Polly Toynbee.

I don’t hold with the sisterhood stuff Dickens
If I want to criticise Boris ( and I sure have!) for the way he looked I also feel free to criticise PT if I want to.
One is your opinion, fine, and that’s my opinion, also fine.

Btw anyone who thought Holland Park Comp was just an average Comp is wrong, a much sought after school with well off parents dying to get their kids in there.

I think Holland Park Comp is a 'bog standard' comp these days but back in 70s-80s, when the children of a previous generation of Labour politicians and intellectuals (of whom Polly Toynbee was one) were being educated it was almost as elite as Eton. Stuffed with the offspring of the left wing politicians and academics. player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/watch-comprehensive-school-1962-online

Holland Park school was followed by Haverstock Comprehensive in North London, on the Hampstead boundaries, where all the Labour intellectuals that couldn't afford to live in the Holland Park catchment lived. www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/aug/02/haverstock-school-labour-leaders-eton The Milliband brothers went there among others.

The issue of appearance and sex is contentious, Boris's shambolic fell out of bed and then went through a hedge backwrds look, has been highly and vocally criticised, and quite rightly so, when he was the political leader of this country, photographs of him, with other world leaders, seemed to summarise the state of Britian, rundown, disorganised and a failing power.

With women it is more difficult. Many people used to comment on Shirley Williams untidiness and lack of dress centre, but actually in quite a kind sense, there was more the feeling of a nice and kind, but intellectually very savvy woman and a good politician, who just didn't have an interest in how she looked.

I suspect if Polly Toynbee looks less than perfectly groomed on tv, it will be deliberate decision, possibly as a way of polishing her true feminist principles.

I am devastated to hear that she has become member of the Lib Dems, where can I go now? I will just have to grit my teeth and take the rough with the smooth. The Lib Dems to have a history of attracting odd balls, and dodgy characters, from Jeremy Thorpe, to Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg.

Monica you’ve just reminded me of Charles Kennedy. I really liked him. It was such a sad end to his life.

You’ve just reminded me of another descriptor of champagne socialism Monica. Those who can afford to buy an expensive house in an expensive area in order to ensure their children can go to the ‘right’ state school. And boast about it often. My child went to a state school, from people who would no more send their child to a bog standard state comprehensive than they would fly to the moon. Think Tony Blair, his boys went to The London Oratory. Says it all really.

I am devastated to hear that she has become member of the Lib Dems, where can I go now? I will just have to grit my teeth and take the rough with the smooth. The Lib Dems to have a history of attracting odd balls, and dodgy characters, from Jeremy Thorpe, to Charles Kennedy and Nick Clegg

I don't know why that made me laugh M0nica but it did 😂
Thank you for that!

I always voted Liberal because I liked Jeremy Thorpe and thought they were more principled than either of the other two main parties (before the scandals!).
Menzies Campbell, Paddy Ashdown, David Steele, David Own, Shirley Williams, all brought more gravitas to politics than a lot of the present-day politicians

It was Nick Clegg who put me off, too polished, too slick and too ready to abandon principles for power.

Since then, they seem to be rather lost.

David Owen!
Autocorrect again.

I would never judge anyone for the decisions they make about their children's education. You can both support state education and be aware that the school in your area is the pits.
You have the right to choose the best you can for your children whilst at the same time fighting for educational improvement in state schools. Children only get one crack at the whip when it comes to education and as a parent we have to do our best for them - this is not incompatible with supporting the principle of good state education and fighting for that.

There are some truly crap schools round here - if I were a parent now I would simply choose the best I could afford, whilst at the same time using my vote and any other clout I might have to boost the quality of state education. Parents do not have a magic wand to make state education better - I am sure they wish they had.

I also support the right of parents to try to ensure their children get the best possible education, but it’s disingenuous in the extreme to buy an expensive house in an expensive area, that the majority cannot afford, so that your child can access an education in a top state school, and you can boast that you use the state system, when if you were forced to use the bog standard comprehensive (that’s apparently good enough for the children of others, who don’t have money) you would simply pay for a private school. It’s win, win, win, because you get a top education for your child and a lovely house in a nice area that will gain much value over the years. Meanwhile some poorer parents, who can’t afford such a house, choose a private education and are castigated for their choice, as Labour MPs clamour to tax private schools or even abolish them altogether. Simply disingenuous!

maddyone

You’ve just reminded me of another descriptor of champagne socialism Monica. Those who can afford to buy an expensive house in an expensive area in order to ensure their children can go to the ‘right’ state school. And boast about it often. My child went to a state school, from people who would no more send their child to a bog standard state comprehensive than they would fly to the moon. Think Tony Blair, his boys went to The London Oratory. Says it all really.

Brompton Oratory ( as it is known) is a Catholic school and Cherie Blair is a life long Catholic.

I think that some of you are forgetting or may not be aware that parts of central London that are now very expensive, were back in the 60s and 70s affordable for many people to buy houses. Knightsbridge and Holland Park and parts of Kensington and Chelsea were expensive. I remember visiting an aunt of my my mother who lived in Islington and it was very working class back then. There are many poor people in Islington, some times cheek by jowel with the rich.

