the worst off in society. 

Of course, but with the children of even the most well off, attentive, influential and/or demanding parents in with everybody else, hopefully school standards, or at least funding are dragged up the agenda for everyone as a result.

Are they going to frogmarch private tutors out of households and in to the classroom as well?  That’d be a boon.  

I wouldn’t mind a lefty circle-jerk like this if it didn’t come at the most disastrous time for UK politics in decades.  What f*****g planet are these people on?

To change the world start by barring PPE graduates from public office I say.

Ban private health care too and tax the rich more!

I’m not sure exactly how you can do away with private schools altogether?

Parents will just home school their children, as in farm them out to a private tutor.

I’m not sure that the consultants will like that.

Which was the point that my OP.

At a time when millions of people are hanging their hopes on a labour victory in a general election, conference comes up with a vote loser like this.

The point for parents sending their kids to Eton, Harrow, Charterhouse etc is to get their kids embedded with others of the right class.

Doing the reading writing and arithmetic at home wouldn't cut it.

Still think banning public schools is an election loser. "Go back to your constituency, and prepare for opposition"

95% of privately educated children don’t go to those schools.  They go to small, often struggling schools you have never heard off.  Their classmates go on to be farmers, shop workers and graduates from second tier universities.  They will never have an old boys network to lean on.

I know parents who live to far from such a school or who can’t afford one, and whose only remaining option has been to quit work and home school.

Between some of the posts on the two recent UKC threads and the Labour announcement you’d think every independent school was like Eton.

It’s interesting that the plan is to abolish all private schools no matter how wealthy the parents are.

 Which is why I categorised it as an election loser. 

We seem to be in a period of ideological politics at the moment. Sadly.

We could dearly do with some pragmatism.

The commitment (not policy) is to integrate private schools into the state system not close them.

From the Guardian - Labour delegates have endorsed radical plans that would abolish private schools by removing their charitable status and redistributing their endowments, investments and properties to the state sector.

Sounds like closure to me.

It’s obviously not closure, now is it? It’s integration into the public sector. That might be a good idea or it might not, but let’s speak the truth.

jcm

Finland.

Are you a communist?

Because if you’re not how in the heck can you think that it’s OK to take something that belongs to somebody and give it to someone else?

And if you are, then I suppose you wouldn’t want to call it abolition or seizure, maybe integration has a nicer ring to it.

But my initial post wasn’t about the rights or wrongs of private schools but how the Labour conference had voted for something that would effectively lose them the next election.

The press are going to have a field day.

Is this the thread where we post random words and others have to guess what the poster means?

With a caveatt that my assumptions may well be incorrect, I am not a taz specialist. Pub maths gives me a cost of £11bn to ththe treasury.

A run of the mill private school costs £30k pa. 

Charitable status allows this to be gift aided to the school, at 40%. £7.4 bn

Vat excemption at 20%. £3.7 bn. 

If my gift aid assumption is correct, there is a huge nett saving. If not it is break even. 

Guppy

No, the average costs £15k. Accuracy of your estimate = 50%

No it doesn't allow gift aid at all. According to this link the charity saving only relates to business rates and other small imposts with a cost to the exchequer of £100m. Accuracy of your estimate= 0.65%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_school_(United_Kingdom)

This isn't a "loss" that would be recovered by banning school fees. The policy statement as reported in the FT isn't clear on whether it is the intention to ban fee-paying or simply remove the tax breaks. However the bonkers objective that only 7% of private pupils should be permitted to enter university would, if enforced (goodness knows how) kill the sector. Accuracy of your estimate= 0%

With those sums, it looks like there's a place for you on Labour's National Executive

Your start point of £30k a year average fees is way off. Eton is a bit more than that but the average is about £13k. Also you can't gift aid the basic fees - that has to be paid normally so there is no 40% tax avoidance there.

VAT of 20% of 615,000 x £13,000 = £1.6bn of extra tax revenue.

But if the extra fees cost pushed some of those pupils into the public sector there would be a cost for that.

I'm struggling to find a good number for this. I've seen £4700 for primary and £6200 for secondary but that seems to be just the cash to the schools and excludes a lot of central and support costs as well as capital costs. Total budget divided by total number of children is about £10k. If we said £8k, as a middle number, then if 150,000 were priced out of private schools then the extra VAT paid by the remaining 465,000 would almost exactly balance the extra cost to the state of educating those 150,000. My guess is that it would be fewer than that, so there would be a net cash benefit for the state but quite a small one.

Thanks for straightening my figures up. I did state my lack of confidence in my post. I would like to hope that a member of any national exec would underpin their calcs better than i did but I somehow doubt it. 

In the eyes of the general public, vat is seen as a tax on non essentials. I find it difficult to accept school fees as an essential. 

You did preface your numbers with that admission and it was remiss of me not to acknowledge that.

I tend to agree. If they had just slapped VAT on fees the policy would be punitive but at least have the appearance of a progressive tax. But I suspect such a charge would put a lot of strain on and deny choice to middle income strivers, where Labour ought to be aiming for votes.

You need to consider the number of pupils who aren't from UK and would be schooled elsewhere and the number of British kids who would also be schooled overseas as a result of closures. A very wealthy family might just chose to move lick stock and barrel if Eton closed to say Switzerland for example. So you'd lose all their taxable income. 

The schools spend money on salaries which are taxable and 100 private school pupils probably have more tax paying staff around them than the same number in a state school.

I think it's impossible to obtain a precise figure and that's just the financial argument, not the educational one.

But then the Labour argument isn't about money or education. 

What you and BnB both miss with your breakdowns is the one-time financial bonanza of taking the school’s endowments and properties and folding them in to the state sector.  That ought to prop things up nicely for a general election or two...  Starts to soften the people up to the idea that perhaps we could take other things off other people next...

The problem there is once you've force equalised society, why should anyone bother to work harder, study more, risk investing in a new idea or venture.... they've removed all the perks, benefits or rewards for those endeavours. Those who don't mind striving, risk etc will simply leave the UK or not bother. 

Do you have a list of such things?

This is a wind up.....right?

They are already proposing taking shares from pensions and giving them to "workers"

https://www.ft.com/content/6253de2e-db94-11e9-8f9b-77216ebe1f17

I think we can expect more of this sort of thing from Labour.  And  a Tory government...

Indeed. And when the "workers" turn out to be the state what does this look like?

