The Labour Government

I have no idea, what do you think a working class family earns. If you have a working class background but you aren't working class is that because you want to better yourself? Nothing wrong in that at all is there? I shall ask again, is a footballer playing for Salford on £500 a week and his wife who is a cleaner classed as working class?

The majority of people aren’t working class (~30%). The, albeit slim, majority have working class values (~51%). So given the majority aren’t working class I’m not sure what the benefit is of benchmarking affordability off their theoretical incomes.
 
For my money, any kid with half a brain will succeed perfectly well in the state system

Sorry but that’s just not the case at all mate. I’ve got family who work in education in a poor area and they’ve told me first hand the amount of bright kids that don’t get the opportunities they deserve is heartbreaking.
 
I’m conflicted on this.

On the one hand I don’t think it’s fair for money to buy better education, but on the other hand I believe people should have choice. And if it were my family (we don’t have kids) I’d want the best for them and would almost certainly send them to a private school, if we could afford it.

I feel the same about the NHS.

My politics are peak centrist dad :)
But state schools and NHS should be the best.
 
I have no idea, what do you think a working class family earns. If you have a working class background but you aren't working class is that because you want to better yourself? Nothing wrong in that at all is there? I shall ask again, is a footballer playing for Salford on £500 a week and his wife who is a cleaner classed as working class?
I'd say above 100k combined before tax but that's just off the top of my head. I have nothing against people coming from nothing and making good money or them paying to educate their children, but why should you get a VAT break for it? I'm not jealous one bit of people making money or aiming for the sky. The reality is that most don't and are a product of their surroundings and will never get that opportunity, there is plenty of luck involved not just hard work.

I'm guessing the Salford footballer is going to be some trick question where it's an ex pro who has already earned tens or hundreds of 1000s throughout their career and are now playing for fun? If not then my answer above should cover it.
 
Arguably it wouldn't be necessary if people couldn't buy their way out of the state system, because all of the upper-middle and upper class parents would demand higher standards. Finland don't allow private schools, and for years had the highest education standards in the world.

While it was great for you, it's also worth mentioning that they've studied this, and the vast majority of these scholarships and bursaries go to fairly well off kids. A huge number of them are for sporting excellence, for example, and usually not in the sorts of sports that working class kids have been learning. I knew a guy who got offered a full scholarship to St Andrews university because he could play the pipe organ. He was not someone who would have struggled to pay the fees. I also know someone from a poor background who got a full scholarship to the local private school, so I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that the majority of their scholarships are not given to poor people on academic grounds.

I can say for certain my bursary was not for any sporting achievements!!
 
A nation that needs charities is a failed one on a social scale imho.

how can any government say they cannot prioratise savimg the children, helpimg the aged or have proper mental health or social care, so much that charoties need to be formed.

The gerogian/victoriann idea of rich benevolance is outdated, if someome is wealthy enough to set up a charity they are wealthy enough to pay their fair share in
tax so such things are not necessary

I understand where you're coming from, but the charity sector is a lot bigger and more complex.

There are plenty of charities doing things that wouldn't always be classed as "need", for example organisations providing social events for people who might be isolated, environmental charities improving the local area, 'friend' charities providing lifts, or just popping in to check on someone who is elderly or disabled, or charities caring for abandoned animals. There's a huge benefit in terms of happiness/satisfaction/quality of life for the people who volunteer in these areas, as well as the people who they're targeted at. While some of these areas might be provided by the state up to a point, there's still a huge benefit to a society helping itself.

You also have charities which might be better if they're not totally beholden to the state. I've worked for organisations providing legal advice, which may get some state funding, but relying on that totally can create issues over independence.

Even the most benevolent state shouldn't be controlling everything, and a successful society should have room for charities.
 
I’m conflicted on this.

On the one hand I don’t think it’s fair for money to buy better education, but on the other hand I believe people should have choice. And if it were my family (we don’t have kids) I’d want the best for them and would almost certainly send them to a private school, if we could afford it.

I feel the same about the NHS.

My politics are peak centrist dad :)
Haha, yeah. I mean I get it. I think if I was having kids in the middle of 14 years of Tory ruin, I'd want the choice to opt out of the system they refuse to properly fund too. It only works if we have political parties that actually believe in the things they're supposed to be running.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.