How soon before the next step to privatising the state schools?

An interesting and complex one Mollygo. But this is a complex issue.

If everyone had to use the state system, the rich and powerful would ensure that it was good for everyone.
Is that your opinion or a fact?

IMO
The rich and powerful might well be more interested in how NFF works but I don’t see them dipping their hands in their pockets to fund other people’s children even though they’re saving money on fees. They will have to find the 24 hour care their children get currently as boarders, or organise three meals a day and extra curricular activities that are currently included. I have visions of specially set up after school clubs to ensure ‘homework’ is done with support before the children come home.
If every school received the same per pupil funding, that wouldn’t make it fair. If you add in extras like pupil premium -that still wouldn’t make it fair. School premises are another example of ‘unfair’ that would be difficult to change, simply because of land.
Those who could afford it would make sure their children went to ‘the best’ state schools i.e. those in nice areas and would raise money to support anything extra they thought their child’s school needed, just as happens now.
But that’s only IMO.

DaisyAnne

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

You want to close the fee-paying schools. And you want that happen on the basis of your opinion, with no evidence that supports it. And you just go on repeating yourself.

Is that a discussion?

Well in a discussion I expect people to listen to reason. And recognise evidence when it is given.

So I guess this isn't a discussion. ??

So, if I missed it, what proof have you offered that this would make a difference.

I doubt you will come up with any and, at the chance of being completely wrong, I don't think you have so far.

And round and round you go.

? whee....

Callistemon21

GagaJo

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

Are you saying that all Tory MPs send their children to independent schools?

I know that is not so.

No. But I'm betting it is a tiny minority of them that don't. Not that I can be bothered to look for the statistics on it.

Not for nothing is the Conservative party made up of a lot of millionaires.

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

You want to close the fee-paying schools. And you want that happen on the basis of your opinion, with no evidence that supports it. And you just go on repeating yourself.

Is that a discussion?

Well in a discussion I expect people to listen to reason. And recognise evidence when it is given.

So I guess this isn't a discussion. ??

So, if I missed it, what proof have you offered that this would make a difference.

I doubt you will come up with any and, at the chance of being completely wrong, I don't think you have so far.

And round and round you go.

There are ways to persuade other people to your way of thinking without antagonising them.

Why do you think I am trying to persuade anyone Callistemon? Just putting forward my view, that's all. And if it antagonises anyone, well that's a pity.

DaisyAnne

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

You want to close the fee-paying schools. And you want that happen on the basis of your opinion, with no evidence that supports it. And you just go on repeating yourself.

Is that a discussion?

Well in a discussion I expect people to listen to reason. And recognise evidence when it is given.

So I guess this isn't a discussion. ??

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me

No, you may not be doing that.

But constantly ridiculing other posters' opinions on so many threads does not advance your case on anything at all one jot.

There are ways to persuade other people to your way of thinking without antagonising them.

One of which was a link to Murphy

Well yes,this time, on. this thread

But why get annoyed with me because I mentioned asking for an explanation from another source?

After all, as you said:
If you think I'm stupid enough to take one person's word as gospel truth on this subject then I feel quite insulted

volver

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

You want to close the fee-paying schools. And you want that happen on the basis of your opinion, with no evidence that supports it. And you just go on repeating yourself.

Is that a discussion?

Sorry, that was also to DaisyAnne, but referring to a different post.

Clearly Maizie didn't think so, as she has explained. It is not enough for people to keep saying the same things and referring others to links. If we don't understand, then it is far better to hear a concept from someone who does, clearly expressed, so that they can have a dialogue. It's the basis on which education works. Just posting a reading list is never going to cut it.

And there is no need for the "". If I understand something I don't pretend not to, and nor do I post to wind people up?.

Thanks, Maizie. I'm going out in a minute, but will read your reply more carefully and get back to you.

DaisyAnne

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Please desist from trying to say that when I express my strongly held opinions that I am insisting that others agree with me.

Do you not understand how discussions work? Are you so unsure of your opinions that you think anyone who disagrees with them is browbeating you?