I don't doubt that, I think I misread the post I replied to....I thought wintertree was advocating it.

While 'shooting for the moon' may be a laudable objective, when your pilot has trained by reading books for 50 years and never flown anything bigger than a Cessna, and when that same pilot thinks it better to do all the planning himself rather than work together with other Europeans (which is the advice of most of his team), then he's going to find it pretty challenging to sell tickets on his rocket.

I wish it was, but I fear that it’s exactly what some of the party faithful have in mind.  

No, no, no.They're just cuddly social democrats.

According to Diane Abbott it only costs £20 a year to send a pupil to private school so Labour are going to pay for everyone to attend one

I recall a report a few years back about Gove, then education sec, handing over several billion £ in school title deeds to private companies. These were schools forced to become academies and the deeds were held by local councils, so publicly owned.

Laws were quietly changed to allow it and the taxpayer even stumped up the legal fees to pay for the transfer.

Is it ok to steal assets of the public and divert them into private hands? To paraphrase you, how is it ok to take something that belongs to all of us and give it to someone else?

Unfortunately, at the time, the press didn't have a field day with Gove's policy. But sadly I expect they will with this Labour one.

Can't comment without understanding exactly what these loopholes are? Can you expand?

It strikes me that if private schools are to be closed, it would put a huge burden on the already overstretched state school system. Where is the Labour party going to find the funds, staff, buildings etc to close this shortfall? If parents are already willing to pay huge fees to educate their children why on earth would you want to rock the boat and put this financial strain back onto the State?

Is this actually going to be a Labour policy? Looks to my like it's just something the membership have voted for. 

That does sound reasonable but the devil will be in the detail, what about the non-elite schools that most would recognise as legitimate charities?

In a country obsessed with tradition where TV like Downton is wildly popular this seems like another foot shot for Labour that won't deliver the desired objective of a level playing field but will cause a lot of pain and resentment. Rich kids will just get sent to Geneva/Paris etc or rich folk will cluster around former elite schools pricing others out and provide additional extra curricular tutoring sessions/clubs, call them what you will to maintain the public school effect under a different regime.

To be honest I've never approved of private education, particularly the hoarding of opportunity by elite schools but I don't see a sensible way that problem can be addressed, at best you push it offshore and out of sight. As for taxing them fairly, that should go without saying but we do need to tread lightly, they are not all the same.

jk

Phrasing it as a short-term compulsory sequestration of school assets is something the right wing media will inevitably be doing. But as a long-term objective, the idea of no longer having private schools makes a lot more sense, most notably because it inherently forces the politicians and other decision makers to prioritise education standards in the state sector as it will be their own children that will suffer if they don't. The question then is how such a longer-term goal can be brought about responsibly.

Having said that, I'm not sure that putting all education in the state sector really is the best way to achieve that, but as long as many MPs are largely personally insulated from the effects of the decisions they are making concerning education, health, etc. there inevitably will be less incentive for them to ensure standards are as high as they could and should be. Nothing like having skin in the game.

My understanding is that council owned property is leased to academies on a 125 year lease so it’s hardly been given away.

I am, of course, happy to be corrected.

I think we can agree on that at least!

There are many arguments against closing private schools but this isn't one of them. There is tremendous inequality of opportunity in education in this country, because of private schools. The domination of society by private school alumni is not because the kids are brighter, or work harder. It's because their parents could pay. And their parents could pay because they got more opportunities because they went to private school, and so on.

Abolishing private schools would level the playing field, giving each generation the opportunity to succeed on their own merits. Today's 'winners' may not like it, but the kids of today's 'losers' will. 

I do think this policy would be more popular than this thread thinks. It is sticking it to the elite, which is a bit of a theme at the moment.

For the avoidance of doubt, I support policies to change the tax situation (some schools do a lot of charity work and deserve to keep charitable status) and further push universities to take from the state sector. But closing, integrating, redistributing wealth etc... too far.

Well, virtually everybody thinks that, don’t they? I don’t know of any civilised country which doesn’t have some form of taxation and poor relief.

jcm

If the state ordered you to grant a 125 year lease of your house to Michael Gove for no consideration, are you sure you wouldn’t feel something had been given away?!

jcm

My comment was in reply to wintertree about Labour's desire to remove all the rewards of hard work, risk and investment. Not just this little bit of class war. 

Because of private schools? Nothing else? 

We have friends who have a few kids at schools which are feeders for Eton, Shrewsbury etc. "Worker harder" my god they put some hours in. 6pm finishes, lots of Saturday's and so on.  Home work projects for holidays when aged 12 that are like A level exam papers. They aren't buying exam results, they are putting the hours in.

No. I know many parents who didn't go to private school but are paying now because state schools are a lottery and they are prepared to sacrifice in other areas of spending.

Plus you don't have to buy an expensive house in the right catchment if you go private. It's not always so clear cut as you make out. 

Race to the bottom.

But that doesn't mean it will benefit the UK. It is class war, not a decision based on a sound decision making process. 

Well she should know, after all, she did send hers.

And what type of school did JC go to ?

Talk about pulling up the ladder behind you.

And abolishing grammar schools years ago removed the main route for the children of the less well off breaking through this glass ceiling.

Why on earth does the Labour Party keep doing its' best to keep the working class down, rather than providing opportunities for the next generation to better themselves. It's almost as if there's a group of middle-class pseudo socialists who are only interested in political control, but not interested in actual equality.

After all, when you look at the Labour cabinet, it's full of working class people who (along with their children) went to comprehensive schools and then moved on to employment in manual labour or as shop assistants - isn't it ??

Of all the possible reasons for perpetuating school access inequality this must be among the least credible. What you are implying is that nobody should be able to reform an unjust policy if they have personally benefited from its unjustness.

Perhaps the main reason we still have FPTP elections is that those in power will always feel that their party has done well out of such a system so there is active disincentive to change it.

We should be applauding those who want to reform society's injustices, regardless of whether they have personally got where they are today by taking advantage of them. After all, it's their grandkids and other relatives that will be affected too.

Edit: sp.

Because they are their core voters.

Keep people barely educated enough to do their job, pay them just enough and keep them tied to state benefits, make them all state employees, living in state housing.... they have to keep voting for you. 

A grant maintained free grammar school. The same one I went to as it happens. No money changed hands.

