As a teacher, this was very encouraging. Often, and undeniably, schools are pinpointed to fix every societal issue, but Phillipson's focus on early maths, for example, suggest that she is a minister-in-waiting with plans. Schools need to be able to teach and remember that education is just one strand of a child's life. Let's fix the learning and teaching and then see what follows. It very much felt like an interview that suggested she was going to under-promise and over-deliver.
Like a breath of fresh air. A down-to-earth and pragmatic approach to a hugely challenging area with limited resources. I feel she will be a pair of safe hands.
Does anyone else feel like she didn't give tangible solutions? Yes the state of affairs is dismal, educational standards need improvement etc etc. But what is Labour going to do, and how are they going to deliver that in their policy?
Labour already know what to do because they have already done it when Blair was in power. They have a past record of fixing education ONLY to have the Tories ruin it again.
Really interested to listen to Bridget Philipson. She grew up in extreme poverty with a single mother who faced domestic abuse. She worked hard to become successful with the disadvantages she faced. Her becoming the future education secretary when she attended state schools is an advantage for state schools as a whole.
I went to a state school, family could not afford to send me to university so I did an engineering apprenticeship. From that I joined a company as an engineer and finally became the Managing Director after 10 years. The company grew ten fold and became very profitable (I didn’t own it). I sent my son to a state primary school that let him down badly and blamed him. So we sent him to a private school where he ended up with triple A results. He went onto university and got a first. Would I do it all again? Yes Labour policy is the politics of envy. I know what it’s like to have nothing, to have children take the pi- out of you because the soles are coming off of your shoes. Anyone can work hard and do well some chose to do so others expect the state to support them. I suspect she would add wealth tax, tighten inheritance tax, increase council tax even though the richest pay over 60.% of all the taxes collected. Same old Labour with new actors.
@@novainvicta "I suspect she would add wealth tax, tighten inheritance tax, increase council tax even though the richest pay over 60.% of all the taxes collected" sounds good to me, most of the people I've met or worked for are dumb as a plank. Getting into the top 5% is a mixture of luck, confidence and a tiny bit of skill. If youre kind an honest, theres no way youll get there.
@@Vandel96Have to totally disagree. At 16 I set a goal to get there. My family were really poor four brother sharing a bedroom with two bunk beds and no central heating. Took me 10 years to get into a management role and a further 10 to run a multi-national company I built up by long hours and hard graft with my colleagues. It was American money but a British success. Both the Conservatives and Labour have ruined Britain since WWII. Labour saddled the schools and NHS with costly PPP loans we have still not paid off. Conservatives pulled us out of Europe and made everyone poorer. Neither party deserves to govern.
She’s an amazing example of a working class background, she gets what the struggle is for the average person in the uk. How can someone like rishi or someone from the Tory party understand what the typical working class person has to go through on a daily basis??
Rory's line of argument circa 40 minutes is so bizarre. You can't divorce historic decisions on infrastructure, industrial strategy, economic policy from the party that has been in power for the vast majority of recent history.
He is spot on though, she is naive. We have issues for which the resolutions would be deeply unpopular for a significant section of the electorate, and have had issues that have made any potential solutions more difficult. I havent heard statement or policy that is much more than sales pitch; todo so is likely to prevent a party getting into power. Changing of the guard may alleviate the voter frustration but I doubt long term it will make any difference whatsoever.
Well although the Tory PPE fast lane was straight corruption pure and simple that had nothing to do with furlough money which was extremely poorly distributed and helped the wealthy more than the poor by a huge factor. The average for every person was 15000 pounds, I don't know about you but I Diddnt get anything like that. @@CmdrTobs
@@robfodder5575 Labour aside, I don't think he was spot on. Rory has a tendency to assume there is always an objective/technocratic/moderate/sensible solution to things and that silly/immature/tribal/ideological people just can't see them. It's a one dimensional view of politics that cannot acknowledge that people have different philosophies and ideas of what constitutes a good outcome. It's quite patronising and disingenuous considering that he is definitely trained in such ideas as a PPE graduate. Bridget made a perfectly decent fist at explaining her view re the role of the state. It's quite bizarre to see him bristle at this like it's a personal attack given his self-awareness in other areas. And she was right to point out that Rory's account of politics conveniently negates any sense of agency or responsibility for individual politicians and their parties. Though in a sense these structural problems are bigger than party politics, the majority of them came to be as long-term consequences of decisions made by (mostly Conservative) partisans.
@@ElliottStanley The fundamental issue for me is we have the 'new crew', well most likely, who are evasive about the detail yet vocal about the mess they're inheriting. The latter is fine if you can demonstrate insight, or workable solutions, otherwise its just waffle. WRT agency, I didn't interpret that to the same extent. Of course there are actions and consequences which can be attributed but decisions are taken, or not, for all sorts of reasons and ignoring the detail is a frustrating aspect of politics.
I am hugely impressed by Briget, she is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent woman who means well. My daughter goes to a small private school paying just over £9k a year (most private schools near us charge almost that much per term!). I suspect that I will absorb the tax and keep her there because I like the small size of the school and the quality of education and most children are driven. I am content to pay more so that the 93% of children can have better school buildings and more maths teachers. None of the parents at the school are rich though, they are middle class professionals. Some of the parents sacrifice hugely to send their children their, they are the ones who will likely withdraw their children which may endanger the school's viability. All things considered, I am supportive of the policy even though it will be painful on my wallet. We need to put the national interest first, not our personal needs.
It’s reassuring to see how many really smart people are poised to take government. It’s even more encouraging that so many of these people come from what used to be called “working class “. Oh joy. UK won’t be run by the good old boys.
@@SuezWSuezW Well generally it's the complete opposite. Idiots tend to not be able to much identify stupidity. That's probably why they are so stupid. If they could identify it then they could rectify (or at the very least mediate) it.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Interesting you should say that. I live in Canada and I've seen many, many recent interviews, parliamentary and other speeches both from your Conservative and Labour party MPs. The Conservatives are usually silly, patronizing and/or complete liars.Several are apparently unhinged, including cabinet ministers. Perhaps it's not that hard for the Labour ones especially, to come over as much smarter. I remember a set of exchanges in your HoC between your PM Johnson and a number of Labour women MPs after Jo Cox was murdered that was truly shocking in his callousness, coarseness and machismo.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Good comment. I left Britain during the early 80s Thatcher regime, - she and her cohort seem to have changed the country beyond all recognition. If that is so, then perhaps the best you can get is a _competent_ administration for the present. Seriously the kind of tribalism that we see in many countries today is useless and dangerous. Anyhoo, I've been going through some of the Rest is Politics (Leading) in-depth interviews with Labour shadow ministers (Reeves, Rayner, Streeting and Phillipson) and I am very impressed with them, so we await developments! I'll also be up to see the results - although I have the advantage that your pools close at 5pm my time! Good luck, plucky Brits!
This was fascinating. I saw a woman talking to 2 men :- BP answers were so careful, complicated and taking care of the details , whereas both men seemed almost hung up on the historical sweep/big picture/headline. She seemed to drill down to details - and I found her deeply thought through. BP (and Rachel Reeves) both came about as being comfortable with appearing humourless, and not 'turning on the charm", (as opposed Angela Rayner), and both men seemed thrown by the dry deliver, her lack of news to please.
Interesting. I think she comes across well, and Rory’s questioning seemed often to be at a tangent. However with Rachel reeves, I think she was unable to answer under Rory’s questioning. Just my opinion
I think Rory highlights a good point by picking up that she is a little bit tribal. But where is pushing the question of “what about the children?” I think he is making a big deal about a very small issue. Private schools will have the choice of whether to pass on the VAT costs on to the school fees. And not all families who would have to pay higher school fees would pull their kids out of education. Changing school can be challenging but it doesn’t necessarily mean it is a negative.
Also,.. state school puplis have always had to deal with the problem changing schools as parents are forced to move for ever more precarious work. They've somehow managed to do it without a single impassioned call from Rory for state support for their transition. Also, also, the parents of any such affected pupils now have 30,000 pounds a year spare, which should cover the mental health support for their precious little flowers.
@@poneill65some of these “precious little flowers” are children with special needs who will now not receive an education which can transform their happiness and achievement.
Rorys dismissal of the answer to the demography question he asked is hilarious. Lack of affordable housing and rising costs of living is a key factor that discourages young adults and families to consider starting a family or having more children. First saying he's unsure because the problem exists for "more equal, wealthier societies" and that other big factors like COVID (valid) and Ukraine (really?!) before spinning off to a different topic without actually stating his view in full on the matter. The birthrate has been falling consistently since 2010 (post GFC) so we can assume that Bridget is right in saying that economics is a factor that impacts family planning. While I enjoy the value of the podcast, it can also be quite frustrating when Rory tries to overcomplicate things like this. Maybe it's the way politicians and politicians work but some problems can be fixed with simple solutions from simple conclusions: if housing, nurseries, and living costs are too expensive in relation to income people will have less children (or wait until they are older and potentially infertile). On wealthier societies, having less children is a lifestyle choice. It doesn't require statistics to realise this but women of greater financial means have historically not had as much children. That comes with greater choice in the lifestyles they have (high earning job, business, holidays, leisure) than those without the means - often their children being a focal point of their life outside of a job that doesn't give them the same freedoms to (holiday, leisure, etc.).
It is a complicated topic but I for one can attest to the fact that economic pressures have delayed the timeline for when my wife and I want to have children. Financial stability is important to me if bring another human into the world. Having said that, Rory is right that the issue of birth rates is more complicated than simply financial stability.
14:19 They talk about 'class' and how it affects us. I would argue it is wealth (or the absence of it) that affects us all. Those with wealth don't always have class! BoZo and Real-Smugg come to mind here.
I have such an issue with the way Labour constantly push Corbyn as a big bad, Labour should be pushed far far more on their lack of ambition. Bridget talks about child poverty being an important area to cover, yet they will not commit to removal of the two child benefit cap. The fact is the central party have made political choices around tax because they are more interested in winning the largest majority possible, than actually committing to progressive taxation to tackle these issues. The Party have placed left leaning policy in a box because Keir cares more about his majority than making a difference to the country.
I would have liked to see Bridget talk a bit more about how she would try to increase creativity in schools and raise early maths attainment. A bit more detailed discussion would show us that she has the knowledge to really move the country forward on education.
Leading should interview Gary Steveson. A perfect example of someone who broke through the class barrier. Gary may be the only working-class man to have done so in his sector. Gary is a perfect example of how the UK fails to utilise all of the talent available.
