|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 1, 2022 8:02:55 GMT
I wonder if this is a bit of a misunderstanding - the old upper-class idea that where your 'people' are from is what matters - i.e. where is your family's country estate? e.g. "Yes, yes, I know you were born in London, Crispin, and are working as an interior designer, but where are you FROM? Are you one of the Leicestershire Cholmondeleys?" EDIT: It's almost exactly what I thought. Here's a quote from The Sun "She said she was horrified when Lady Susan approached her, moved her hair to see her name badge and asked: "Where do your people come from?"" So a bit insensitive in the modern world, but not at all malicious or racist. Here's the full exchange. Quite shocking and totally unacceptable imo:- Fulani wrote on Twitter: “Mixed feelings about yesterday’s visit to Buckingham Palace. 10 mins after arriving, a member of staff, Lady SH, approached me, moved my hair to see my name badge. The conversation below took place. The rest of the event is a blur.”
She then described the conversation:
Lady SH: Where are you from?
Me: Sistah Space.
SH: No, where do you come from?
Me: We’re based in Hackney.
SH: No, what part of Africa are YOU from?
Me: I don’t know, they didn’t leave any records.
SH: Well, you must know where you’re from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?
Me: Here, UK
SH: NO, but what Nationality are you?
Me: I am born here and am British.
SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?
Me: ‘My people’, lady, what is this?
SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you’re from. When did you first come here?
Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when …
SH: Oh, I knew we’d get there in the end, you’re Caribbean!
Me: No Lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.
SH: Oh, so you’re from
It is being reported that Hussey was the individual tasked by the Royal Family to help the Duchess of Sussex become part of it. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 1, 2022 8:06:07 GMT
Old posh people are racist shock.. (Still, it allows BBC News to put a white person's face on the main page of its website for a change). I wonder if this is a bit of a misunderstanding - the old upper-class idea that where your 'people' are from is what matters - i.e. where is your family's country estate? e.g. "Yes, yes, I know you were born in London, Crispin, and are working as an interior designer, but where are you FROM? Are you one of the Leicestershire Cholmondeleys?" EDIT: It's almost exactly what I thought. Here's a quote from The Sun "She said she was horrified when Lady Susan approached her, moved her hair to see her name badge and asked: "Where do your people come from?"" So a bit insensitive in the modern world, but not at all malicious or racist. I'm white working class. I can't imagine being asked whether I belong to any branch of my family's surname. Or being touched by someone I had just met in order for them to check my name instead of asking. In fact I can't imagine being pushed to say where I'm really from, even though it's entirely possible that my parents were from Ireland or Poland or Sweden or anywhere else. She asked because the person was black and she wasn't satisfied with her answer that she was British. I'm not for one minute suggesting she was being overtly or deliberately rude or racist but this kind of unconscious bias and racism is just as hurtful for the recipient. Her only excuse is that she is old and perhaps hasn't picked up on changes of attitude but it is quite right that she is no longer employed in a high profile public facing role for the royal family. I imagine that the younger members were acutely embarrassed by this. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Dec 1, 2022 8:08:54 GMT
Radio says the NHS is currently recording 'excess mortality' across the UK. The blame seems to be going squarely to thoussands of ambulanes simply queuing up waiting to unload patients and not being able to move on. But of course this means the hospital is unable to tret the arrivals, and other news says hospitals are unable to send people home after being treated.
Government is refusing to acknowledge the current problem is because of inadequate council social care serices to take over once the NHS has got someone ready to go home. This isnt new, I went to a pblic meeting ten years ago held by the NHS whch mentioned how it was increasingly agreeing to fund what once was considered couvil care services. The council had closed services on the basis they were unaffordable, which it is legally entitled to do. The NHS needing to process patients was openign services that the council was closing.
This is the ultimate conclusion of conservatve policy since 2010, which promised to protect NHS funding, but savaged council funding.