.. this is one of the most fallacious lines of argument in this debate (made by lots of people, not you particularly). There are 2,500 independent schools in the UK (courtesy of Wikipedia). There are maybe a handful that carry the prestige or offer the shoulder rubbing to open significant doors for people but most are just totally normal schools with the advantage that they are properly resourced because of the higher per-child income.

If this policy were implemented, the people that will suffer are not the properly rich or the future political classes - they’ll just all be educated abroad or find some other work around - it’ll be the normal middle classes who can afford, potentially with some sacrifice, to pay school fees, but have no further options beyond that.

I’m currently anticipating sending our sons to a local independent at primary level, because none of our local state primaries are that good. I have literally no ways to fix that.. there’s nothing I as an individual can do to improve those schools in any meaningful way in the timeframe required for me to look after my children’s interests.

What I *can* do is take the money that my wife and I earn legally and legitimately, and which I could blow on cars and holidays, and spend it on improving the situation for my children instead.

For some reason the prevailing opinion seems to be that this makes me a bad person treading on the faces of the oppressed in order to preserve the Westminster system, though curiously the posters in this thread who provide education services by taking money from people seem to get a free ride, provided they do some public hand-wringing about how conflicted they are over it.

To put it in context - the school fees we’re talking about here are LESS than we currently pay in nursery fees. It was realising that that made us start seriously considering the independent route in the first place.

and before grammar school?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_House_School

Edit: and he doesn't support selective schooling (as provided by your alma mater) either

The leasing of already owned public property for public use is nothing like your analogy.

The Labour conference didn’t vote to lease anything but to take privately owned property and assets.

Not quite the same, is it?

I have never been convinced about the benefits of private education at primary school level.It all seems to flatten out as they grew into their teens if you have reasonable state comps as they grow older.

I have seen it all locally in an  area like you describe and in the end when the children got to 18 it made little difference apart from quelling unjustifiable parents fears over the state education system.

And does a civilised country seize something already legally bought and paid for by people? Not without passing a law to enable it to do so. And why stop at schools? How about hospitals or nurseries?

That was the point of my original post - a policy like this is just what Labour doesn’t need in the build up to an election.

I don't either. I was eleven years old when I decided I wanted to go to the same school as my older brother. Does this make me a hypocrite?

Well, firstly I’m only attempting to speak for myself rather than as an ambassador for the entire system, so take that in to account. 

My thoughts are that the ‘benefits’ are largely dependent on what you choose to measure. Do I think that sending him to this school at 4 years old is going to directly generate better A levels? No. But I, as an adult, prefer to spend my working time doing interesting, varied things in a pleasant environment, even if I get to take the same money home at the end of the day - so why shouldn’t that apply to children too?

The word ‘fears’ is an effort to frame any reasons a parent might have for making the choice as unreasonable, which is not a valid argument. The fact is that at the school in question he’s going to get more attention from more teachers who are less overloaded and he’s going to get access to music instrument lessons, language lessons (at an age appropriate level), swimming lessons and more community-based activities that’s he will at the state competition. How is that not better?

For what it’s worth I’d quite like him to get back in to the state system at secondary level. The options around here are better at that level, and independent secondary schools seem to be about 150% of the price of independent primaries, so for both kids that adds up. 

Civilised countries do that all the time, yes - they all have compulsory purchase regimes.

I’ve no idea what makes you think Labour don’t intend to pass legislation to effect its policies.

jcm

That's been happening for years FFS! Water, Electricity and Transport too.

Utter cock. I went to private schools. The pupils there do not work harder than their state school counterparts in order to achieve their advantages. Johnson, for instance, was exceptionally idle.

jcm

Your other points have already been met with interesting and engaged answers. And I sense the nuance in your own reply which suggests that you are not and do not wish to be seen as an apologist for the direction of Labour's policy. So please don't take this response personally, it's aimed more widely.

However, I'm intrigued by your opening statement. As others have already pointed out, the work loads at top schools are prodigious. These youngsters earn their places by the hours they put in. It simply isn't accurate to claim otherwise. The more interesting question is "are they brighter?"

As a product of the independent sector where, in more enlightened times, I was the recipient of a government scholarship to an excellent school, I've always sought out statistics on this question and it's remarkable how hard it is to lay hands on them. My own experience, both as pupil and parent, is that a high proportion of independently-educated youngsters at least match the abilities of a well-regarded selective grammar school intake. The ethos at my own school was exceptionally rigorous and you were "thick" if you did not cruise to an A grade in multiple subjects. I consequently do not recognise the claim that pupils of very moderate talent thrive in the hothouse environment. And, more to the point, none accompanied me and my peers to Oxford. Nor did I meet any of their equivalents from top schools while studying for my degree, nor has my daughter felt intellectually superior to any contemporaries at Cambridge. In my day, the products of Eton and Harrow had greater outward confidence, but they were not less intelligent, they appeared to justify their place, and that has not changed.

This raises two slightly uncomfortable questions therefore. Am I the "thickie" who overachieved thanks to my educational advantages, even if they were earned in a shoot-out at age 11, for which I was not primed? Or should we at least ponder that there might be a strong interrelationship between intelligence, educational achievement and income, which has become self-reinforcing down the generations?

I'm well aware that I'm not detached enough to make disinterested judgements. And I do not deny the superior opportunities within the independent sector. The system is not fair. But I would like to see statistics that prove the best education is nurturing feeble minds to the exclusion of better candidates. I know there is at least one teacher within the private sector active here on a daily basis. I'd be very interested in their thoughts on the average intake at Eton, Harrow, or Fettes.

But Labour doesn’t want to compulsory purchase private schools, it wants to seize their property and assets.

My main point - which you appear to want to ignore - was that Labour should be preparing to fight an election not voting for ridiculous policies.

Oh, wait a minute, listening to John Mcdonnell’s speech at conference, abolishing private schools now sounds like one of their more sane ideas.

To put it in context I'm paying about £1,300 / month x 10 months per year = £13K in school fees.   The school has a charitable foundation that I think gets between 10% or 15% of fees and they use the money mainly to subsidise fees or provide scholarships.   They have an entrance exam and only about 1/3 of the kids who apply get in - to get in on a scholarship you'd need to be well over that standard.   They get 90 something % A-C passes at Higher and as a result have a massive waiting list.