Please, stop it. It's silly.

Doodledog

Rather than posting links, would you please answer my questions in your own words, simplified if necessary, so that if my little brain doesn't grasp it, I can get back to you?

I would genuinely like to understand.

Do you know how much time and effort that takes? Maizie has done just that over and over again. Get up off your backside (metaphorically) and follow the links if you would "genuinely like to understand". Otherwise, this becomes just a wind-up.

volver

Isn't it funny that it comes up every time? It's almost like it's one of the actual real reasons, isn't it? Couldn't be, could it?

No. It's simply your opinion. What you are trying to say is that we must accept your opinion as "fact". It isn't a fact. It is something you expect others to believe because you want it to be true. You've persuaded no one; offered no evidence. But still you insist that others must be made to do what you want. Round and round you go.

Doodledog

Thank you.

Ok, I get the bit about needing to create a shortage of money or it would be worthless and there would be no incentive to work.

I also get the bit about money not circulating meaning that the economy suffers (as well as the people, which is why I wouldn't vote Tory if my life depended on it).

The bit I don't understand is the bit about money getting back into the economy first before the govt can get it back.

If all we need to have a fully functioning NHS and education system is money, why would the government ensure that they have less of it? What is stopping them from spending more, and (more importantly, as this is the bit I really don't understand) what is the bit in the middle? The bit where they have to stop money becoming worthless, but also stop the country becoming poor because of Austerity? Is that where taxation comes in? Or if not, what is it?

Thanks, Doodledog

If all we need to have a fully functioning NHS and education system is money, why would the government ensure that they have less of it? What is stopping them from spending more

The only answer I have for this is that the government is made up of individuals who either believe the 'household budget' myth or who would prefer that government money is directed to enterprises that increase the wealth of themselves and their donors and cronies. Like in the pandemic.

Spending on education, health etc is very good for lots of businesses in the domestic economy but it doesn't make the sort of spectacular profits for a few that some enterprises would love.

Money would become worthless if there was nothing left to spend it on. As it is, we all know that there are lots of things it could be spent on, like education, health, renewable energy, helping the disadvantaged. But if a government is ideologically opposed to doing this, they won't do it.

I keep banging on about this because I think that once people understand that government spending choices are constrained by ideology, not by a finite amount of money, voters could make more informed and better choices when it comes to choosing a government.

It's obviously much more complex than this, any economy needs careful management, but the basic premise, that taxes aren't needed to fund government spending is based on reality and gives us a whole new way of looking at things.

Austerity was a deliberate choice and made the country poorer. It was based on flawed economic theory. That 'the market' was the perfect regulator of an economy.

Callistemon21

GagaJo

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

Are you saying that all Tory MPs send their children to independent schools?

I know that is not so.

I said much the same thing as GagJo, so I will answer.

No, not all Tory MPs send their children, but the ones who don't live in a catchment of a decent state school will. So will Labour MPs because both groups know that the odds of getting a better education, contacts etc in a private school are much higher. Which is the point. If that were not the case, and if everyone had to use the state system, the rich and powerful would ensure that it was good for everyone.

Callistemon21

No, that's why I read your explanations, MaizieD, some of which are links to Murphy so it was an understandable assumption on my part.

But then, perhaps you have a fully worked out theory of where a state's money comes from?
What gave you that idea? Why would I need to ask if I know already?

Perhaps I'm like you - not stupid enough to read something on an internet forum and take it as gospel truth so I thought that asking a relative who worked at the B of E might help me understand better.

One of which was a link to Murphy.

All I asked initially was a simple question.

'If the government, via the Boe, creates our money, why does it need to tax it back before it can spend anything?

If you had the power to create money would you give it all away and then ask the person you'd given it to for some back because you needed their money to buy things with?

Thank you.

Ok, I get the bit about needing to create a shortage of money or it would be worthless and there would be no incentive to work.