Incidentally, someone yesterday reported that more than 50% of new doctors registering to practice in the UK are immigrants. Thats actually gobsmacking, it has to imply we are training less than half the doctors we need. That attack on the NHS would come under the heading of educational cuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 1, 2022 8:12:26 GMT
hireton - yes, that's a pretty savage indictment of the government. Absolutely inexplicable. I also noticed this, from the G - www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/01/brexit-added-nearly-6bn-to-uk-food-bills-in-two-years-research-findsI could have sworn that one of the promises of Brexit was the ability to source cheaper food. No?
And from Borderlex - "The United Kingdom is to make a strategic shift away from pursuing new free trade agreements and will place more emphasis on making trade relationships work more effectively on the ground. This is in essence what the country’s international trade secretary said on Wednesday (30 November)."
So now even the pursuit of FTAs are deemed less worthy. When they say "making trade relationships work more effectively on the ground", I wonder which trade relationships they might be thinking off? Hmmm.....
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 1, 2022 8:17:22 GMT
Here's the full exchange. Quite shocking and totally unacceptable imo:- Fulani wrote on Twitter: “Mixed feelings about yesterday’s visit to Buckingham Palace. 10 mins after arriving, a member of staff, Lady SH, approached me, moved my hair to see my name badge. The conversation below took place. The rest of the event is a blur.”
She then described the conversation:
Lady SH: Where are you from?
Me: Sistah Space.
SH: No, where do you come from?
Me: We’re based in Hackney.
SH: No, what part of Africa are YOU from?
Me: I don’t know, they didn’t leave any records.
SH: Well, you must know where you’re from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?
Me: Here, UK
SH: NO, but what Nationality are you?
Me: I am born here and am British.
SH: No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?
Me: ‘My people’, lady, what is this?
SH: Oh I can see I am going to have a challenge getting you to say where you’re from. When did you first come here?
Me: Lady! I am a British national, my parents came here in the 50s when …
SH: Oh, I knew we’d get there in the end, you’re Caribbean!
Me: No Lady, I am of African heritage, Caribbean descent and British nationality.
SH: Oh, so you’re from
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2022 8:18:27 GMT
barbaraCan't say I've ever found it particularly hurtful neither has my son Shae, boring, inappropriate and predictable upon occasions though. Perhaps we're just a bit thick skinned. Of course we have the added confusion factor as when with us Shae appeared to have an " asian " looking dad and a white " ginger" Irish looking mum and his two siblings look Romanian. You could sometimes almost see the coggs turning in people's heads as they tried to work that lot out.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Dec 1, 2022 8:24:36 GMT
In one approach we might get a lot more leccy from things like nuclear, and the intermittent stuff might be extra on top, to deployed for things that might handle the intermittency better Then that is a choice to have nuclear generation instead of a wind renewables geneeration. You are saying we only use wind for extras which might be able to use it at random times. The alternative is to have enough wind generation to generate all the total power needed, and then store some of it one way or another to cover times there is no wind. Although we could simply carry on using gas at much lower quantities to cover calm times. That is a very doable solution. Government keeps talking about a wind strategy, but it seems to be trying to not have one. Instead its building nuclear, which is very expensive electricity compared to wind, refusing to allow more onshore wind to be built, and doing nothing about the storage issue. Something tells me government has shares in nuclear. The private sector by itself without subsidy refuses to build it because of the risk. Fascinating how it will subsidise some things but not others. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2022 8:31:20 GMT
The particular aged aristo in question.
"Hussey is the fifth and youngest daughter of the 12th Earl Waldegrave, and Mary Hermione Grenfell (1909–1995). She is the sister of the 13th Earl Waldegrave and the Conservative politician William Waldegrave. Her aunt, Dame Frances Campbell-Preston, was lady-in-waiting to Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
On 25 April 1959 she married Marmaduke Hussey (later Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC) and had two children: James Arthur (b. 1961) and Katharine Elizabeth (b. 1964). Her daughter Katharine married Sir Francis Brooke and followed her mother into royal service, as one of the official companions to Queen Camilla."