If government removed their charitable status it is pretty obvious how they could react.  First they'd stop the bursary program and replace those kids with people paying full fees from their waiting list.  That puts 10-15% on their top line immediately.   Then, as a limited company rather than a charity they'd be eligible to claim VAT back on all their non-staff expenses.  That takes 20% off their non-staff costs.   Then they set the fees to cover costs and make a small surplus.  They would pay hardly any corporation tax even as a limited company because they aren't setting out to make a profit to hand to shareholders as a dividend.   It is quite possible they'd be able to reduce fees if they lost their charitable status and stopped handing out free places.   

I am not totally against this option, especially if it cuts the fees!   I think giving free places to exceptionally bright kids is distorting the private school's outcome relative to state education and I'd like to see how much of their academic results are due to teaching rather than pre-selection on the input side.    My suspicion is that the largest reasons for private education getting better exam results is the pre-selection, that when parents are making sacrifices to pay fees they put pressure on the kids to work hard and when the school has a waiting list it doesn't need to tolerate disruptive pupils.

If government did what Labour is suggesting and stuck 20% VAT on school fees as well as removing charitable status the school would still be OK but it would need to replace the middle earning parents with richer parents.  It wouldn't have a problem doing this because its got a huge waiting list and is setting the entrance exam so only 1/3 of applicants get a place.  It'd just need to lower the entrance exam standard until the places were filled.

The other consequence of killing the private school sector would be that the state sector would suddenly need to accommodate all the kids who were previously at private school at an extra cost to the taxpayer of £8K/kid/year plus they'd need to acquire a lot more school real-estate to house them.  This policy is not a money making policy for the state, it's a money loser.

Also, the former private school parents who weren't paying fees would almost certainly put the money they save into property.  They'd bid up house prices in 'good' school catchment areas and get selective education through geography or they'd buy a buy-to-let property to give their kids a start in life that way rather than through education.   I'm not sure that moving money from education into property is a step forward.

There is a big down side to all that ( and I understand why you are going down that route as I was faced with the same choice but wentt state with my 2)) and its one thats overlooked and that rarely gets commented on.The children themselves get brought up in a " priviliged environment" and when they get to 18 it becomes all unstuck as the outside world does them no favours. .It makes it more difficult for them to adjust to the rough and tumble of the real world.

I see that all around me where I live,. 1/2 the children go to independent schools ( all the way through form 5 years on) and half go to state schools. The state schools  produce more rounded young people in the end and are better able to cope either at work or at uni.And the really bright ones shine no matter in what environment.The average in the independent system struggle at uni and elsewhere when things are no longer spoon fed to them.

Anecdotally a friend of mine went to Harrow with the likes of Mark Thatcher. There really were some thickos there, apparently - at one end of the spectrum lots went to Oxbridge, at the other they took jobs in the City. Make of that what you will...

Well, at Eton they only go to school for 32 weeks a year, so they have to catch up somewhere.

 Anecdotally a friend of mine went to Harrow with the likes of Mark Thatcher. There really were some thickos there, apparently - at one end of the spectrum lots went to Oxbridge, at the other they took jobs in the City, or went into Politics. Make of that what you will...

Fixed that for you.......

  These schools (and the City) have massively changed. The days when you got in because your father and grandfather got in are long gone (there was major anger when a few parents discovered this!). There are probably odd exceptions like Royals, but not many.  Aspirational parents want to see academic results so the top schools have moved to competitive academic entry. Similarly, the days of joining a decent City firm on the back of your school tie are gone (although the internship system is basically corrupt).

I have been trying to explain to an American friend that Labour propose to abolish Public Schools and that their pupils will instead go to Public Schools......

I might have misunderstood your post but I’d tend to infer that only the brighter youngsters are making it to elite universities, implying that the superior resources of the private sector are not conferring an advantage in educational advancement.

That the less able end up in the city is not a surprise. There are jobs in the square mile for the well-spoken as well as the well-endowed (intellectually). My relationship manager at a certain investment bank was a scion of the family that founded the firm. He was none too bright but the job didn’t involve much more than buying me lunch from time to time. I would go along with arguments that he had done little to earn his comfortable life.

However Pat is also correct in noting how much has changed. My reminiscence is 20+ years old and the banks are ruthlessly meritocratic today, which has democratised entry into the square mile. Today, you need a top degree and more besides.

😀

I think there’s a danger that preconceptions can colour such broad observations. Plus, it’s possible that we’re not really comparing like-for-like in terms of the schools in question. 

The school that I’m considering isn’t offering anything other than you would want every child to have in an ideal world, and I have trouble recognising it as particularly ‘privileged’ or than by the removal of shortcomings. We’re not talking about having a private stables and butler service here, we’re talking about a weekly 1 on 1 with a guitar teacher and enough teachers to keep an easily distracted child engaged.

Saying that a child used to that environment could have trouble adapting if it’s removed is literally true, but you can apply that same logic to anything. Street children in <poor country of choice> are way better at foraging for survival than either of ours will be, but I don’t make my kids sleep in the garden just so they are prepared in case we lose the house. 

In civilised countries, compulsory purchase pays the owner of the asset at minimum fair market rate.

I’m not sure what the taxpayer gains from paying the charities, foundations, business and so on that own independent schools a vast amount of cash for their estates, equipment and endowments...

I wonder about this. My son went to the largest comprehensive in Edinburgh, worked hard, did well and failed to get a place at Oxbridge by the narrowest of margins, one mark.

It struck me then that if he'd gone to Fettes instead it's quite likely that the extra attention he would have received would have made that small difference which would have resulted in him getting an Oxbridge degree and possibly have changed the course of his life for the better, although he's still doing fine.

The world is a competitive place and for teenagers gaining that extra academic achievement can make a big difference to their futures. Isn't it this advantage that encourages people to send their children to private schools?

For the record, we should not close centres of excellence, if that is what they are but strive to make the average as good as the best.

I have had the same thoughts on my daughter who was in the same situation. she did Maths and went to Warwick ( which is renowned in Maths as they only one where you basically have to get 3 A* to get in, so its just as tough). In the end she far prefers it  .I suspect your son went in the end to just as good a uni and he has done and will do equally as well.

Or perhaps average Joe families who scrape together enough cash to send their kids to a private school have a different work ethic than those more privileged old money families who will be found a job regardless of their results.

Either way we are both reciting anecdotal evidence which proves neither of our arguments. 