I’ve never heard Bridget Phillipson speak before and I have to say that I very much liked her. I thought she was that rarest of things, a conviction politician. I look forward to seeing her at work as the education minister.
'Will Labour's Private School Tax Fix Education In Britain?' One of Britain's fundamental problems is that it seeks 'quick fixes' to problems that are decades old.
@@jagchahal1393 Totally disagree . The NHS was much better and had it's highest satisfaction levels ever , sure start , building schools for the future , kids lifted out of poverty . No they werent perfect , but they have got to be better than the shit show of the last 14 years .
@@scooby1992I worked for the nhs in a clinical role when labour were in government, and waiting lists were down, less than 12 weeks for a routine appointment, scans etc were completed within two weeks. I’ve just waited 18 months for an urgent appointment under the Tory government.
Can't believe that you have the brass neck to say that after the damage that has been done to the country over the past 14 years. Totally deluded. @@jagchahal1393
@@RAF1998-l3c I agree . I have spent 37 years working in the NHS under Tory , Labour , Coalition and Tory Gvts . It was never perfect and is a massive challenge to sort out for whoever is in power , but people werent waiting for hours on the back of ambulances or on corridors in A and E before ambulance crews are even able to handover patients . People also werent waiting 2 or 3 hours for ambulances when one should turn up in 18 minutes .
Rory's blather about the poor private school kids having their life disrupted bacause they have to move schools, shows he's still got proper Tory blood in his veins. Newsflash, Rory, thousands upon thousands of kids have to move to a different school because their non-rich parents have to move where the jobs are. Those kids managed...
When Rory went all "Think of the children!!!" on her she should have politely reminded him that due to the Tories destruction of jobs and work securities over decades, millions of state school children have had their lives upended as their parents have been forced to chase work around the country. Perhaps these (hypothetical) hard done by little public school children should approach this change as a life lesson, an opportunity to learn how to adapt to change, a chance to meet some "working class friends" (and hence maybe become better future prime ministers).
@@CmdrTobs Says the master of thoughtlessness. If you pull your head out of your fundament for a second, you might realise that Rory is utterly consumed with the plight of a tiny handful of the 7% of public school students who might ahve to switch, while being completely oblivious to the fact that this exact situation has been endured for decades by the other 93%, without so much as a peep from him. Kids have to switch schools all the time, without the government transition support he clearly thinks his priviliged little cohort deserve. No wonder he gripes later about her not caring about people like him,.. the entitled Eton epigenome cleary overrides any decent underlying genetic disposition.
@@CmdrTobs Rory is the one asking the idiotic and blinkered question, repeatedly. This entire thread doesn't exist without his fundamental misunderstanding and bias In case you foolishly think this is just some random interjection from the we hate Rory club,... you might try connecting your brain cells together. I'm told they function better that way.
Rory: they'll support the children moving in the same way they support any child moving from one school to another. Further, *IF* it's a good thing to do, the benefits of the policy are clearly going to outweigh the cost of disruption caused by the change - change happens once.
The message that I believe is resonating for Labour at the moment is integrity and honesty. It is very much the antidote to the Conservative blunders of Partygate, Truss, and Brexit. I believe the public is tired of hearing narratives about promising the world, we’d rather hear the harsh reality of where we are and what can realistically be done to improve things.
Could the aim not to make all schools great? I've recently been in touch with all political parties after I was asked to remove both my boys ages 7 and 8 from the private school near Avon, Bristol. All because I politely complainted and questioned why the teacher told me she didn't have time to read a dyslexia report when there were only 12 in the classroom. My son wasn't assessed along side his pears whilst he was in the school. In a letter I was told the promise the head teacher gave me as a parent 'wasn't contractual' and therefore didn't stand. The promise and the reason why I chose the school was because I was told the school had everything in place for a child with dyslexia. I've since informed them a verbal contact in the UK does stand. The school offered £20k as hush money and offered to increase it when I wouldn't take it and threatened to take them to County Court. They never took responsibility or apologised. That's all I wanted. Before I left the school and whilst fighting for my childs education, I applied to the local authority for an EHC assessment and has been given an EHCP purely because the private school had no data, no assessments, no contingency plan. Nothing. He is only dyslexic. Getting an EHCP for a child with dyslexia is almost unheard of and normally requires a tribunal, but I was given it with no dispute. My child's education is now protected. That's all I ever wanted. This school and many others charge for additional support, this is against the Equality Act 2010 but it happens in so many private schools. We're not all the same, why are children who don't learn the same be charged extra because their brain is different. We're in a state school now, and I absolutely couldn't be happier, both boys are being educated.
I like you both, but this time Rory annoyed me with the way he kept demonstrating his own tribal loyalties and prejudices: "what about the poor fee-paying parents?", "one-nation tories work really hard too", "any sane MP would say how frustrated they get in Westminster". Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson both strike me as serious-minded, disciplined public servants who are determined to put right the total disarray left after 14-years of Tory posturing and play-politicking. Of course, serious-minded women seldom go down well in the backslapping boy's club.
I am certainly not in the right wing backslapping boys club, but both of theose women gave me a negative impression, unlike Angela Raynor. Both of them were adept at refusing to answer straight questions, or choosing to answer the questions that they wanted you to ask.
Agreed. Rory's 'poor, posh, privaleged people' routine is getting tiring. As is his judgemental putdowns of the female guests at the end, that they should be 'more respectful' and 'more natural' becasuse he thinks that's how they should behave. He's an incredibly self-imporatnt person
Respectfully I think that is utter nonsense. The tribal loyalties were certainly coming from Bridget. Rory was speaking as someone undecided coming from the right and he was seeing how inclusive she is and how she was going to improve education for ALL where it would be at least on par with private schools. Unfortunately she failed. No detail, only breakfast club, mental health support and more sport. Is maths and science a dirty word, what about how she is going to improve technical courses and apprenticeships. How are Labour going to tackle discipline and teachers leaving in droves. My criticism of the interview were the soft ball questions she got as a 'serious minded woman' with Alister answering the questions for her and smiling all the way through. My child's education is not a joke, unfortunately I can't afford private education and I'm not sure that interview inspired me but at least my kid will get breakfast.
Rory, kids change schools every time their parents move for a new job or a new apartment. While changing schools is a big dislocation for all kids, it’s not a unique class of problem for the kids who may leave private for state schools. Schools have had to help new kids get oriented since the beginning of time.
RS: "My crowd (including the hard working decent ones) have wrecked the country but she just didn't seem to really like people like me, and wasn't willing to guarantee state aid for all the hard-done-by public school children that might have to move". Good on her I say, many of us would be more direct. Accountability and responsibility and all that! These working class types! “Does anyone ever say: ‘You know what, you’ve done a f**king good job, because everyone else has sat on their arse and done nothing?’ No signs of that, no?”
Yeah. He really comes across as a petulant Etonian at times, the self-appointed expert on everything. Same in the Reeves interview. His brain is stuck firmly in his own little privelged world - 'I thought she could have been more respectful'. With Reeves it was, 'I think she should be more natural'. Everytime he does his, 'So, so, so, so, so, so' as he interrupts or 'Ok, let me just give a quick explainer', I groan.
As a music teacher, I'll be watching with great interest. Whilst I'm fairly lukewarm about Labour's manifesto for secondary schools, I am pleased to see that the arts takes such a prominent position, after decades of neglect. I very much hope that over the next 5 years, Bridget Phillipson can start to deal with some of the immense challenges the education system faces.
By Bridget's logic we should put VAT on university fees, books, nurseries etc., the former of which benefits the wealthier on average and receives government subsidies - not taxing education is not a 'benefit' or 'subsidy', it should be the baseline, particularly for something that actually reduces the burden on public services. I believe the motivation for this has less to do raising funds than an ideological opposition to wealthier parents being able to advantage their kids - an odd goal given that's something almost every parent wants to do. If that's the case, I'm not convinced it will even work as intended. If those parents who were paying for for private schools have to move their kids into state school, they won't suddenly lose interest in their child's success, they'll just take those savings and spend them on other advantages (e.g. after-school clubs, exam tutors etc.), the only difference being that they are now costing the state more in doing so.
@PJH13 University education is a much more accessible and has a much wider subscription than does fee paying primary and secondary schools. Indeed on average these schools charge £15k per year versus £9k for university! Uni Students are of course better placed to work to fund their studies - impossible for school kids. It is a myth that fee paying schools reduce the burden precisely because of the tax break of on average £3k per pupil, canceling much of the tax that parents pay toward state education. There is spare capacity in the state sector anyway so, the marginal cost of some of the private school kids switching will be slight. What's more and as you've pointed out, parents who switch will spend the fee money elsewhere and the govt will still get the VAT anyway.
1. Why should the purchase of privilege be tax exempt? 2. If the children of highly engaged parents move to state school, that will raise the standard (and even possibly private funding) of those schools and everyone benefits. 3. If parents choose to pay for the additional services you mention, the government will also receive vat on those services.
@@desmondroberts6034 On your first point, university access is wide because the government subsidises people to go there; if you offered those kind of subsidies to attend private schools, the participation rate would be much higher! Furthermore it remains true that they are still predominantly attended by those from wealthier upper and middle class backgrounds and lead to higher incomes, so if wealth is the criteria for taxing education they should be included. Your view doesn't seem grounded in a truly consistent principle and is more along the lines of "most wealthy people should receive a subsidy but then we'll try and claw a small portion of it back from some of them." On your second point: "cancelling much of the tax that parents pay to state education" Nonsense, They still pay all the taxes they would pay if their child was in state school, but they remove the need for the government to spend them c. £7.7k to provide their child with a school place - that is reducing the burden, it is not a myth. If as you say there is "spare capacity" in the state sector that doesn't that sort of blow the wheels off your other argument, that there isn't enough funding in the state sector at the moment? That is some impressive doublethink!
@@butsynif 1. So you do think universities should be taxed then? 2.As you have pointed out they are trying to buy an advantage. They would likely decide it's more efficient to put their savings directly towards their child than subsidising a rise in standards across the whole school which would inherently contradict that objective. 3. Most of those services are also VAT exempt, e.g. few tutors earn above the £90k registration threshold and clubs are often counted as childcare. Even if that were true though, the VAT raised will be materially less than the extra cost the state incurs for educating the child and the child would still have a massive advantage - mission not accomplished!