Its part of the aristocracy mafia they've their own behaviour set and are pretty much devoid of any connection with ordinary reality.
Perhaps we could find a nice remote island in the Atlantic to dump them all on.
I think South Georgia is nice this time of year!
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 1, 2022 8:31:48 GMT
Though SNP vote share drops to 41% with Labour now on 31%. . While SNP supporters are naturally getting excited about recent polls, and will see it as a vindication of the strategy of the re-positioning of their anti-Tory focus to a more general anti-British establishment line of attack, one should note throughout 2020 polls (on the back of Brexit) showed a lead for indy (reaching 50% at some periods). The current situation is an easy one for the SNP to exploit in the short term - London foiling the will of the Scots, but may not prove of sustainable impact in the face of the cost of living crises or a concerted campaign by pro-Unionist voices highlighting the economic damage that indy would do.
If (and I remain sceptical that it will happen) Labour do make sizable gains in Scotland at the next GE, it will be difficult for Sturgeon to argue it is a mandate for another indy ref. |
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Dec 1, 2022 8:37:14 GMT
Danny: "Whats also maybe interesting is that if I had been asked this question I would probably also have been initially puzzled, but once I did I would have explained my ancestral background. Am I not offended because I am white and she is offended because she is black?'
Isn't the point that she was asked this question because she's black, and you wouldn't have been because you're white? The "where do you really come from?" questioning must be pretty offensive if the "you" in question is born and brought up in England.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,370
|
Post by Danny on Dec 1, 2022 8:39:59 GMT
vat for public schools some years ago my old public school sent me a glossy brochure with a breakdown of their accounts - I have no idea why, and it hasn't happened again. Some passing fad for openness I expect. In all they had getting on for £10 million in tax breaks. Bigger than the entire school budget for the comprehensive my children went to. Of course they thought this was something to be proud of, and in a way it was. But the idea there are not substantial amounts to be clawed back by cutting out the tax breaks is absurd. Removing tax breaks from schools would however strengthen the case for every child attending one to get a voucher from government to the value of the cost of their state education. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2022 8:43:05 GMT
@danny
The parlous state the Tories have left the nhs in caused huge distress.
My mother is currently in hospital having been in and out of her residential care home for several months.
Her mental health deteriorated significantly when she was locked up during covid and has recently deteriorated further. She now requires care beyond that available at her home and the very caring staff there and at the hospital are doing their best.
They are currently trying to find her an nhs discharge bed in a nursing home, she's unlikely to need it for long.
In the mean time when not sufficiently medicated she lies in the bed in her elderly care ward screaming.
It's a tragic and totally avoidable way to spend your last few weeks alive and I blame entirely this horror show of a government.
Fund the care properly stop fucking about and giving billions to your chums and old schools instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 1, 2022 8:52:30 GMT
vat for public schools some years ago my old public school sent me a glossy brochure with a breakdown of their accounts - I have no idea why, and it hasn't happened again. Some passing fad for openness I expect. In all they had getting on for £10 million in tax breaks. Bigger than the entire school budget for the comprehensive my children went to. Of course they thought this was something to be proud of, and in a way it was. But the idea there are not substantial amounts to be clawed back by cutting out the tax breaks is absurd. Removing tax breaks from schools would however strengthen the case for every child attending one to get a voucher from government to the value of the cost of their state education. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 1, 2022 8:55:52 GMT
They always say, probably rightly too, that PMQs serve mainly to establish a leader's standing within their own party and their ability to get the better of whoever is sitting on the other side of the Dispatch Box. Beyond snippets on TV news bulletins, nobody sees the exchanges nor is much interested in them. A sort of discredited and disregarded pantomime Punch and Judy show put on for the benefit of baying MPs. Look at how our man/woman is beating up the duffer playing for the other side. Morale ebbs and flows accordingly.