Anecdotally I have seen quite a lot of ex armed forces (Sandhurst officers) coming into nice roles in the square mile recently. More in the investment banking side than trading, and I can see why having befriended a few in the work gym. Well spoken, intelligent, confident, driven and thoughtful.

No idea, I don’t know you. Didn’t call JC a hypocrite either. I was simply pointing out that your misleading post intimated that Corbyn isn’t an ex-public schoolboy. He is.

In Corbyn’s defence* his refusal to send his own offspring to grammar school was apparently the cause of his marriage failing.   There are a lot of people who talk a good game about how the field should be levelled but I’m not sure there are many people who would actively choose a worse outcome for their own children in order to preserve their own principles if both options were equally open to them. 

* literally the only thing I would defend that waste of oxygen on. 

Likewise, my son missed out on his offered place at Imperial by a tiny margin in his A-level result

But he's been really happy at Durham where he's now a doctoral student. My wife and I both agree that the disappointment has been a blessing. Glad to hear it's working out for your son.

Not in our case. Our children are neurodiverse. We felt they would suffer at state school for being outside the norm. They certainly did at junior level. Being amongst the most academic kids in the room would only have exacerbated their isolation. Public school with the nerdy spawn of accountants and lawyers seemed a more welcoming home.*

* Our daughter actually insisted on leaving the independent sector to go to the excellent local state sixth form college. This did not notably interrupt her progress, suggesting that the private sector education from 11-16 had not conferred any particular advantage.

My daughter also missed Cambridge by a tiny margin, but looking back that was probably a good thing. Anecdotally (and I've no reason to suspect it's not true), students are under more pressure to perform at Oxbridge (even ignoring other possible pressure factors, simply because the average level of any peer group is higher than at a lot of Universities). Not everyone is able to cope with that pressure, some that can cope may not do so happily. Only certain types of people will thrive in that kind of environment. I don't think my daughter would have been one of those people.

I'm sure lots of others who will gain hugely from University would not have such a good experience at Oxbridge, even if their academic attainment might suggest that they could get there (and similarly for other "elite" Universities).

With our kids, we should always be trying to fit a square peg in a square hole and a round peg in a round hole.

Oh there's class war alright but it's my class the rich who are waging it and we are winning.

Warren Buffet 2006

I sometimes look back at my failure to get in to Cambridge as an undergrad 20+ years ago.  I’m reasonably sure it was a blessing in disguise.

Side benefit - breathing northern provincial air probably adds several healthy years to his life over central London.  Of course the cheaper bars can counteract that...

Perhaps.

Doing something they love at a place where they can feel at home helps teenagers/young adults develop stronger in far wider ways to a greater eventual benefit, than a bit more academic achievement does.

There is an increasing awareness in the press of the mental health consequences of an excessive drive for precisely measured Achievement.  My colleagues and I have plenty of anecdotal data points that young adults being pushed against their natural interests by parents contributes strongly to exacerbating pre-existing problems for some students.  

Best to support and encourage them to find their own hole(s). So to speak. 

Innuendo aside the UK system is set to funnel kids down a narrowing pathway from a very early age.  I think that is great for some people and for the areas they go on to sustain, but for others it’s very destructive. 

Well, yes, except that I am the child of teachers, spent ten years in the private school system, was the landlord of a private school in my house for a few years, have a wife who is a governor of three schools and have watched three children and their friends go through state schools over a period of thirty years, whereas you reckon the children of a couple of mates are hardworking.

I feel in a pretty good position to say that the notion that privately educated children work harder for the advantages their education brings is ignorant drivel.

jcm

I think labour have just promised all workers a 4 day week  within 10 years, (based on 32 hours), which will means lots of extra jobs for nurses, GPs, police, teachers etc. etc. + their extra pay. Plus lots of other free things all round, looking good for some........if you believe it possible.

The conference certainly seemed to believe it.

I don't know the costs but that appears restrained and responsible compared to Boris who is making shorter term promises such as 14Bn extra for schools for schools and 25% more for the military (about 11Bn extra per year by 2023).

Regardless of the blue or red colour, it appears we live in a land of milk and honey!

Let's be honest about it (as you are), leading politicians of both major parties will promise us any effing thing to get/stay in power.

On the grounds that much of the public are gullible enough to believe them, without question.

Unfortunately on current form, the public are gullible.

Back to the original post, if I may ...

Let's do the (tap room) maths on this, 650000 privedpups, majority of will be Tory voting families.

So, say 200,000 Labour voters vote Tory purely because of this one policy, out of a vote of 30 million, gives a swing of 0.67% evenly spread across the UK, that's a 'guaranteed win' for the Tories? It'll make sod all difference.

Are you a freelance Daily Mail 'journalist' by any chance?😄😄😄

That;s not the way it is working at the moment.   The Tories are lying through their teeth about the consequences of Brexit and making promises designed to keep them in power but Labour is acting like power will just be handed to it because the electorate have no choice: all its promises are about internal politics around defending Corbyn's position as leader.

We can pretty much guarantee that all the arguments we'll hear against the four-day week were those trotted out against the five-day week all those years ago. With the ensuing onlining, mechanising and AI-ing of work, we'll be forced there one way or another.

  Just as we were all told we'd be working part time by now 30 years ago......

  The only poll on this suggested that only 1 in 10 are in favour of abolition. Which is not to say that 9 in 10 are in love with private sschools, although there are many beyond those who send their kinds to private schools who aspire to do so.

  I rather agree that most people don't care much beyond it being part of a package of measure signifying a general political stance.

I think there are a lot of people who strongly oppose the idea that the government could unilaterally eliminate an entirely lawful swathe of businesses and seize their assets.

What’s next? Nationalisation of holiday companies to make sure that the nasty wealthy people aren’t sneaking off on safari when they should be in Skegness with the salt-of-the-earth working folk?

Holidays aren't exactly vital national infrastructure yet, are they?

There's been a wholesale handing over of public assets to private interests over the last four decades (including schools and their property/land, I might add): How do you feel about that? Should it only ever be one-way traffic?

The relationship between the state and private organisations is not symmetrical, so it's not really a fair comparison. The government is elected by the populace to exercise stewardship of the state. If they then decide to sell state assets off then I guess that is within their remit (which is not to say I think they should do so). Unilaterally seizing the assets of private organisations Mugabe-style does not make things fair simply because there's a flow back in the other direction.