@@PJH13 The subsidy of university is offered as loans paid back when the graduate achieves a given income. Universities are well attended by those of the working class, I am one such. You're assuming that each private school kid has £7.7k of tax paid on their behalf toward state school by their parents. How do you know? What if they pay £2k and are then exempted from £3k VAT? The spare capacity is in desk space in class rooms, so these kids could be accomodated. The school buildings, the heat and light are paid for regardless. The lack is in suitably qualified teachers - its reported that you've got class room assistants being expected to teach. Additional qualified teachers need to provided whether the class is full or not. Labour want to provide an additional 6500 teachers. Anyhow, Labour's policy has been examined by the IFS - its available online, I read the executive summary. They find that its financially credible.
So using Rory logic, he worries more about a few children having to go to a state school than those children that are forced to go to schools that cannot fund adequate teachers in STEM subjects,
no he does not worry MORE. he is just asking the question to the person who will be in charge of what happens to those kids. if the fact that he worries at all is so troubling to you, that is sad.
@@DiogoFerreira He asked the question for a few minutes, with waffly answers because, quite frankly, it's irrelevant. Children change schools all the time. It's not great for continuity of education and it's jarring emotionally, but kids are resilient.
A bit tiring to hear about higher taxes for high earners in Sweden when everyone in Sweden pays income tax, and at a quite high rate, unlike UK. I am not against paying more taxes but it seems it is required from everyone
It won't change a thing. The VAT raid was initially for "mental health" in schools. Then it was for new teaching posts. Now it is for mental health, new teachers and careers advice services. Every fee-paying school pupil who leaves to join a state school will have to be paid for by the taxpayer. Every fee-paying school redundancy means less PAYE and NI. Every fee-paying school closure means another closed business.
You can go after Corbyn on his foreign policy or on antisemitism or what have you, those are fair areas of critique, and I may well agree with you on a lot of it, but attacking his class politics is just insane.
You have to understand that she wants to pull the ladder up after her, to make sure noone from a poorer background can ever thrive again. That’s why she got into politics, to kill democracy and maximise the suffering of the working class. From that oerspective Corbyns class politics are antithetical to her.
Corbyn preached the politics of hate and envy, much like Trump, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Un etc. Corbyn hates people who go out to better themselves. BP was absolutely right that working class people want to go and have a holiday, be secure in their lives, build a loft conversion. Corbyn would get in the way of that as he wanted to tax people making progress!
His foreign policy although flawed was centered around peace which is not an objective many can oppose. But the constant attacks for antisemitism is ridiculous, Corbyn has never discriminated against Jewish people
Being A Swede with little knowledge of the UK school system but listening to the criticism of it I am astonished it can support bright people like Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson being able to move even though the Oxford/Cambridge establishment. How come?
She’s absolutely spot on about demography and it’s not even a difficult topic for a government to grasp. We literally cannot afford to have kids. I had my first at 35
Rory what about the kids from state schools that will loose out if the private school fee's are not taxed. Bet there would be more kids that may suffer.
why will they loose out? its better now because kids in private school are leaving the state with 7.5k each year, if even 15% leave its break even for the government.
@@1themikka Pure logic- the less taxes paid, less there be for society to distribute to the most needy. I know I am suprised that I said that aswell. Kids are the future if you keep them all dumb then people like Trump, Johnston and Putin come and stay in power. Education is the only way forward. Unless you are on the extreme of politics.
Hey Rory, you seem consumed by angst that any children forced to leave their public schools will not be given the state support they deserve for the arduous transition by the Labour government. Perhaps you can console yourself with the realisation that their parents MIGHT be able to stretch the 30,000 pounds a year they're NOT spending on their school fees to cover mental health support for them. I'm sure an eminently reasonable chap such as yourself would agree that those savings are best used rather than limited state budgets.
What she says on the population of school age at 26.52 is simply not true. The population under fifteen has been steadily growing, and continues to do so.
Over the last 5 years, private school fees have risen by 1.2% per annum more than average wages, or 6% cumulatively over 5 years. A 1.2% real terms increase per annum may not have forced parents back into the state sector, but a 20% tax hit in one year is a different proposition entirely.
Initial numbers have shown that even though almost everyone suspects a 20% increase, there has been less than a 3% increase in applications. Let's also think that a huge amount of private schools are over subscribed, so that 3% does NOT mean less students it means smaller waiting lists. The private schools can take alot of that 20% hit, they have huge amounts of land they can hire out, sports facilities that can be used on weekends to make more money, sports fields that can be hire, halls for weddings etc. They have SOOOO many resources it is a joke.
One of the first times I’ve ever heard a politician admit that your class hugely dictates your direction and chance to succeed in life and as a minimum have dignity. Very refreshing.
I think it would be a very good thing if private school pupils transfer to state education, as their parents are generally well connected and will insist that the state system improves. Same can be said of the health service.
There are very old parts like Westminster Hall (where the lying- -in-State takes place) but the externals and most of the internal structures are less than 200 years old, and the House of Commons chamber dates back to the Second Works War, having been destroyed by the Lufwaffe.
It seems to me that a simple way to destroy the "what about current pupils?" argument is just to introduce VAT for kids as they start a new phase of education, say starting with kids going into years 1, 3, 7, and 12 this September. We'd get perhaps half of the revenue by September 2025 and would get the full VAT amount within the lifetime of the government.
I honestly wish BP would give an example at 18:55 of something personal or an anecdote of someone who has done this either to her or someone else. Maybe Starmers personal story is informing this take who knows? This idea of classism on the "hard left" towards people isn't something I've encountered much among the hard left. People wh support these kinda of policies just want redistribution and growth of the pie investment. Maybe the people in charge don't and it comes across but blame the person who put the person in charge not the people who support the ideas of the movement as a whole.
Certainly rang true with my experience of the student left for whom these topics amount to hypothetical discussions with a set of well rehearsed and predetermined 'correct positions'.
@@ElliottStanley Honestly the student left can go grow up and live in the real world. And there exists people of that persuasion in every movement and political persuasion. They don't seem to care about how issues affect people. Its purely about the issue itself and winning on your side.
I normally like Rory, but he was so precious in this interview. It is nauseating to hear him repeatedly ask women to sell themselves to him, and then complain when they are not appropriately obsequious.
Most of the tories take governing for granted and can’t cope when they are out of power. Also again it shows anyone can get into politics regardless of their background
She's a professional politician very much in the image of her leader, Rachel Reeves etc. Emily Thornberry made a gaffe that class sizes were going to increase under the private school policy which Phillipson was quick to slap down.
The simple fact is we haven't got enough money to support ; peoples life style choices . If you have enough money to pursue private education then 20% more is not a problem . It's the same for Heat Pumps they are too expensive for ordinary people why subsidize people who can afford them . I am not convinced they are green until you sort out electricity production and the National Grid .
There is lots to admire in Bridget Phillipson but it is really annoying when politicans say that early years education is the 'single most important factor' affecting childrens' attainment. More important than socio-economic status? Every education minister thinks that they are in a unique position to 'improve education' with their tinkering around the edges.
For the last fourteen years, the public school system has illustrated why any one group shouldn't dominate. In truth to date, it's always been that way. For everyone's sake, It needs to change. For example, the Industrial Revolution was largely powered by working people. A Scadevian economic model would be preferable.
Not to be rude but I don’t really care that much about already well off children having to move schools, from private to state sector. It has happened for time immemorial with kids in the state sector, particularly those in rented accommodation, who have had to move schools when there tenancies ended and they couldn’t find anywhere else near enough to the school and nobody really bats an eyelid about it. I had a number of kids in my school who had to do that.
Rory saying he won't vote for her because she's not thinking about the poor private school students moving schools, when there are 4.3 million children in poverty
After this interview, I am lot less enthusiastic about the next labour government. They will be an improvement over the current government, who wouldn't, but they don't have any solid ideas on what they want to do.
what about school support staff not once does she mention support staff (ie teaching assistants ect) support staff are by far the lowest payed member so school staff
Rory. Is it a punishment to go to a state school? If you believe that, why did you support a government that allowed 93 percent to be punished that way?
Rory, the structural problems you faced were caused by bankers and the tory response was to blame the poor and disabled and reduce their life circumstances. I generally like ypur analysis - but ignoring your party's deliberate ploy of diverting attention away from the guilty to the innocent makes me think my attitude
There's something weirdly disappointing about this interview. Phillipson comes across a tad too well rehearsed, never, ever, straying from script. At first glance she says the right things, but never escapes the tired, hollow, easy Corbyn bashing that we might now expect to belong to history. Despite achieving (by a wide margin) her best electoral result while Labour was led by Corbyn (Houghton & Sunderland South, 2017) Phillipson is entirely dismissive of anything the Labour Party of that era stood for, while simultaneously she is far too eager to jump on the Starmer bandwagon of opposing Corbyn for opposition's sake. When Phillipson says "2017 was a funny election in lots of different ways" what is really meant is 'that result doesn't fit our narrative'. For those who might wish to ensure a Labour government for multiple terms rather than just an incredible, if short lived, landslide majority of one term, this interview gives reason to be cautious. A peculiar set of circumstances and a unique electoral arithmetic, whereby the right vote is split and Labour achieves unheard of results, in never before won constituencies, isn't likely to last forever. Without passion the Labour Party will not be able to sustain multiple victories, without passion the Labour Party is unlikely to last beyond one term. This interview is entirely devoid of passion.
I don't know much about her but it sounds like her dislike of Corbyn's politics long precedes the "Starmer bandwagon" of opposing Corbyn - that is, considering Starmer was in the shadow cabinet and she wanted to stay as a backbencher. While it could just be a sly story, it sounds like she genuinely has much more nostalgia for new labour than you give her credit for.
OMG Rory is a thin skinned Tory. She wasnt cold, she was focussed on what matters. What a vain and pompous little man he is. I thought that was Alistairs role, obviously not.
Rory (a former Tory cabinet minister): "A Traditional floating voter like me." :/ Think Phillipson will make an excellent education sec. if Labour win. (I think Rory is a lot more tribal than he protests.)
Oh dear Rory... your disappointment that she didn't pitch to persuade you to join Labour... demonstrates an overriding belief that you are an undeniable asset, per se - a notion that clearly she does not share. I learned at primary school that if I wasn't picked for the team, a) it was their stuff.. they didn't have to want me.. and b) that it might reflect on my shortcomings, rather than theirs..
Wow what a scary person, classist and like granite. Rory tried to squeeze a tiny piece of compassion and empathy out of her and was not able to find one single drop. Tin hats are in order if the new government is peopled by folk like this person.