However, I wonder whether it's possible to disregard the political impact of these weekly exchanges between the party leaders a little too much in the modern world of mass communication? Social media platforms, and YouTube particularly, are giving PMQ edited highlights a reach that they've never had before and expanding the audience demographic considerably I would have thought. Political party strategists and commentators now ping highlights around Twitter continually, maybe cherry picking content too.
The consequences of this for a nascent PM and leader like Sunak are twofold, I think, especially when the consensus seems to be that he's getting consistently bested by Starmer.
Firstly, this must be having a depressing effect on an already demoralised parliamentary Tory Party who might have expected their man to be doing better and, conversely, boosting both Starmer's standing within his own party and Labour morale. The intangible benefits of this can be many and varied. Secondly, Sunak may well be bombing in plain sight now, with far more people witness to his poor Commons performances than once was the case when 25k political geeks tuned into the BBC Parliament channel for weekly PMQs.
Viral social media memes and twitter snippets are potent political weapons now. The transformed media landscape offers few hiding places for politicians. All this may be part of why Sunak's expected honeymoon hasn't materialised.
Just some idle thoughts on a Thursday morning, as I part watch the cricket from Pakistan. (Hats off to Zak Crawley and Ben Duckett).
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,127
|
Post by domjg on Dec 1, 2022 9:11:53 GMT
I wonder if this is a bit of a misunderstanding - the old upper-class idea that where your 'people' are from is what matters - i.e. where is your family's country estate? e.g. "Yes, yes, I know you were born in London, Crispin, and are working as an interior designer, but where are you FROM? Are you one of the Leicestershire Cholmondeleys?" EDIT: It's almost exactly what I thought. Here's a quote from The Sun "She said she was horrified when Lady Susan approached her, moved her hair to see her name badge and asked: "Where do your people come from?"" So a bit insensitive in the modern world, but not at all malicious or racist. I'm white working class. I can't imagine being asked whether I belong to any branch of my family's surname. Or being touched by someone I had just met in order for them to check my name instead of asking. In fact I can't imagine being pushed to say where I'm really from, even though it's entirely possible that my parents were from Ireland or Poland or Sweden or anywhere else. She asked because the person was black and she wasn't satisfied with her answer that she was British. I'm not for one minute suggesting she was being overtly or deliberately rude or racist but this kind of unconscious bias and racism is just as hurtful for the recipient. Her only excuse is that she is old and perhaps hasn't picked up on changes of attitude but it is quite right that she is no longer employed in a high profile public facing role for the royal family. I imagine that the younger members were acutely embarrassed by this. It was shockingly entitled and aggressive. She should have told her to f* off or just walked away. It seems she did hold her own though. It tells you clearly the attitudes that still exist in the English 'upper' class mind. The expectation of this 'Lady' was that due to her self perceived class status the other woman was duty bound to answer her questions as if she was being interrogated. |
|
graham
Member
Posts: 3,765
Member is Online
|
Post by graham on Dec 1, 2022 9:20:41 GMT
I would be interested to learn the views of older members of the forum who retain vivid memories of the early 1970s. Last night I became embroiled in a very friendly discussion on the period 1969 - 1972 which particularly focussed on the extent of social deference. My own position was that by that time 'social deference' had declined markedly in terms of bowing down to people in positions of authority. We discussed authority groups such as -policemen - politicians - members of the clergy - judicial figures - senior members of the armed forces - schoolmasters particularly headmasters - etc.I contended that there was far less inclination by that time to unquestioningly accept the views of such people without challenge - relative to what the position had been in - say - the late 1950s/early 1960s. I further suggested that the 'permissive society' was pretty firmly established by the early 1970s. I was not alone in my opinon - but most appeared to take the view that society remained very deferential at that time. Interested to hear what others think!
|
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Dec 1, 2022 9:21:38 GMT
Am I right in thinking that the main tax break for private schools is that they're VAT-exempt by virtue of being charities?