I also get the bit about money not circulating meaning that the economy suffers (as well as the people, which is why I wouldn't vote Tory if my life depended on it).

The bit I don't understand is the bit about money getting back into the economy first before the govt can get it back.

If all we need to have a fully functioning NHS and education system is money, why would the government ensure that they have less of it? What is stopping them from spending more, and (more importantly, as this is the bit I really don't understand) what is the bit in the middle? The bit where they have to stop money becoming worthless, but also stop the country becoming poor because of Austerity? Is that where taxation comes in? Or if not, what is it?

GagaJo

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

Are you saying that all Tory MPs send their children to independent schools?

I know that is not so.

Doodledog

Ok, humour me?

I accept that Thatcher's household budget analogy was false, and I do know that the 'pay it back' mantra is a lie; but if tax doesn't fund spending, what does? And if we all stopped paying tax, what would happen? And what would the long-term impact be if we had too much money in the economy?

Also, why do all parties perpetuate an untruth? Wouldn't it make sense for someone to point out the naked emperor?

I'm trying very hard to point out the naked emperor but so many people believe he's still wearing gorgeous clothes.

If we all stopped paying tax there's be so much money sloshing around in the economy that we'd be using wheelbarrows full to pay for things.

Or we might start using another unit of exchange because our money was worthless.

Or we might stop going to work because we didn't need any more money...

But the money has to get into the economy first, via government spending, before the government can get anything back.

When the government doesn't spend (remember Osborne's austerity, cutting government spending to the bone?) the country becomes poorer and people become poorer because they lose their jobs and they lose their businesses because people can't afford to buy their goods or services.

No, that's why I read your explanations, MaizieD, some of which are links to Murphy so it was an understandable assumption on my part.

But then, perhaps you have a fully worked out theory of where a state's money comes from?
What gave you that idea? Why would I need to ask if I know already?

Perhaps I'm like you - not stupid enough to read something on an internet forum and take it as gospel truth so I thought that asking a relative who worked at the B of E might help me understand better.

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to be convinced that the existence of fee paying schools prevents governments (of any colour) adequately funding state schools.

I'm guessing you understand the theory. But choose to disbelieve it.

To me, it's QED. Elite groups who don't need state education/healthcare etc don't care about the underfunding of them because they don't use them. Those in government who are mostly from those elite groups, even more so in the Conservatives, have little interest in funding the state. In fact, it forms part of their policy.

Rather than posting links, would you please answer my questions in your own words, simplified if necessary, so that if my little brain doesn't grasp it, I can get back to you?

I would genuinely like to understand.

Callistemon21

Doodledog

Ok, humour me?

I accept that Thatcher's household budget analogy was false, and I do know that the 'pay it back' mantra is a lie; but if tax doesn't fund spending, what does? And if we all stopped paying tax, what would happen? And what would the long-term impact be if we had too much money in the economy?

Also, why do all parties perpetuate an untruth? Wouldn't it make sense for someone to point out the naked emperor?

Yes, it does sound like one person's reasoning against another.
And I do think I know whose reasoning that is (Richard Murphy?)

I still think if our tax money goes towards reclaiming the money which it spends into the economy then it is being spent on public services.

Maybe I'll ask my DN, she will explain it all from a B of E viewpoint.

Calliistemon

If you think I'm stupid enough to take one person's word as gospel truth on this subject then I feel quite insulted.

I was introduced to this by reading Murphy's blog, certainly, but I didn't believe it at first, either. Since then I have read as widely as I can on the whole subject and I can assure you that it encompasses a lot of other economists and thinkers on the subject.

I have published countless links (including a few today) which explain it, few of which people ever bother to read. These links include articles from the Bank of England; if people won't believe the BoE what more can I do?

I do publish links to Murphy's blog because he is a good communicator who explains things well, but he's not my sole source of information.

But then, perhaps you have a fully worked out theory of where a state's money comes from? Which explains why all our money originates from the Bank of England (or banks under licence from the BoE to create money) and then explains why the government needs to tax before it can spend. I'd like to hear it.