More Tory than usual ? Rory's challenging a Labour MP on wealth distribution and higher taxes for the rich, suggesting they could do more... does not sound especially Tory to me.
@@WH-hi5ew to me he came across as more critical of policy and more dismissive than usual, also his opposition on ending tax breaks for the wealthy is quite tory
@@zakjaggs9761 True. I thought the show’s premise is ‘to disagree agreeably’, but he seemed uncharacteristically tetchy and overly sensitive. She didn’t bother reaching out to him, however, as Angela Raynor did previously.
Rory is a bit of a bully sometimes and the way he grilled Bridget was appalling. He frequently takes the lead and for the first 30 minutes it was all about him.
She can say all she wants about women being told to smile more, but it’s undeniable that a man with an equally dour, monotone and uninspiring voice would have had a much harder time getting elected. And don’t take my word for it - look at every male guest to have appeared on Leading. Every one of them brought considerably greater charm, humour and likability, while also maintaining an aura of competence. I’ve no doubt that there are challenges that women have in parliament that men don’t, but she conveniently fails to mention the benefits afforded, that men aren’t.
She sort of criticised him heavily while saying nothing of substance about him at all. I don't know what she has got against him. (Not a Corbyn supporter btw.)
@@eightiesmusic1984 I can tell you my problem iwth him. Him saying upfront that he would not use our nuclear capacity in any situation. That is just like playing poker but showing your opponent your cards at the start of every hand. I've no problem with him not ever using it, but for God's sake don't tell anybody that.
So you want to drive up the standards in State schools. By driving some more kids to come into the state schools from private schools where they don't place a burden on the state as they pay for there education, but state schools don't pay. Class sizes will rise, more money will have to be found for these new state school pupils that were in private education.
My wife has worked in private education for almost 20 years, mainly within the lowest price points. Since Brexit, they have been having to scale back and make redundancies. The impact of falling birth rates, the squeeze on the middle class, and the overall foreign attractiveness of Britain since Brexit has meant they are seriously concerned that schools like them will close from the VAT change. They say that it means they will have to cut back on any charity work they previously did. That means not taking children on burseries and not donating to other local schools. I say this to offer an alternative on Bridget's narrative that schools have been raising prices to a point that they can eat the cost of the change without impacting their customers. There will be schools in that scenario and the parents who can afford to send their kids to the middle / upper price points will continue to afford private education. But that doesn't mean that there won't be people who have been barely scraping by to send their kids to private school who won't be able to afford it now, and it doesn't mean that all private schools will be fine. IMO, it is still worth this potential impact for the good of the country. I'm with Alistair that I would scrape private education entirely. It creates a section of people that have no interest in the performance of state education and reinforces class ceilings.
I agree, in that I think the impact of this policy is not being spoken about in an open fashion. Big policies have consequences no matter how well meaning they are. This is one of the major issues/impacts of politics, the consequences of policies need to be thought about and discussed before they occur, and mitigated against if possible. So in this particular case, will this policy lead to some private schools closing, and if so what are the impacts of these schools closing and what will be done if this occurs ?
@lukedaniels7750 There is a falling birth rate, some state schools will need to close it scale back. Given this information this is the perfect time to do the VAT change as we have spare capacity within our state schools over the next 5 years. Here in London the private schools are so over subscribed there is usually a huge waiting list, itbis unlikely the change in VAT make close any of these schools at all and this is the case for a huge section of the private schools. Some may close, yes, but then some would have closed anyhow regardless.of the VAT change.
@@rivgacooper5330 There is a falling birth rate, however because of immigration the population overall is rising, and that includes peole of school age. Therefore we do NOT have spare capacity in our schools system. I'm not against the policy, I'm just saying the long term consequences of it need to be assessed and mitigated for.
@lukedaniels7750 not a huge immigrant children population, immigrants are usually working age when they arrive. So another excuse not to do this gets burned down.
@@rivgacooper5330 not a huge amount of immigrant children, but if you look at the facts, the numbers of children in this country fifteen and under has been steadily rising. Not by much, but it is NOT falling. (google not working atm so i cannot provide links, but they are there.) I'm not saying don't do this, (in fact I explicitly said so in my last post so I don't know why you are suggesting that I am) I am saying, think about the long term consequences of it.
Private schools are anti meritocracy, now we may not be able to close them but we can ensure people going to them produce some counter balance by providing tax funding for other schools.
this country is highly dependent for its tax revenue on about 3 boroughs in london and about 500,000 people. it should show them more respect. they pay for all these incredibly badly managed services. best not attack the golden goose or trying squeezing more from it. these people are highly mobile. hope they leave. they should
The Labour proposed tax on Private Education is one of envy and will not produce the funds expected. In fact children forced out of private education will become a further burden on a state education system which is not producing the highly educated people required for the economy. If it did we would not require highly skilled immigrants. The fact is the national curriculum introduced by Labour is too narrow and doesn’t require science to be taught as three individual subjects. Our children in the state system have been let down by politicians on all sides by the dogma of accepting comprehensive education is the best way forward. It isn’t and it was brought in by a Labour government jealous of the achievement of good Grammar schools followed by left wing conservatives who believed they knew best. In short a disgrace.
I support this policy and it has nothing to do with envy, whatsoever. Private education is such a big money game these days with the top ten independent schools averaging fees of £50K. It's absurd that this sector gets a tax break because of its charity status. Let's not forget, the rates of teacher pay are not much above the state sector.
What absolute drivel. Comprehensive education is one of the finest achievements of the post war era. science is taught as 3 separate subjects. The idea of separating children at age 11 based on ability, and denying those that don’t make the grade access to a wider range of subjects and high quality teaching was archaic and rightly consigned to the dustbin of history. If parents are able to afford £30k+ on school feea, as well as all of the additional costs of private education (extra curricular activities, trips, uniforms etc) they will be able to absorb any costs passed on to them. It will have negligible impact on private school numbers.
I love the delusion of Alistair in still refusing to accept that the anger that led to Brexit & 2019 was created by EU expansion from 2003 onwards, as evidenced by 'bigot-gate' in 2010, following years of elections where ukip increased their vote. The 2019 election was a rejection of the political stalemate around Brexit & NOT a rejection of Corbyn! The massive difference between 17 & 19 manifesto was around brexit policy, not national security as described. I burst o9ut laughing when AC asked 'do you think voters saw labour leaving voters behind in our time?' Look at the collapse in Scotland, where 2015 & 19 saw a single mp elected; the 3rd Scttish election in 2007 saw labour lose 250,000 votes compared to 1999 - Since then, Labour were reduced to a single mp in Scotland and gifted the snp millions of voters; yet under the 'unsafe Jeremy Corbyn' won 7 seats in 2017
@@Red1Green2Blue3 Thankfully there's more than just the 2 parties standing locally - I've never voted Tory, I'm just sick of Campbell's blindness towards labour's arrogance whilst in power - particularly from 2003 onwards. For example look at the Iraq war, where they sent troops in against public opinion & short of basic supplies. As the eu expanded Eastward, they allowed uncontrolled eu migration - (unlike Germany & France) which resulted ultimately in Brexit & the red wall collapsing in 2019; Nothing to do with concerns about Corbyn (who I voted for fyi). The same arrogance led to the snp surging here in Scotland, as Blair's party moved away from Scottish voters from 99-07, creating the roots of the 2014 independence referendum - the division lines of which, still divide Scottish politics to this day. Both these warnings were blindingly obvious to everyone, except Blair & Campbell in London - yet he STILL asks if there were warnings they missed whilst in power
Teacher's perspective: To be honest the gillian interview was far better r.e education. At no point did anyone delve into the issues beyond 'we need more maths'. I would have liked to have seen her response to the reality that schools are massively underfunded. Top 10 school in the south west 500K deficit this year, no trips no paper no pens. But more art...
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
As a teacher, this was very encouraging. Often, and undeniably, schools are pinpointed to fix every societal issue, but Phillipson's focus on early maths, for example, suggest that she is a minister-in-waiting with plans.
Schools need to be able to teach and remember that education is just one strand of a child's life. Let's fix the learning and teaching and then see what follows.
It very much felt like an interview that suggested she was going to under-promise and over-deliver.
Like a breath of fresh air. A down-to-earth and pragmatic approach to a hugely challenging area with limited resources. I feel she will be a pair of safe hands.
Does anyone else feel like she didn't give tangible solutions?
Yes the state of affairs is dismal, educational standards need improvement etc etc. But what is Labour going to do, and how are they going to deliver that in their policy?
Same as they did last time in power
Yup. This election is simply a pressure relief valve for voter frustration; change, any change must be a good thing :-)
Not sure what I learned about Labour in this interview. It was as if she had a “wall” up. Very anodyne
Labour already know what to do because they have already done it when Blair was in power.
They have a past record of fixing education ONLY to have the Tories ruin it again.
This woman seems clever given the face she is from the north and has this accent. I think we should offer boarding school. I am from Surrey
Really interested to listen to Bridget Philipson. She grew up in extreme poverty with a single mother who faced domestic abuse. She worked hard to become successful with the disadvantages she faced. Her becoming the future education secretary when she attended state schools is an advantage for state schools as a whole.
Depends if she supports the entrenched failure of letting bad kids behaviour distract from pupils learning or not. School should be until 4pm
I went to a state school, family could not afford to send me to university so I did an engineering apprenticeship. From that I joined a company as an engineer and finally became the Managing Director after 10 years. The company grew ten fold and became very profitable (I didn’t own it).
I sent my son to a state primary school that let him down badly and blamed him. So we sent him to a private school where he ended up with triple A results. He went onto university and got a first.
Would I do it all again? Yes Labour policy is the politics of envy. I know what it’s like to have nothing, to have children take the pi- out of you because the soles are coming off of your shoes.
Anyone can work hard and do well some chose to do so others expect the state to support them.
I suspect she would add wealth tax, tighten inheritance tax, increase council tax even though the richest pay over 60.% of all the taxes collected.
Same old Labour with new actors.
@@novainvicta "I suspect she would add wealth tax, tighten inheritance tax, increase council tax even though the richest pay over 60.% of all the taxes collected" sounds good to me, most of the people I've met or worked for are dumb as a plank. Getting into the top 5% is a mixture of luck, confidence and a tiny bit of skill. If youre kind an honest, theres no way youll get there.