If that's the case, isn't a possible compromise to set the bar for charitable status much higher? If, in order to qualify, a school had to take 50% of its pupils from the combined catchment area of the three nearest comprehensives, and the beneficiaries had to have spent at least two academic years in a comprehensive (ie 11-13, joining the private school intake at 13), then that would surely radically change the social milieu in those schools. Especially if the intake from comprehensives was selected by an independent body on the basis of need, not academic prowess (to avoid the private school creaming off the most able locals). The local authority could pay whatever its budget per pupil.
I don't suppose the likes of Eton would sign up for that, preferring to charge VAT. But a lot of schools would. They would then be genuinely charitable institutions (as many of them originally were) and there could be some useful undermining of entrenched classism.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 1, 2022 9:28:24 GMT
Am I right in thinking that the main tax break for private schools is that they're VAT-exempt by virtue of being charities? If that's the case, isn't a possible compromise to set the bar for charitable status much higher? If, in order to qualify, a school had to take 50% of its pupils from the combined catchment area of the three nearest comprehensives, and the beneficiaries had to have spent at least two academic years in a comprehensive (ie 11-13, joining the private school intake at 13), then that would surely radically change the social milieu in those schools. Especially if the intake from comprehensives was selected by an independent body on the basis of need, not academic prowess (to avoid the private school creaming off the most able locals). The local authority could pay whatever its budget per pupil. I don't suppose the likes of Eton would sign up for that, preferring to charge VAT. But a lot of schools would. They would then be genuinely charitable institutions (as many of them originally were) and there could be some useful undermining of entrenched classism. I think you might forget how cruel teenagers can be and the conflict that might ensue between the two groups. A social engineering experiment on the micro-scale could be really damaging to the individual subjects of the experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Dec 1, 2022 9:30:04 GMT
Anent political profile/leaning of board membership, earlier in the year I conducted a similar exercise to Robbie's and came to the conclusion that it was much more accurate to describe it as anti-Tory rather than pro-Labour. In which case it is broadly reflective of the electorate. Another feature in which it reflects the broader political landscape is the relative coherence/unity of the ROC compared to a more fragmented LOC - you very rarely see ROC on ROC action, but by contrast it's nearly a daily occurrence in relation to the LOC.
Where the board differs most from the broader electorate, is the topics that excite posters. Brexit and Covid, which has less salience for most people, still take up a lot of space on the board. In terms of demographics/gender, the board is predominantly white, male and over 60, and that is clearly reflected in its tone and content.
In terms of number of post, my rate fell dramatically after reaching the status of deity, which was then removed in the spirit of egalitarianism.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2022 9:31:05 GMT
somerjohnIf they are to retain their status as a charity based on their status as a school spaffing money on shooting ranges and rowing lakes and art collections isn't exactly consistent is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 1, 2022 9:31:39 GMT
I would be interested to learn the views of older members of the forum who retain vivid memories of the early 1970s. Last night I became embroiled in a very friendly discussion on the period 1969 - 1972 which particularly focussed on the extent of social deference. My own position was that by that time 'social deference' had declined markedly in terms of bowing down to people in positions of authority. We discussed authority groups such as -policemen - politicians - members of the clergy - judicial figures - senior members of the armed forces - schoolmasters particularly headmasters - etc.I contended that there was far less inclination by that time to unquestioningly accept the views of such people without challenge - relative to what the position had been in - say - the late 1950s/early 1960s. I further suggested that the 'permissive society' was pretty firmly established by the early 1970s. I was not alone in my opinon - but most appeared to take the view that society remained very deferential at that time. Interested to hear what others think! I think much would depend on the class you came from, by the time I was 16 (1977) my working class community was still incredibly deferential (apart from the small minority that belonged to the criminal fraternity, who showed no deference to anyone and violence to many). |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,649
|
Post by steve on Dec 1, 2022 9:37:13 GMT
wb61We're about the same age and I suspect it also has something to do with education, I went to university in 1977 from a local comprehensive ( about 60% were from public schools and nearly all the rest from selective state schools , the environment in terms of deference to authority was substantially different between university and six form.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 1, 2022 9:54:14 GMT
graham
The period you're talking about, the early 70s, coincided with my late school days. Catholic all male boarding schools may not be the best vantage points for observing the social mores and trends of the time, so a caveat has to be applied to my thoughts on the subject you raise!