The fair way to eliminate private schools would be to invest in and improve the state schools to the point where there's little incentive for people to use them. I would be more than happy to not pay £120k for two children to attend primary school if there was a decent free (in the sense that I already pay for it through taxes) option available.

Sorry to intrude on Mcdonnell's fantasy land with a slice of reality, but how the hell is this 4 day week thing going to work with Britain's biggest employer, the NHS? Currently the NHS has over 100,000 unfilled vacancies (9% of the workforce). Last year GP numbers experienced their first sustained drop since the 60's. Demographic changes mean service demand is increasing at between 3 and 4% pa, and the labour leadership reckon they can lop another 20% off NHS working hours, all with no loss in workers incomes? 

Maybe, just maybe ... (I might be living in an equally fantastical land of warped reality)
Maybe, if the job pays the same and one won't be worked into the ground, the job maybe, just maybe, become more appealing?
There's still 1,300,000 people unemployed in this country remember.

If you’re promising to cut hours by 20% without cutting the weekly wage over a 10 year period, you’re simply relying on 2% pa notional wage inflation to make up the difference. Real incomes however will have fallen by 20%.

There have been instances across industry where cutting hours does not affect output so we shouldn’t ridicule the initiative. But outcomes will vary massively across different sectors, the NHS being a glaring flashpoint.

Part of the policy is for employees to be remunerated in instances where they cannot take the extra hours for whatever reason. 

It's probably also worth pointing out that if doctors stuck with their contracted hours as they are at the moment, then the NHS would collapse. 

I think you've completely missed the thrust of the argument. NHS is down 9% staffing (this isn't likely to go away), demand on service is projected to rise 3.5% pa for at least the next decade. Admittedly very rough figures, but that gives a shortfall of 44% service provision hours and the labour leadership reckon they can subtract an additional 20%. So that's a 64% shortfall in working hours.

and I'm sure every one of them is a potential neurosurgeon, midwife or nurse.

 GP waiting times for appointments have never been longer, calls to the ambulance service are up 30% over the last 5 years and waiting lists for operations are at a 10 year high. This may just be one sector, but it's an important one, it's the UK's largest employer and its never out of the public eye. Yet Mcdonnell confidently announces Labour will achieve a blanket 20% drop in working hours in just a decade? 

Don't get me wrong, between Corbyn and Mcdonnell, I can well imagine them achieving a UK wide 4 day week, I just think this achievement will be more along the lines of the 3 day week the hard left arranged for us in 1974.

If you assume the number of hours worked in the NHS stays constant, or hopefully increases then presumably the wage bill would increase by 20%.

The 2015 NHS wage bill was £45 billion. That's an extra £9 billion. I will be interested to see how this will be paid for.

32 hours week will not happen with my team, they want to work 40 hours for the money.A vote loser.

The idea is we work less but without losing any pay.  Didn't you get that ? 

Well I suppose it could also be argued that people on minimum pay and  Zero hours contracts simply wouldn't know what to do with the extra free time.

When the 35 hour week was introduced in France, I found myself , 3 weeks out of four with an extra day ( or in my case night) off. I lost quite a bit of over-time, but still managed to accumulate enough hours to take a couple of extra weeks holiday.  It was definitely an all win situation for me. 

I still don't see how it'll work in many cases. In some jobs you could argue that being less tired can increase your productivity but if that is the case then you don't need a law to force it, if a company feels it can get more overall out of their employees by giving them an extra day off then they would do it there is nothing stopping them. 

I suspect in most cases there would definitely be a drop in productivity if they had 20% less man hours week making whatever they make and the burden of still paying the same wage bill I suspect would cripple many firms. Prices would have to rise meaning ultimately people working less hours for the same pay wouldn't be able to buy as much as they used to. 

I remember very well what happened in France when they moved to the 35 hours week from the 40 hours week,  simply people in the unionised or public sector indeed reduced their hours, whereas the rest, who were already basically working 50/60 hours whilst getting paid for 40, still kept working the same hours but are now paid 35.

Instead of focusing on hard limits people will never respect anyway, labour would do well to focus instead on incentivising companies to invest in better life balance and flexibility, because I see all my friends falling like flies, completely burn out and stressed out, with in some cases permanent damage.

Which hat did you pull that stupid comment from ?

I worked in the private sector and we negotiated an agreement at company level. I was actively involved as I was a staff representative. There was no reduction in rates of pay and as for working 50/60 hours a week..........................................

As you've edited your post, I'll add :

if people are being over-exploited then perhaps they should join a union and actively do something about it.

Well this is just the experience of pretty much everybody I know. Agreed that for some big companies with « staff representatives » it may have worked but for « PMEs » where everybody is basically scared to lose their job 24/7, the prospect of even a 40 hours week is already a fantasy.

Not everything can be reduced to productivity and profit. Surely everyone has a right to profit from increases in technological advances. The UK's answer has been to reduce workers rights, flood the job market with cheap labour and make job security more and more precarious. 

I'd like to see the response in France if Macron's government tried to introduce Zero hour contracts !

Yeah, that’s just not how it works outside the bubble of unionised sectors and public sector. Joining an union would guarantee throwing your career down the drain. In France when you have a « CDI » in many professions you just hang on to it like dear life and you certainly don’t do anything as stupid as joining an union.

There is a burgeoning movement at the professional end of the working universe to address this. Mental health has become a major issue for businesses that trade in human capital. I don't think Jeff Bezos has got the memo yet. Or at least he's ignoring it. But plenty of large corporations, accountants, lawyers, consultancies, whose chief assets file in and out of the building each day are taking note. Whether this will reach the factory floor I'm not so sure, since automation is coming to get those jobs (and plenty of white collar ones) anyway.

Of course, and I can also see the endless mental health awareness courses and workshops being pushed by HR dept in all these big corporations.

The problem is that as far as I can tell it’s going to take a lot more than just corporate guilt-washing  and ass-covering designed by PwC consultants and HR careerists to fix the issue. 

It reminds me of an episode of the brilliant show IT Crowd, where the boss, played by Chris Morris, declares a « war on stress » and announces that any employee who is still stressed at the end of the week will be immediately fired

I think there is a lot of space for a  rethink of how we organise work, unfortunately all I’m hearing from Labour are useless recipes of the past.

In many ways in my view they aren’t over exploited by their bosses - generally speaking.