@@Vandel96Have to totally disagree. At 16 I set a goal to get there. My family were really poor four brother sharing a bedroom with two bunk beds and no central heating. Took me 10 years to get into a management role and a further 10 to run a multi-national company I built up by long hours and hard graft with my colleagues. It was American money but a British success.
Both the Conservatives and Labour have ruined Britain since WWII. Labour saddled the schools and NHS with costly PPP loans we have still not paid off. Conservatives pulled us out of Europe and made everyone poorer. Neither party deserves to govern.
@@novainvicta Your logic has a massive hole in it.
She’s an amazing example of a working class background, she gets what the struggle is for the average person in the uk. How can someone like rishi or someone from the Tory party understand what the typical working class person has to go through on a daily basis??
Rory's line of argument circa 40 minutes is so bizarre. You can't divorce historic decisions on infrastructure, industrial strategy, economic policy from the party that has been in power for the vast majority of recent history.
He is spot on though, she is naive. We have issues for which the resolutions would be deeply unpopular for a significant section of the electorate, and have had issues that have made any potential solutions more difficult. I havent heard statement or policy that is much more than sales pitch; todo so is likely to prevent a party getting into power. Changing of the guard may alleviate the voter frustration but I doubt long term it will make any difference whatsoever.
Well although the Tory PPE fast lane was straight corruption pure and simple that had nothing to do with furlough money which was extremely poorly distributed and helped the wealthy more than the poor by a huge factor. The average for every person was 15000 pounds, I don't know about you but I Diddnt get anything like that. @@CmdrTobs
But you are? 😂 The hubris is astonishing.
@@robfodder5575 Labour aside, I don't think he was spot on. Rory has a tendency to assume there is always an objective/technocratic/moderate/sensible solution to things and that silly/immature/tribal/ideological people just can't see them. It's a one dimensional view of politics that cannot acknowledge that people have different philosophies and ideas of what constitutes a good outcome. It's quite patronising and disingenuous considering that he is definitely trained in such ideas as a PPE graduate. Bridget made a perfectly decent fist at explaining her view re the role of the state. It's quite bizarre to see him bristle at this like it's a personal attack given his self-awareness in other areas. And she was right to point out that Rory's account of politics conveniently negates any sense of agency or responsibility for individual politicians and their parties. Though in a sense these structural problems are bigger than party politics, the majority of them came to be as long-term consequences of decisions made by (mostly Conservative) partisans.
@@ElliottStanley The fundamental issue for me is we have the 'new crew', well most likely, who are evasive about the detail yet vocal about the mess they're inheriting. The latter is fine if you can demonstrate insight, or workable solutions, otherwise its just waffle.
WRT agency, I didn't interpret that to the same extent. Of course there are actions and consequences which can be attributed but decisions are taken, or not, for all sorts of reasons and ignoring the detail is a frustrating aspect of politics.
I am hugely impressed by Briget, she is clearly a thoughtful and intelligent woman who means well. My daughter goes to a small private school paying just over £9k a year (most private schools near us charge almost that much per term!). I suspect that I will absorb the tax and keep her there because I like the small size of the school and the quality of education and most children are driven. I am content to pay more so that the 93% of children can have better school buildings and more maths teachers. None of the parents at the school are rich though, they are middle class professionals. Some of the parents sacrifice hugely to send their children their, they are the ones who will likely withdraw their children which may endanger the school's viability. All things considered, I am supportive of the policy even though it will be painful on my wallet. We need to put the national interest first, not our personal needs.
A good, balanced viewpoint. What will happen to that part of society if the school does close down ? This is a question that does need to be asked.
Good on you 👍
Not Every One is so #LUCKY THOU👨🏼🔧
It’s reassuring to see how many really smart people are poised to take government. It’s even more encouraging that so many of these people come from what used to be called “working class “. Oh joy. UK won’t be run by the good old boys.
She isn't smart.
@@sacredgeometry Shurely it takes one to know one?
@@SuezWSuezW Well generally it's the complete opposite. Idiots tend to not be able to much identify stupidity. That's probably why they are so stupid. If they could identify it then they could rectify (or at the very least mediate) it.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Interesting you should say that. I live in Canada and I've seen many, many recent interviews, parliamentary and other speeches both from your Conservative and Labour party MPs. The Conservatives are usually silly, patronizing and/or complete liars.Several are apparently unhinged, including cabinet ministers.
Perhaps it's not that hard for the Labour ones especially, to come over as much smarter.
I remember a set of exchanges in your HoC between your PM Johnson and a number of Labour women MPs after Jo Cox was murdered that was truly shocking in his callousness, coarseness and machismo.
@@eightiesmusic1984 Good comment. I left Britain during the early 80s Thatcher regime, - she and her cohort seem to have changed the country beyond all recognition. If that is so, then perhaps the best you can get is a _competent_ administration for the present.
Seriously the kind of tribalism that we see in many countries today is useless and dangerous.
Anyhoo, I've been going through some of the Rest is Politics (Leading) in-depth interviews with Labour shadow ministers (Reeves, Rayner, Streeting and Phillipson) and I am very impressed with them, so we await developments!
I'll also be up to see the results - although I have the advantage that your pools close at 5pm my time!
Good luck, plucky Brits!
This was fascinating. I saw a woman talking to 2 men :- BP answers were so careful, complicated and taking care of the details , whereas both men seemed almost hung up on the historical sweep/big picture/headline.
She seemed to drill down to details - and I found her deeply thought through.
BP (and Rachel Reeves) both came about as being comfortable with appearing humourless, and not 'turning on the charm", (as opposed Angela Rayner), and both men seemed thrown by the dry deliver, her lack of news to please.
Interesting points, but maybe you could brush up on your grammar 😅
Interesting. I think she comes across well, and Rory’s questioning seemed often to be at a tangent. However with Rachel reeves, I think she was unable to answer under Rory’s questioning. Just my opinion
I think Rory highlights a good point by picking up that she is a little bit tribal. But where is pushing the question of “what about the children?” I think he is making a big deal about a very small issue. Private schools will have the choice of whether to pass on the VAT costs on to the school fees. And not all families who would have to pay higher school fees would pull their kids out of education. Changing school can be challenging but it doesn’t necessarily mean it is a negative.
Also,.. state school puplis have always had to deal with the problem changing schools as parents are forced to move for ever more precarious work. They've somehow managed to do it without a single impassioned call from Rory for state support for their transition.
Also, also, the parents of any such affected pupils now have 30,000 pounds a year spare, which should cover the mental health support for their precious little flowers.
If she's "a little bit tribal" the Rory is a Tory stooge 😂 it's just hypocrisy
@@poneill65some of these “precious little flowers” are children with special needs who will now not receive an education which can transform their happiness and achievement.
Rorys dismissal of the answer to the demography question he asked is hilarious. Lack of affordable housing and rising costs of living is a key factor that discourages young adults and families to consider starting a family or having more children. First saying he's unsure because the problem exists for "more equal, wealthier societies" and that other big factors like COVID (valid) and Ukraine (really?!) before spinning off to a different topic without actually stating his view in full on the matter. The birthrate has been falling consistently since 2010 (post GFC) so we can assume that Bridget is right in saying that economics is a factor that impacts family planning. While I enjoy the value of the podcast, it can also be quite frustrating when Rory tries to overcomplicate things like this. Maybe it's the way politicians and politicians work but some problems can be fixed with simple solutions from simple conclusions: if housing, nurseries, and living costs are too expensive in relation to income people will have less children (or wait until they are older and potentially infertile).
On wealthier societies, having less children is a lifestyle choice. It doesn't require statistics to realise this but women of greater financial means have historically not had as much children. That comes with greater choice in the lifestyles they have (high earning job, business, holidays, leisure) than those without the means - often their children being a focal point of their life outside of a job that doesn't give them the same freedoms to (holiday, leisure, etc.).
It is a complicated topic but I for one can attest to the fact that economic pressures have delayed the timeline for when my wife and I want to have children. Financial stability is important to me if bring another human into the world. Having said that, Rory is right that the issue of birth rates is more complicated than simply financial stability.
Shes my MP. I already postal voted for her. And i must say i feel much more at ease with my decision after this.
14:19 They talk about 'class' and how it affects us. I would argue it is wealth (or the absence of it) that affects us all. Those with wealth don't always have class! BoZo and Real-Smugg come to mind here.
I have such an issue with the way Labour constantly push Corbyn as a big bad, Labour should be pushed far far more on their lack of ambition. Bridget talks about child poverty being an important area to cover, yet they will not commit to removal of the two child benefit cap. The fact is the central party have made political choices around tax because they are more interested in winning the largest majority possible, than actually committing to progressive taxation to tackle these issues. The Party have placed left leaning policy in a box because Keir cares more about his majority than making a difference to the country.
Consider me impressed. She is clearly both knowledgeable and politically astute.
I would have liked to see Bridget talk a bit more about how she would try to increase creativity in schools and raise early maths attainment. A bit more detailed discussion would show us that she has the knowledge to really move the country forward on education.
Leading should interview Gary Steveson.
A perfect example of someone who broke through the class barrier.
Gary may be the only working-class man to have done so in his sector.
Gary is a perfect example of how the UK fails to utilise all of the talent available.
I'm a teacher, from a working class background and I firmly believe Bridget will change education for the better
I’ve never heard Bridget Phillipson speak before and I have to say that I very much liked her. I thought she was that rarest of things, a conviction politician. I look forward to seeing her at work as the education minister.
'Will Labour's Private School Tax Fix Education In Britain?' One of Britain's fundamental problems is that it seeks 'quick fixes' to problems that are decades old.
Anything labour will touch , will endx up worse.
@@jagchahal1393 Totally disagree . The NHS was much better and had it's highest satisfaction levels ever , sure start , building schools for the future , kids lifted out of poverty . No they werent perfect , but they have got to be better than the shit show of the last 14 years .
@@scooby1992I worked for the nhs in a clinical role when labour were in government, and waiting lists were down, less than 12 weeks for a routine appointment, scans etc were completed within two weeks. I’ve just waited 18 months for an urgent appointment under the Tory government.
Can't believe that you have the brass neck to say that after the damage that has been done to the country over the past 14 years. Totally deluded. @@jagchahal1393
@@RAF1998-l3c I agree . I have spent 37 years working in the NHS under Tory , Labour , Coalition and Tory Gvts . It was never perfect and is a massive challenge to sort out for whoever is in power , but people werent waiting for hours on the back of ambulances or on corridors in A and E before ambulance crews are even able to handover patients . People also werent waiting 2 or 3 hours for ambulances when one should turn up in 18 minutes .