I'd agree with you that Roy Jenkins' celebrated permissive society (he rightly called it the civilised society) had established itself by the early 70s but it still had much road to run in terms of progress. I think deference to authority was in decline and the primacy of institutions more readily questioned, but the class system was still firmly established and bringing with it all those age old and long standing assumptions about who should wield power in society.
One of the factors that started to loosen the stultifying effect of deference in the 60s was the growth of political satire and the loosening of censorship. "That Was the Week that Was", a TV political satire show that attracted a vast audience, was groundbreaking with its lampooning and ridicule of once revered political and establishment figures who were until then more or less immune to such treatment.
|
|
|
|
Post by caroline on Dec 1, 2022 9:57:50 GMT
Thank you to all of you who offered support after my post yesterday. Kindness is not dependent on which side of the political spectrum you favour. The ambulance came after 5 and a half hours and the paramedics were excellent. No broken bones but pain and confusion persists The outcome could have been worse. It is almost impossible to describe the overwhelming feeling of helplessness in such situations and many many people are experiencing similar situations as the services we have all become dependent on are collapsing. I share Steve’s anger at this state of affairs but feel totally powerless knowing it is going to get worse when the ambulance crew and nurses go on strike.
As a socialist I have always supported collectivist provision of welfare services and essential services such as transport etc but now I am considering private medical insurance for myself ( too late for my husband as he is uninsurable) , I have even had internal self dialogue trying to justify this on the basis of owning my own home (private housing). This of course is what the current government wants all us (who can afford it ) to do and if we do (to enhance our own security) we will end up in a situation where others less fortunate are going to be left with a rump service that lets poorer people die needlessly. I think the latest mortality figures suggest this is already happening. Similar outcomes have already happened in education where poor areas have the worst schools and children have lower educational achievements and consequently poorer life chances and it has happened in housing where substandard housing is causing illness and recently a childs’ death.
Why are we letting this happen in one of the richest countries in the world? No-one needs billions (or even millions) to live happy contented lives and those who think they do have often achieved wealth through little effort on their own part ( family inheritance of money and/or privileged educational opportunities) whilst those who are “self made” seldom reflect on the labour of others in creating their wealth.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Dec 1, 2022 10:01:46 GMT
I would be interested to learn the views of older members of the forum who retain vivid memories of the early 1970s. Last night I became embroiled in a very friendly discussion on the period 1969 - 1972 which particularly focussed on the extent of social deference. My own position was that by that time 'social deference' had declined markedly in terms of bowing down to people in positions of authority. We discussed authority groups such as -policemen - politicians - members of the clergy - judicial figures - senior members of the armed forces - schoolmasters particularly headmasters - etc.I contended that there was far less inclination by that time to unquestioningly accept the views of such people without challenge - relative to what the position had been in - say - the late 1950s/early 1960s. I further suggested that the 'permissive society' was pretty firmly established by the early 1970s. I was not alone in my opinon - but most appeared to take the view that society remained very deferential at that time. Interested to hear what others think! I think much would depend on the class you came from, by the time I was 16 (1977) my working class community was still incredibly deferential (apart from the small minority that belonged to the criminal fraternity, who showed no deference to anyone and violence to many). I think that there is another group who still retained the unquestioning respect of the broad sweep of the working class, doctors, especially GP's were pretty much deified in the community within which I grew up. This has now changed, but I would suggest it was well into the eighties before it happened.