It’s extremely rare to see bosses asking their employees to work 90 hours a week, most bosses know better, but yet it’s very common to see people working this kind of hours.

From what I can observe it’s simply economic forces that are pushing employees to work themselves to death. 

Labour will win the next election and Corbyn will be Prime Minister. It's not speculation, because we're going to make happen.

10 years of Tories has driven us to the brink: economic stagnation, political crisis, gross inequality, rampant far right, NHS crisis, knife violence crisis, homelessness crisis, climate crisis, the continuation of UK itself looking like an increasingly unlikely prospect. 

Ha... and you think the policy on private schools will swing it!

That's by the by. Leave or remain is by the by. It's socialism or barbarism - that's the choice we face.

Corbyn for the win!

Does Labour have a plan to avoid annihilation at the next election because that’s a more likely outcome than victory despite the present government’s many failings.

Surely, that's the fault of his parents, not Jeremy? I doubt most of us had any input into which schools we're sent to.

With Corbyn and cronies there Labour won't come close.  Corbyn yesterday was utterly ineffective against a prime minister who has just had the Supreme Court declare his actions illegal, the Labour conference was pathetic joke, and on the key issue of the day Labour and Corbyn have no coherent position. 

Asserting "We're not going to let it happen" doesn't win elections

Some further information today from the BBC; https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49826715

So:

25% of pupils get extra tuition - this works out to 725,000 pupils

2/3 of those are from well-off rather than less well-off families (so that's 483,000 well-off pupils).

The labour position on it: "a party spokesman said this [the private schools policy] would not affect private tutoring outside school."

For comparison, there are 233,000 pupils in independent secondary education.

But the Corbyn faction are 100% sure the private school thing is about removing inequality, not just 'I can't have nice things so you can't either', right?

The numbers come from the data sheet lined here (https://www.besa.org.uk/key-uk-education-statistics/) if anyone wants to check them.

Corbyn has been a far more effective opposition than previous LP leaders - because the LP under him is actually putting forward a boldly different and progressive agenda. The conference wasn't a joke at all - it's created a lot of excitement, as well as debate.

On the key issue of the day... climate change? rampant inequality? Oh... sorry, you mean Brexit.. on the issue of Brexit the LP now has a clear and cogent policy - clearer than anyone else's. They are against a no deal Brexit and want an extension in place, followed by a second referendum.

The Labour Party has almost half a million members - and many more supporters. When I say "We're not going to let it happen", that's not an assertion. That's a coordinated action - to get people registered to vote, to go and hear their concerns, to explain what Labour will do and why that could be transformative, and to get them out to vote. The Tories will pour their money into obnoxious advertising campaigns, but the vast number of people who make up Labour aren't going to sit back and take this shit for another four years.

Exactly what has he achieved?  The Labour deserters, lib dems, torys like major, Clarke..  have done more opposing in recent times. 

So much support they lost the last two general elections and the eu election. 

Guess it's not the shadow cabinet coordinating it then. 

I'm off my tits on magic mushrooms and crack too, as it happens. But I urge you to rethink that when you sober up.

Labour's policy involves entering a negotiation with the EU unsure of whether or not they actually back their own position. It's not just us two on the drugs, it seems...

Brexit party: No deal Brexit

Lib Dems: No Brexit at all

Tories: Brexit by 31/10. A Boris deal if possible (it isn't, because it doesn't exist, but that's the policy), no deal otherwise.

Labour: Er, um.. maybe brexit? We'll find a NEW brexit based on fairies instead of unicorns, and then we'll have a vote, where we might campaign in favour of our own deal or we might argue against it. Who knows. Can we be government now, please?

Brexit Party = BREEEEEXXXIIIIT OR DEATH!!!!!

Lib Dems = We'll never get anywhere near power, but if we do, we promise to remain, despite the fact this would piss off a sizeable chunk of the electorate, but since we won't we'll probably just prop up the Tories again given half a chance and "moderate" their No Deal.

Tories = a deal that will never happen, or crash out and unleash utter chaos until we can negotiate an unnegotiable deal, in order to save the NHS by handing it over to the US corporations.

Labour = Yes, people are pretty pissed off and divided (including within all parties). So, we will protect the country from No Deal then have a second referendum to see if Brexit is still what people want.

I'm not quite sure what is so hard to fathom about this?

The bit where you think that Labour have a clearer policy than everyone else. 

PS. The bit where you claim the Lib Dems have no chance of power is pretty cute given Labour's current popularity. Remind me which of the Lib Dems and Labour were in government most recently?

I think we can clarify a bit further.

That's pretty clear.

That's pretty clear.

That's slightly less clear, because we're not really sure if they're actually trying to get a deal, or just pretending (which is what the EU are saying, but that suits their agenda). 

What's unclear is what will be on the ballot paper, and crucially what Labour will campaign for at the referendum. As I understand it, Labour's policy is to attempt to renegotiate a different deal to May's, which will involve a customs union. The problem is that it would be absurd to negotiate a deal and then campaign against it, don't you think?

This position does have something to recommend it - it puts the decision back to a referendum to attempt to give that final outcome legitimacy (personally I'm not keen on a second referendum, but I do see the problem with all the pissing and moaning that revoking A50 would result in...but would it be that different to the pissing and moaning after a 2nd ref that resulted in remain?). But not being able to say whether the policy is leave or remain makes it considerably less clear than each of the other party's policies. You really do have to be on some very strong drugs not to be able to see this.

I think if I was Jeremy Corbyn I would just give up on trying to have a united Brexit policy. I would say: 

 - We will stop a no deal

 - We will confirm with the EU that the Withdrawal Agreement (with backstop) is the deal on offer. We will scrap the Political Declaration (or water it down further, but who care's anyway as it's non-binding) and leave everything open for the future relationship, which we will negotiate if we leave. We will be aiming for a close relationship with the EU including a customs union, so if you want a hard brexit, you're not going to get it with us.

 - We will hold a referendum on leaving with the WA (with a view to a soft brexit following the transition period) vs remain

 - Since many Labour MPs represent leave constituencies, while many represent remain constituencies, we simply cannot have a unified policy on this issue and represent our voters fairly. MPs will campaign in the referendum as they each see fit. 

This makes me more sense to me, because it puts off the negotiations until after the referendum avoiding the bizarre negotiating position they have under the current policy. However, it's still terrible because it's complicated and has no leave/remain position.