Rory's blather about the poor private school kids having their life disrupted bacause they have to move schools, shows he's still got proper Tory blood in his veins. Newsflash, Rory, thousands upon thousands of kids have to move to a different school because their non-rich parents have to move where the jobs are. Those kids managed...
When Rory went all "Think of the children!!!" on her she should have politely reminded him that due to the Tories destruction of jobs and work securities over decades, millions of state school children have had their lives upended as their parents have been forced to chase work around the country. Perhaps these (hypothetical) hard done by little public school children should approach this change as a life lesson, an opportunity to learn how to adapt to change, a chance to meet some "working class friends" (and hence maybe become better future prime ministers).
Ugh! Perish the thought.. 😆
@@CmdrTobs Says the master of thoughtlessness.
If you pull your head out of your fundament for a second, you might realise that Rory is utterly consumed with the plight of a tiny handful of the 7% of public school students who might ahve to switch, while being completely oblivious to the fact that this exact situation has been endured for decades by the other 93%, without so much as a peep from him. Kids have to switch schools all the time, without the government transition support he clearly thinks his priviliged little cohort deserve. No wonder he gripes later about her not caring about people like him,.. the entitled Eton epigenome cleary overrides any decent underlying genetic disposition.
@@CmdrTobs Rory is the one asking the idiotic and blinkered question, repeatedly. This entire thread doesn't exist without his fundamental misunderstanding and bias
In case you foolishly think this is just some random interjection from the we hate Rory club,... you might try connecting your brain cells together. I'm told they function better that way.
Rory: they'll support the children moving in the same way they support any child moving from one school to another.
Further, *IF* it's a good thing to do, the benefits of the policy are clearly going to outweigh the cost of disruption caused by the change - change happens once.
The message that I believe is resonating for Labour at the moment is integrity and honesty. It is very much the antidote to the Conservative blunders of Partygate, Truss, and Brexit. I believe the public is tired of hearing narratives about promising the world, we’d rather hear the harsh reality of where we are and what can realistically be done to improve things.
Agree totally, labour offer all of us a better chance in life
Could the aim not to make all schools great?
I've recently been in touch with all political parties after I was asked to remove both my boys ages 7 and 8 from the private school near Avon, Bristol. All because I politely complainted and questioned why the teacher told me she didn't have time to read a dyslexia report when there were only 12 in the classroom. My son wasn't assessed along side his pears whilst he was in the school. In a letter I was told the promise the head teacher gave me as a parent 'wasn't contractual' and therefore didn't stand. The promise and the reason why I chose the school was because I was told the school had everything in place for a child with dyslexia. I've since informed them a verbal contact in the UK does stand. The school offered £20k as hush money and offered to increase it when I wouldn't take it and threatened to take them to County Court. They never took responsibility or apologised. That's all I wanted. Before I left the school and whilst fighting for my childs education, I applied to the local authority for an EHC assessment and has been given an EHCP purely because the private school had no data, no assessments, no contingency plan. Nothing. He is only dyslexic. Getting an EHCP for a child with dyslexia is almost unheard of and normally requires a tribunal, but I was given it with no dispute. My child's education is now protected. That's all I ever wanted.
This school and many others charge for additional support, this is against the Equality Act 2010 but it happens in so many private schools. We're not all the same, why are children who don't learn the same be charged extra because their brain is different.
We're in a state school now, and I absolutely couldn't be happier, both boys are being educated.
A topic that wasn’t covered but so important is about children with special educational needs.
I like you both, but this time Rory annoyed me with the way he kept demonstrating his own tribal loyalties and prejudices: "what about the poor fee-paying parents?", "one-nation tories work really hard too", "any sane MP would say how frustrated they get in Westminster". Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson both strike me as serious-minded, disciplined public servants who are determined to put right the total disarray left after 14-years of Tory posturing and play-politicking. Of course, serious-minded women seldom go down well in the backslapping boy's club.
I am certainly not in the right wing backslapping boys club, but both of theose women gave me a negative impression, unlike Angela Raynor. Both of them were adept at refusing to answer straight questions, or choosing to answer the questions that they wanted you to ask.
Agreed. Rory's 'poor, posh, privaleged people' routine is getting tiring. As is his judgemental putdowns of the female guests at the end, that they should be 'more respectful' and 'more natural' becasuse he thinks that's how they should behave. He's an incredibly self-imporatnt person
hear hear! I found Rory very precious and whiney about a woman with purpose and class consciousness.
@@simac3880 How many female guests do you think he has done this too, and how many do you think he has not ?
Respectfully I think that is utter nonsense. The tribal loyalties were certainly coming from Bridget. Rory was speaking as someone undecided coming from the right and he was seeing how inclusive she is and how she was going to improve education for ALL where it would be at least on par with private schools. Unfortunately she failed. No detail, only breakfast club, mental health support and more sport. Is maths and science a dirty word, what about how she is going to improve technical courses and apprenticeships. How are Labour going to tackle discipline and teachers leaving in droves. My criticism of the interview were the soft ball questions she got as a 'serious minded woman' with Alister answering the questions for her and smiling all the way through. My child's education is not a joke, unfortunately I can't afford private education and I'm not sure that interview inspired me but at least my kid will get breakfast.
Having been critical - so much more balanced than most other discussions
Rory, kids change schools every time their parents move for a new job or a new apartment. While changing schools is a big dislocation for all kids, it’s not a unique class of problem for the kids who may leave private for state schools. Schools have had to help new kids get oriented since the beginning of time.
I think she did well. Handled the tough questions with confidence. Don’t have any issue with her being education secretary.
She did decide to answer her own questions rather than the ones asked of her a few times. That is not a good trait.
RS: "My crowd (including the hard working decent ones) have wrecked the country but she just didn't seem to really like people like me, and wasn't willing to guarantee state aid for all the hard-done-by public school children that might have to move". Good on her I say, many of us would be more direct. Accountability and responsibility and all that!
These working class types! “Does anyone ever say: ‘You know what, you’ve done a f**king good job, because everyone else has sat on their arse and done nothing?’ No signs of that, no?”
Yeah. He really comes across as a petulant Etonian at times, the self-appointed expert on everything. Same in the Reeves interview. His brain is stuck firmly in his own little privelged world - 'I thought she could have been more respectful'. With Reeves it was, 'I think she should be more natural'. Everytime he does his, 'So, so, so, so, so, so' as he interrupts or 'Ok, let me just give a quick explainer', I groan.
And, Rory, how did you feel about being part of the regime that demolished programmes such as start up?
As a music teacher, I'll be watching with great interest. Whilst I'm fairly lukewarm about Labour's manifesto for secondary schools, I am pleased to see that the arts takes such a prominent position, after decades of neglect. I very much hope that over the next 5 years, Bridget Phillipson can start to deal with some of the immense challenges the education system faces.
By Bridget's logic we should put VAT on university fees, books, nurseries etc., the former of which benefits the wealthier on average and receives government subsidies - not taxing education is not a 'benefit' or 'subsidy', it should be the baseline, particularly for something that actually reduces the burden on public services. I believe the motivation for this has less to do raising funds than an ideological opposition to wealthier parents being able to advantage their kids - an odd goal given that's something almost every parent wants to do. If that's the case, I'm not convinced it will even work as intended. If those parents who were paying for for private schools have to move their kids into state school, they won't suddenly lose interest in their child's success, they'll just take those savings and spend them on other advantages (e.g. after-school clubs, exam tutors etc.), the only difference being that they are now costing the state more in doing so.
@PJH13 University education is a much more accessible and has a much wider subscription than does fee paying primary and secondary schools. Indeed on average these schools charge £15k per year versus £9k for university! Uni Students are of course better placed to work to fund their studies - impossible for school kids.
It is a myth that fee paying schools reduce the burden precisely because of the tax break of on average £3k per pupil, canceling much of the tax that parents pay toward state education.
There is spare capacity in the state sector anyway so, the marginal cost of some of the private school kids switching will be slight. What's more and as you've pointed out, parents who switch will spend the fee money elsewhere and the govt will still get the VAT anyway.
1. Why should the purchase of privilege be tax exempt?
2. If the children of highly engaged parents move to state school, that will raise the standard (and even possibly private funding) of those schools and everyone benefits.
3. If parents choose to pay for the additional services you mention, the government will also receive vat on those services.
@@desmondroberts6034 On your first point, university access is wide because the government subsidises people to go there; if you offered those kind of subsidies to attend private schools, the participation rate would be much higher! Furthermore it remains true that they are still predominantly attended by those from wealthier upper and middle class backgrounds and lead to higher incomes, so if wealth is the criteria for taxing education they should be included. Your view doesn't seem grounded in a truly consistent principle and is more along the lines of "most wealthy people should receive a subsidy but then we'll try and claw a small portion of it back from some of them."
On your second point: "cancelling much of the tax that parents pay to state education" Nonsense, They still pay all the taxes they would pay if their child was in state school, but they remove the need for the government to spend them c. £7.7k to provide their child with a school place - that is reducing the burden, it is not a myth. If as you say there is "spare capacity" in the state sector that doesn't that sort of blow the wheels off your other argument, that there isn't enough funding in the state sector at the moment? That is some impressive doublethink!
@@butsynif 1. So you do think universities should be taxed then? 2.As you have pointed out they are trying to buy an advantage. They would likely decide it's more efficient to put their savings directly towards their child than subsidising a rise in standards across the whole school which would inherently contradict that objective. 3. Most of those services are also VAT exempt, e.g. few tutors earn above the £90k registration threshold and clubs are often counted as childcare. Even if that were true though, the VAT raised will be materially less than the extra cost the state incurs for educating the child and the child would still have a massive advantage - mission not accomplished!
@@PJH13 The subsidy of university is offered as loans paid back when the graduate achieves a given income. Universities are well attended by those of the working class, I am one such. You're assuming that each private school kid has £7.7k of tax paid on their behalf toward state school by their parents. How do you know? What if they pay £2k and are then exempted from £3k VAT? The spare capacity is in desk space in class rooms, so these kids could be accomodated. The school buildings, the heat and light are paid for regardless. The lack is in suitably qualified teachers - its reported that you've got class room assistants being expected to teach. Additional qualified teachers need to provided whether the class is full or not. Labour want to provide an additional 6500 teachers. Anyhow, Labour's policy has been examined by the IFS - its available online, I read the executive summary. They find that its financially credible.
This has really improved my view of Bridget and slightly lowered my view of Rory.