I also think that it was men who were regarded with the levels of deference which we recall. At this point in time, and I am a pretty much the same age as you wb61, I had never met a woman doctor, there were no women vicars or methodist ministers, women head teachers were restricted to all girls schools, women science teachers were rare, women business owners and politicians unusual. Although I grew up in a constituency with a woman mp, that changed with the election of David Owen. The march of the women, I would argue, made a really big difference to levels of deference within the whole of society, and it was often slowest and most resisted in organisations like trade unions. |
|
patrickbrian
Member
These things seem small and undistinguishable, like far off mountains turned into clouds
Posts: 316
|
Post by patrickbrian on Dec 1, 2022 10:03:13 GMT
Somerjohn
"Am I right in thinking that the main tax break for private schools is that they're VAT-exempt by virtue of being charities?"
I'll see if I can find the document later, but as I remember, they got a huge amount of donations from rich parents/old boys and then claimed tax back on it
because the school was a charity.
Basically they're not charities. They are ways the very rich funnel money back to themselves and keep their families insulated from the rest of the world. They're not all bad - they give space for the Arts, and encourage some critical thinking, - but essentially they're horrible. I'm not saying labour should abolish them ( though i wish they had in the 60s ) but charities they are not.
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Dec 1, 2022 10:16:40 GMT
caroline, I somehow missed your post(s) yesterday, and wanted to add a belated message of concern and solidarity to you. The private health thing is a ghastly problem for those of us who really believe in collective provision. My partener ended up paying for a minor operation last year after it became clear that it would take years for it to be available on the NHS and while he waited it became more and more serious and the condition became more and more restricting. He is my carer and being partially incapacitated himself was putting huge strain on him and me. People like yourself and him, who already take on so many of the burdens that society as a whole could do so much more to support have a free pass in terms of compromises in your principles as far as I am concerned. It isn't a conflict which I would wish on anyone. I send you good wishes and hope that your situation improves. All the Best.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 1, 2022 10:16:42 GMT
Covid seven day hospital admissions (England only) up 11% in the latest figures.
Coming out of the trough, quite quickly, and those hospital A&E waiting times will start to balloon again shortly.
|
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Dec 1, 2022 10:18:03 GMT
Am I right in thinking that the main tax break for private schools is that they're VAT-exempt by virtue of being charities? If that's the case, isn't a possible compromise to set the bar for charitable status much higher? If, in order to qualify, a school had to take 50% of its pupils from the combined catchment area of the three nearest comprehensives, and the beneficiaries had to have spent at least two academic years in a comprehensive (ie 11-13, joining the private school intake at 13), then that would surely radically change the social milieu in those schools. Especially if the intake from comprehensives was selected by an independent body on the basis of need, not academic prowess (to avoid the private school creaming off the most able locals). The local authority could pay whatever its budget per pupil. I don't suppose the likes of Eton would sign up for that, preferring to charge VAT. But a lot of schools would. They would then be genuinely charitable institutions (as many of them originally were) and there could be some useful undermining of entrenched classism. It's more than that. Charities don't pay tax on income from primary purpose trading,donations, most investment income, capital gains and in England (and Wales?) they only pay 20% of business rates due ( state schools pay business rates) The Scottish Government has removed the business rate discount for private schools in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 1, 2022 10:26:23 GMT
Good luck Caroline with all you have to deal with in relation to your husband's health.
P.S. Very sad to hear too of the death of Christine McVie. One of the most grounded superstar musicians of them all. Great voice, utterly distinctive and instantly recognisable, she was a brilliant songwriter too. Stalwart of the ever imploding Fleetwood Mac and a rock of stability for them, I would think. Saw Mac in Berlin a few years ago and she was the stand out performer in the band, both musically and vocally. Her songs their best too. RIP Christine. .
|
|