But they (Labour) could of course claim to be more representative of the nation since both are split on what to do about Brexit.

Are you actually describing the disgraceful propping up of Cameron's Austerity Party as a positive for the Lib Dems? And remind me how many deposits the Lib Dems lost in the last election? Get in the sea.

Attitudes like yours are why we are in this mess. 

And what do you think "Cameron's Austerity Party" would have got up to if it hadn't had the LibDems putting some form of break on their proceedings ?

I’m describing it as being more recent than the last time Labour were near power. And let’s face it, Blair’s Labour was so far removed from Corbyn’s Labour they’re a totally different party in everything but name. 

I think from where we are now, I pretty much agree with your 4 point plan except Mays withdrawal agreement is not the only deal on offer, it's probably the only deal possible compatible with Mays daft red lines.

As they are the opposition they have already been in talks with the EU and have a different deal ready made.

https://newsagog.com/brexit-live-donald-tusk-ignores-mays-demands-and-backs...

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-labour-welcome-leo-varadkars-...

And Corbyns letter to May shows what the Labour deal looks like.

https://labour.org.uk/press/jeremy-corbyn-lays-labours-five-brexit-demands-...

I think that electorally Labour would do better to sell the benefits of their deal more, especially its potential to heal the Brexit divide because the winner takes all path we are on now will continue to fracture our society for decades to come.

What sort of brake did they actually constitute? They waved through austerity in exchange for a 5p plastic bag. A quarter of a million people are estimated to have died as a result of austerity policies voted for by Lib Dems. Jesus... Have you recently been concussed, because you seem to be suffering memory loss!

Really? My "attitude problem" is responsible for all this? Really?

"These bloody leftists - that's why in this mess: because they keep making irrational demands, like tackling gross social inequality and opposing the handing over of public wealth to bankers, hedge-fund managers and multinational corporations."

Can we have some kind of reliable source for this (to me) quite startling statement.

I'm not sure now, but for the first few posts I assumed that our friend C Witter was just a high level troll...

Here, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ): https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722

Here: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2017/nov/austerity-linked-120000-extra-deaths-en...

And here: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/01/perfect-storm-austerity-be...

Of course, it is difficult to definitively prove. But, go for a walk from Manchester Piccadilly train station down to to Piccadilly Gardens, and tell me whether or not you feel it is true or not.

Have you really never heard this? This is one of the many reasons why it should be common sense that it is completely unacceptable to be a Tory.

Yes, really. Your (and others) complete inability to imagine any sort of compromise, coupled with delusions about future electoral success of Corbyn. 

Do you really believe the UK has even had real austerity? There have been cuts and it has hurt some. But it still has a deficit and a trillion plus in debt. Real austerity, try parts of Greece, Spain, Italy..  look at their youth unemployment rates etc. Half the UK problems were caused by the fact it was under funding state services and under taxing the population long before 2008, one crisis and everything instantly takes a hit. 

There is a bigger recession around the corner, there is far worse pain to come for most people in the world, regardless of which party in the UK is in power. 

Every time a politician buys a vote promising free something; education, prescriptions, social care.... it means something else will likely have it's budget cut, because they'll never put a few per percent on the base rate to fund it.

Edit, and no I'm not a Tory and neither did I vote for them.  

Thanks for those, I'm not sure that you can just add the two together to get your 250,000 but that's just me quibbling.

Why haven't these been major news stories (was I asleep on the wrong days)?

If I'd thought closely about it, I would have assumed that reduced spending would affect mortality rates, I'm just surprised at the extent.

I rarely go into central Manchester but I am well aware of the increase in homelessness. I've always thought that for a supposedly wealthy civilised country, our homeless problem is a national disgrace.

Vote Tory, not yet (no chance) and on current evidence that's likely to be never.

However I do feel very disenfranchised because at the moment there's nobody that I feel I should be voting for.

  Which they had the opportunity to do and chose not to take it because it was a wicked Tory withdrawal agreement.

You mean, because it didn’t accord with what they had said in their manifesto they would pursue? You know, like all oppositions?

jcm

What alternative would you have preferred? The Lib Dems entered a coalition because no party was able to form a government on its own. If they had refused to be part of the coalition, what would have happened?

Presumably, another election, which in all likelihood would have resulted in a pure Conservative government given that Labour's popularity was on the decline at the time, and the Lib Dems themselves ended up with less seats than they had before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election

Genuinely interested in how you think there was any 'better' (from the Labour perspective) outcome available at the time?

  I mean because to do so would accord with their manifesto which  said "Labour accepts the referendum result and a Labour government will put the national interest first. " and because like all parties in this clusterfxck they refuse to compromise.

Don’t be ridiculous. The manifesto contained a lot more detail than that about what they would pursue.

The May deal itself was already very far from a compromise.

jcm

When you look at what the Tories are doing now, can you even compare them with the government that was Tory/LibDem ?

The LibDems were the junior partner (by far), so their influence would have been muted, but just look where the Tories have gone now.

In your parallel universe in which it makes sense for Labour to vote for the WA, how do they then achieve a soft brexit with the tories in power until 2023?

Are you on the mushrooms and crack as well now? I've come down now, and it's obvious to me that labour's best bet was to vote against the deal in order to bring down the government, which they most likely will have been successful in doing. They might do less well in the GE, but that's life with an incompetent leader for you.

Your insistence that Labour should have voted through the WA is pathological (or substance induced). It makes no sense. They didn't want brexit with May's red lines, so they stopped it at the available opportunity, and they will get the GE they need by this route. Their behaviour is entirely rational and consistent with their political goals. 

  You're the one who said you'd do it if you were JC, not me

I think your smiley indicates that you understand the meaning obscured by my bad grammar:

It didn't make sense for them to vote through the WA when it put was forward; but if I was JC I would now offer up the WA without the PD (or revised PD setting out intention of soft brexit) as the alternative to remain. This choice of remain or soft brexit would have farage and his followers apoplectic; to my absolute delight! 

In this country all newsworthy stories are usually available somewhere but there is a huge propaganda spin machine working to ensure that the national conversation is aligned with the establishment narrative and making sure that inconvenient truths which don't fit the narrative are overshadowed in the national consciousness by more favourable stories.

The majority benefit from a transformative Labour government rebuilding our society and restructuring our economy to work for all, but this doesn't suit the establishment so the media spin machine is working furiously against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour left to make sure we are distracted from their popular policies.