So using Rory logic, he worries more about a few children having to go to a state school than those children that are forced to go to schools that cannot fund adequate teachers in STEM subjects,
I know. Astonishing. The more of this podcast I watch the less respect for Rory I have.
not really what he said, he just asked if so and so has been taken into consideration. He never said it was more important.
@@Jablicek YES!
no he does not worry MORE. he is just asking the question to the person who will be in charge of what happens to those kids. if the fact that he worries at all is so troubling to you, that is sad.
@@DiogoFerreira He asked the question for a few minutes, with waffly answers because, quite frankly, it's irrelevant. Children change schools all the time. It's not great for continuity of education and it's jarring emotionally, but kids are resilient.
Her answers are so rehearsed and have been driven into her brain for such interviews
True. Perhaps there’s a personality in there somewhere, but she keeps it well hidden.
A bit tiring to hear about higher taxes for high earners in Sweden when everyone in Sweden pays income tax, and at a quite high rate, unlike UK. I am not against paying more taxes but it seems it is required from everyone
Think she held her own extremely effectively v Rorys questioning.
It won't change a thing. The VAT raid was initially for "mental health" in schools. Then it was for new teaching posts. Now it is for mental health, new teachers and careers advice services.
Every fee-paying school pupil who leaves to join a state school will have to be paid for by the taxpayer.
Every fee-paying school redundancy means less PAYE and NI.
Every fee-paying school closure means another closed business.
You can go after Corbyn on his foreign policy or on antisemitism or what have you, those are fair areas of critique, and I may well agree with you on a lot of it, but attacking his class politics is just insane.
You have to understand that she wants to pull the ladder up after her, to make sure noone from a poorer background can ever thrive again. That’s why she got into politics, to kill democracy and maximise the suffering of the working class. From that oerspective Corbyns class politics are antithetical to her.
Corbyn preached the politics of hate and envy, much like Trump, Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Un etc. Corbyn hates people who go out to better themselves. BP was absolutely right that working class people want to go and have a holiday, be secure in their lives, build a loft conversion. Corbyn would get in the way of that as he wanted to tax people making progress!
His foreign policy although flawed was centered around peace which is not an objective many can oppose. But the constant attacks for antisemitism is ridiculous, Corbyn has never discriminated against Jewish people
Being A Swede with little knowledge of the UK school system but listening to the criticism of it I am astonished it can support bright people like Rachel Reeves and Bridget Phillipson being able to move even though the Oxford/Cambridge establishment. How come?
She’s absolutely spot on about demography and it’s not even a difficult topic for a government to grasp. We literally cannot afford to have kids. I had my first at 35
Rory what about the kids from state schools that will loose out if the private school fee's are not taxed. Bet there would be more kids that may suffer.
why will they loose out? its better now because kids in private school are leaving the state with 7.5k each year, if even 15% leave its break even for the government.
@@1themikka Pure logic- the less taxes paid, less there be for society to distribute to the most needy. I know I am suprised that I said that aswell. Kids are the future if you keep them all dumb then people like Trump, Johnston and Putin come and stay in power. Education is the only way forward. Unless you are on the extreme of politics.
Hey Rory, you seem consumed by angst that any children forced to leave their public schools will not be given the state support they deserve for the arduous transition by the Labour government.
Perhaps you can console yourself with the realisation that their parents MIGHT be able to stretch the 30,000 pounds a year they're NOT spending on their school fees to cover mental health support for them.
I'm sure an eminently reasonable chap such as yourself would agree that those savings are best used rather than limited state budgets.
That was weird, even for Rory…
Brilliant woman!!!!! I think she should move up and eventually become a prime minister!!🎉
Won’t happen, at least not if Angela Raynor can prevent it.
Discussion is always about the very top and very bottom of children/ families. What about the majority middle?
What she says on the population of school age at 26.52 is simply not true. The population under fifteen has been steadily growing, and continues to do so.
Over the last 5 years, private school fees have risen by 1.2% per annum more than average wages, or 6% cumulatively over 5 years.
A 1.2% real terms increase per annum may not have forced parents back into the state sector, but a 20% tax hit in one year is a different proposition entirely.
Initial numbers have shown that even though almost everyone suspects a 20% increase, there has been less than a 3% increase in applications.
Let's also think that a huge amount of private schools are over subscribed, so that 3% does NOT mean less students it means smaller waiting lists.
The private schools can take alot of that 20% hit, they have huge amounts of land they can hire out, sports facilities that can be used on weekends to make more money, sports fields that can be hire, halls for weddings etc. They have SOOOO many resources it is a joke.
So what you're saying is that the problem is private schools bleeding people dry. Sounds like they're not so charitable 🤔
One of the first times I’ve ever heard a politician admit that your class hugely dictates your direction and chance to succeed in life and as a minimum have dignity. Very refreshing.
I think it would be a very good thing if private school pupils transfer to state education, as their parents are generally well connected and will insist that the state system improves. Same can be said of the health service.
The parliament building is actually not as old as it looks. The Abbey across the road is much much older
There are very old parts like Westminster Hall (where the lying- -in-State takes place) but the externals and most of the internal structures are less than 200 years old, and the House of Commons chamber dates back to the Second Works War, having been destroyed by the Lufwaffe.
“The majority” Does this logic apply to other areas as well?
Why does Rory Stewart presume that Bridgette Phillipson would be interested in wooing him to join Labour. What would he bring to the party?
It seems to me that a simple way to destroy the "what about current pupils?" argument is just to introduce VAT for kids as they start a new phase of education, say starting with kids going into years 1, 3, 7, and 12 this September. We'd get perhaps half of the revenue by September 2025 and would get the full VAT amount within the lifetime of the government.
I honestly wish BP would give an example at 18:55 of something personal or an anecdote of someone who has done this either to her or someone else. Maybe Starmers personal story is informing this take who knows? This idea of classism on the "hard left" towards people isn't something I've encountered much among the hard left. People wh support these kinda of policies just want redistribution and growth of the pie investment. Maybe the people in charge don't and it comes across but blame the person who put the person in charge not the people who support the ideas of the movement as a whole.
Certainly rang true with my experience of the student left for whom these topics amount to hypothetical discussions with a set of well rehearsed and predetermined 'correct positions'.
@@ElliottStanley Honestly the student left can go grow up and live in the real world. And there exists people of that persuasion in every movement and political persuasion. They don't seem to care about how issues affect people. Its purely about the issue itself and winning on your side.
I normally like Rory, but he was so precious in this interview. It is nauseating to hear him repeatedly ask women to sell themselves to him, and then complain when they are not appropriately obsequious.
Most of the tories take governing for granted and can’t cope when they are out of power. Also again it shows anyone can get into politics regardless of their background
She's a professional politician very much in the image of her leader, Rachel Reeves etc.
Emily Thornberry made a gaffe that class sizes were going to increase under the private school policy which Phillipson was quick to slap down.
The simple fact is we haven't got enough money to support ; peoples life style choices . If you have enough money to pursue private education then 20% more is not a problem . It's the same for Heat Pumps they are too expensive for ordinary people why subsidize people who can afford them . I am not convinced they are green until you sort out electricity production and the National Grid .
Because Greece did this and it was a disaster, and it mostly had a negative impact on state schools.
There is lots to admire in Bridget Phillipson but it is really annoying when politicans say that early years education is the 'single most important factor' affecting childrens' attainment. More important than socio-economic status? Every education minister thinks that they are in a unique position to 'improve education' with their tinkering around the edges.
She's just answering the question within the context of her cabinet brief.
For the last fourteen years, the public school system has illustrated why any one group shouldn't dominate. In truth to date, it's always been that way. For everyone's sake, It needs to change.
For example, the Industrial Revolution was largely powered by working people.
A Scadevian economic model would be preferable.
No one wants to pay that level of tax. So we are either going to be a socially democratic nation or an economically liberal one we can’t have both
Superb woman!!!❤❤❤❤❤
Quite a strong performance. Is she a future leader.
She gave few concrete examples until right at the end.
Not to be rude but I don’t really care that much about already well off children having to move schools, from private to state sector. It has happened for time immemorial with kids in the state sector, particularly those in rented accommodation, who have had to move schools when there tenancies ended and they couldn’t find anywhere else near enough to the school and nobody really bats an eyelid about it. I had a number of kids in my school who had to do that.
Rory saying he won't vote for her because she's not thinking about the poor private school students moving schools, when there are 4.3 million children in poverty
Peak Tory.
Bridget Phillipson's excellent performance promises a much-improved life for everyone.
Alistair Campbell absolutely flabbergasted that someone has grown up with out a dad 😅
After this interview, I am lot less enthusiastic about the next labour government. They will be an improvement over the current government, who wouldn't, but they don't have any solid ideas on what they want to do.
Swing-voters would be swung by watching this interview. Swung to vote labour.
what about school support staff not once does she mention support staff (ie teaching assistants ect) support staff are by far the lowest payed member so school staff
Rory. Is it a punishment to go to a state school? If you believe that, why did you support a government that allowed 93 percent to be punished that way?
Rory, the structural problems you faced were caused by bankers and the tory response was to blame the poor and disabled and reduce their life circumstances. I generally like ypur analysis - but ignoring your party's deliberate ploy of diverting attention away from the guilty to the innocent makes me think my attitude
There's something weirdly disappointing about this interview. Phillipson comes across a tad too well rehearsed, never, ever, straying from script. At first glance she says the right things, but never escapes the tired, hollow, easy Corbyn bashing that we might now expect to belong to history. Despite achieving (by a wide margin) her best electoral result while Labour was led by Corbyn (Houghton & Sunderland South, 2017) Phillipson is entirely dismissive of anything the Labour Party of that era stood for, while simultaneously she is far too eager to jump on the Starmer bandwagon of opposing Corbyn for opposition's sake. When Phillipson says "2017 was a funny election in lots of different ways" what is really meant is 'that result doesn't fit our narrative'. For those who might wish to ensure a Labour government for multiple terms rather than just an incredible, if short lived, landslide majority of one term, this interview gives reason to be cautious. A peculiar set of circumstances and a unique electoral arithmetic, whereby the right vote is split and Labour achieves unheard of results, in never before won constituencies, isn't likely to last forever. Without passion the Labour Party will not be able to sustain multiple victories, without passion the Labour Party is unlikely to last beyond one term. This interview is entirely devoid of passion.
I don't know much about her but it sounds like her dislike of Corbyn's politics long precedes the "Starmer bandwagon" of opposing Corbyn - that is, considering Starmer was in the shadow cabinet and she wanted to stay as a backbencher. While it could just be a sly story, it sounds like she genuinely has much more nostalgia for new labour than you give her credit for.
Vote Tory then. That'll be better. /s
Excellent questioning and analysis from Rory. Would make an excellent job interviewer.
I don’t understand the obsession of slagging off Corbyn all the time. Just makes it much more obvious these people were continuously undermining him.
Am I going crazy or is this recorded at 1.5x speed?
You can change the speed yourself
OMG Rory is a thin skinned Tory. She wasnt cold, she was focussed on what matters. What a vain and pompous little man he is. I thought that was Alistairs role, obviously not.
Oh, I agree with you so much! What a petulant Etonian Rory is.
Rory (a former Tory cabinet minister): "A Traditional floating voter like me." :/
Think Phillipson will make an excellent education sec. if Labour win.
(I think Rory is a lot more tribal than he protests.)
Oh dear Rory... your disappointment that she didn't pitch to persuade you to join Labour... demonstrates an overriding belief that you are an undeniable asset, per se - a notion that clearly she does not share. I learned at primary school that if I wasn't picked for the team, a) it was their stuff.. they didn't have to want me.. and b) that it might reflect on my shortcomings, rather than theirs..
Wow what a scary person, classist and like granite. Rory tried to squeeze a tiny piece of compassion and empathy out of her and was not able to find one single drop. Tin hats are in order if the new government is peopled by folk like this person.
Yes, I agree and was a bit reticent to say so. A heartless apparatchik, imo.
she speaks well for the most part, very knowledgeable on her portfolio. Rory came across a bit more tory than usual here.
More Tory than usual ? Rory's challenging a Labour MP on wealth distribution and higher taxes for the rich, suggesting they could do more... does not sound especially Tory to me.
@@WH-hi5ew to me he came across as more critical of policy and more dismissive than usual, also his opposition on ending tax breaks for the wealthy is quite tory
@@zakjaggs9761 True. I thought the show’s premise is ‘to disagree agreeably’, but he seemed uncharacteristically tetchy and overly sensitive. She didn’t bother reaching out to him, however, as Angela Raynor did previously.
Rory is a bit of a bully sometimes and the way he grilled Bridget was appalling. He frequently takes the lead and for the first 30 minutes it was all about him.
she looks just like Rachel Reeves
She can say all she wants about women being told to smile more, but it’s undeniable that a man with an equally dour, monotone and uninspiring voice would have had a much harder time getting elected.
And don’t take my word for it - look at every male guest to have appeared on Leading. Every one of them brought considerably greater charm, humour and likability, while also maintaining an aura of competence.
I’ve no doubt that there are challenges that women have in parliament that men don’t, but she conveniently fails to mention the benefits afforded, that men aren’t.
That's a lie.
her criticism of Corbyn was just bizarre tho.
She sort of criticised him heavily while saying nothing of substance about him at all. I don't know what she has got against him. (Not a Corbyn supporter btw.)
@@eightiesmusic1984 I can tell you my problem iwth him. Him saying upfront that he would not use our nuclear capacity in any situation. That is just like playing poker but showing your opponent your cards at the start of every hand. I've no problem with him not ever using it, but for God's sake don't tell anybody that.
@@eightiesmusic1984 I disagree with you.
Very good!
So you want to drive up the standards in State schools. By driving some more kids to come into the state schools from private schools where they don't place a burden on the state as they pay for there education, but state schools don't pay. Class sizes will rise, more money will have to be found for these new state school pupils that were in private education.
My wife has worked in private education for almost 20 years, mainly within the lowest price points. Since Brexit, they have been having to scale back and make redundancies. The impact of falling birth rates, the squeeze on the middle class, and the overall foreign attractiveness of Britain since Brexit has meant they are seriously concerned that schools like them will close from the VAT change. They say that it means they will have to cut back on any charity work they previously did. That means not taking children on burseries and not donating to other local schools. I say this to offer an alternative on Bridget's narrative that schools have been raising prices to a point that they can eat the cost of the change without impacting their customers. There will be schools in that scenario and the parents who can afford to send their kids to the middle / upper price points will continue to afford private education. But that doesn't mean that there won't be people who have been barely scraping by to send their kids to private school who won't be able to afford it now, and it doesn't mean that all private schools will be fine.
IMO, it is still worth this potential impact for the good of the country. I'm with Alistair that I would scrape private education entirely. It creates a section of people that have no interest in the performance of state education and reinforces class ceilings.
I agree, in that I think the impact of this policy is not being spoken about in an open fashion. Big policies have consequences no matter how well meaning they are. This is one of the major issues/impacts of politics, the consequences of policies need to be thought about and discussed before they occur, and mitigated against if possible. So in this particular case, will this policy lead to some private schools closing, and if so what are the impacts of these schools closing and what will be done if this occurs ?
@lukedaniels7750 There is a falling birth rate, some state schools will need to close it scale back. Given this information this is the perfect time to do the VAT change as we have spare capacity within our state schools over the next 5 years.
Here in London the private schools are so over subscribed there is usually a huge waiting list, itbis unlikely the change in VAT make close any of these schools at all and this is the case for a huge section of the private schools.
Some may close, yes, but then some would have closed anyhow regardless.of the VAT change.
@@rivgacooper5330 There is a falling birth rate, however because of immigration the population overall is rising, and that includes peole of school age. Therefore we do NOT have spare capacity in our schools system. I'm not against the policy, I'm just saying the long term consequences of it need to be assessed and mitigated for.
@lukedaniels7750 not a huge immigrant children population, immigrants are usually working age when they arrive. So another excuse not to do this gets burned down.
@@rivgacooper5330 not a huge amount of immigrant children, but if you look at the facts, the numbers of children in this country fifteen and under has been steadily rising. Not by much, but it is NOT falling. (google not working atm so i cannot provide links, but they are there.) I'm not saying don't do this, (in fact I explicitly said so in my last post so I don't know why you are suggesting that I am) I am saying, think about the long term consequences of it.
Glad to see you included subtitles for those South of Watford Gap, so those terrified by a northern accent can join in the discussion 🤣
It will just force people who are already paying twice for education to become reliant on the state. This will cost money, not raise it.
So you feel hand outs to the more wealthy who send their kids to private school should be kept? It's not an added tax - it's removing benefits.
Private schools are anti meritocracy, now we may not be able to close them but we can ensure people going to them produce some counter balance by providing tax funding for other schools.
I agree with R. Stewart! She has been missed!!!!
this country is highly dependent for its tax revenue on about 3 boroughs in london and about 500,000 people. it should show them more respect. they pay for all these incredibly badly managed services. best not attack the golden goose or trying squeezing more from it. these people are highly mobile. hope they leave. they should
How much is the going rate to be a Tory bot?
The Labour proposed tax on Private Education is one of envy and will not produce the funds expected. In fact children forced out of private education will become a further burden on a state education system which is not producing the highly educated people required for the economy. If it did we would not require highly skilled immigrants. The fact is the national curriculum introduced by Labour is too narrow and doesn’t require science to be taught as three individual subjects. Our children in the state system have been let down by politicians on all sides by the dogma of accepting comprehensive education is the best way forward. It isn’t and it was brought in by a Labour government jealous of the achievement of good Grammar schools followed by left wing conservatives who believed they knew best. In short a disgrace.
I support this policy and it has nothing to do with envy, whatsoever. Private education is such a big money game these days with the top ten independent schools averaging fees of £50K. It's absurd that this sector gets a tax break because of its charity status. Let's not forget, the rates of teacher pay are not much above the state sector.
What absolute drivel. Comprehensive education is one of the finest achievements of the post war era. science is taught as 3 separate subjects. The idea of separating children at age 11 based on ability, and denying those that don’t make the grade access to a wider range of subjects and high quality teaching was archaic and rightly consigned to the dustbin of history. If parents are able to afford £30k+ on school feea, as well as all of the additional costs of private education (extra curricular activities, trips, uniforms etc) they will be able to absorb any costs passed on to them. It will have negligible impact on private school numbers.
@@t.p.mckenna Well said!
Private schools are businesses . why should they be exempt ?
Everyone has to pay more due to price increases and obviously that includes the VAT element , why is paying for education any different ?
I love the delusion of Alistair in still refusing to accept that the anger that led to Brexit & 2019 was created by EU expansion from 2003 onwards, as evidenced by 'bigot-gate' in 2010, following years of elections where ukip increased their vote. The 2019 election was a rejection of the political stalemate around Brexit & NOT a rejection of Corbyn! The massive difference between 17 & 19 manifesto was around brexit policy, not national security as described. I burst o9ut laughing when AC asked 'do you think voters saw labour leaving voters behind in our time?' Look at the collapse in Scotland, where 2015 & 19 saw a single mp elected; the 3rd Scttish election in 2007 saw labour lose 250,000 votes compared to 1999 - Since then, Labour were reduced to a single mp in Scotland and gifted the snp millions of voters; yet under the 'unsafe Jeremy Corbyn' won 7 seats in 2017
Just vote Tory then. You'll have a great time I'm sure.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 Thankfully there's more than just the 2 parties standing locally - I've never voted Tory, I'm just sick of Campbell's blindness towards labour's arrogance whilst in power - particularly from 2003 onwards. For example look at the Iraq war, where they sent troops in against public opinion & short of basic supplies. As the eu expanded Eastward, they allowed uncontrolled eu migration - (unlike Germany & France) which resulted ultimately in Brexit & the red wall collapsing in 2019; Nothing to do with concerns about Corbyn (who I voted for fyi). The same arrogance led to the snp surging here in Scotland, as Blair's party moved away from Scottish voters from 99-07, creating the roots of the 2014 independence referendum - the division lines of which, still divide Scottish politics to this day. Both these warnings were blindingly obvious to everyone, except Blair & Campbell in London - yet he STILL asks if there were warnings they missed whilst in power
@@andrewharrison7767 Keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better.
Unbelievably robotic.
Dull. Very dull.
Ill take dull and hopefully confident over fun and useless .
competenmt rather
She’s a bit chippy tho’… 💪🏽
Teacher's perspective: To be honest the gillian interview was far better r.e education. At no point did anyone delve into the issues beyond 'we need more maths'. I would have liked to have seen her response to the reality that schools are massively underfunded. Top 10 school in the south west 500K deficit this year, no trips no paper no pens. But more art...
So you are now repeating Labour Party claims with no challenge or question…..? What happened to a balanced approach to political discourse….