As London became a rich city with increasing numbers of people wanting to live there, the acceptable areas expanded. I can remember the time when taxis would not go south of the river and people who lived north of the Thames were very sniffy about those who lived south. I share a flat in what became known as The Toast Rack in Wandsworth. We did not have a bathroom and so used to go down the hill to the local baths, otherwise it was a strip wash at the kitchen sink.

Finally, the catchment area for Holland park Comp includes Shepherds Bush which was not a posh area.

that’s apparently good enough for the children of others, who don’t have money

A bad school is not good enough for any child. Making choices for your own children does not mean that you think the bad schools are "good enough" for any child at all. You know they are bad and care deeply that children are being fobbed off with such poor quality.

Dinahmo You put up a stout defence of Holland Park School. I was talking of then. Now, the school closed in December 2022, deemed inadequate by Ofsted reports.ofsted.gov.uk/provider/23/140134 I think this was a culmination of years of decline and failure.

How have the mighty fallen!

In 2021 The London Oratory sent eighteen students to Oxbridge. Bog standard? I think not!
Blair chose The London Oratory because it was a good school. It was justified because it was a Catholic school. It was also an extremely good school that got/gets more students into Oxbridge than many minor independent schools.
Is it being argued that the reputation of The London Oratory had absolutely nothing to do with the Blair’s choice? And that it was a Catholic school was the reason?

My husband's older grandchildren went to The Oratory and its sister school, Sacred Heart, both had a very strict criteria as to admissions, one parent must be a practising catholic and documentation such as baptismal certificates were requested. At the time they attended, both schools took 25% of their pupils from less advantageous backgrounds.

Going back to fee paying schools, in an ideal world we would have a level playing field but it's a choice and on previous threads about the subject some posters have stated they paid for their children's education, then again I don't think those posters would describe themselves as socialists. I think what many find contentious is "declared" socialists using the private system, surely what they are striving for is a more egalitarian society by patronising a fee paying school they are giving their own children a head start. We all know something like 50% or more of those who enter the top professions and positions within companies are among the 7% educated at private schools. Thousands of parents will be desperate about the state of their children's school and for good reason, but simply don't have the means to shift them somewhere better and their is no choice for those people. In a way, Alistair Campbell had a point when he said if only parents such as the Blairs who would have had enough clout to improve their local comprehensive would send their kids there they might have a chance of turning the school around Nevertheless, Cherie Blair was and I imagine still is a practising catholic and like many other adherents to their particular religion they often want a faith school.

I think I'm right in saying that The London Oratory is not the only high achieving school in West London, possibly Cardinal Vaughan is thought of even more highly, but they aren't the only outstanding state schools in the area. All schools should be of that standard imo.

I sometimes wonder if, in order to give their children a head start, parents, instead of impoverishing themselves to get their children into private schools, spent the money on other things. Things that could produce a well rounded, knowledgeable person.

Who exactly can call themselves an "impartial onlooker"? Polly Toynbee has given her opinion, which some will agree with and some will not, according to their own "partial" views on the matter.

Personally, I agree with most of Polly Toynbee's views but, of course, my own opinions are not neutral.

I see no contradiction in campaigning to abolish fee-paying schools whilst sending one's own children to one. Knowing that the local schools are awful, and that one of the reasons for that is because better off parents are opting out and taking their money and sharp elbows with them could very well be the reason you want them abolished. Not to penalise the better off, but to spread their advantage amongst all children, and remove the social kudos attached to the right to wear a particular tie, to the detriment of poorer but equally talented young people.

Meantime, whilst you are campaigning for that, what is wrong with getting your own children the best education you can, even though you would prefer to see that option removed? Is it very different from wanting a fairer society in which no children do without nourishing food, but meantime ensuring that your own children have a good breakfast and sending them out with a balanced lunchbox? Sending your child to school A because school B is poor, whilst campaigning for a system in which everyone goes to school C seems to me perfectly reasonable.

Also, children have two parents, and it is common for one of them not to be a politician. Does the other parent not have a say?

The phrase 'champagne socialist' is just a way to dismiss middle class 'lefties'. There is nothing to say that anyone voting Labour has to live in a council house, read the Sun and eat beans for every meal, and to suggest that Labour voters who don't fit that mould are hypocrites is clutching at straws.

Thanks Doodledog. I was about to post but you’ve expressed my views well.
I wouldn’t sent my children to private school. I did choose to buy a house in a part of town with a good comprehensive and good faith high school. My children went to the faith high school, where they were very happy.
My nieces went to private schools, including boarding. Lovely young women but imo lacking in understanding of life outside the privilege they life in

The way your name appeared under the title of this thread on my screen made it look as though PT herself had replied to my post .

It's Hobson's Choice here unless you pay 🙂

Callistemon21

It's Hobson's Choice here unless you pay 🙂

And there's no choice at all if you can't. But I don't think that means that someone who represents an area with a poor school should necessarily sacrifice their children on the alter of her own ambition.

I do, however, think that people who persist in making (and voting for) policies that ensure that state schools have cuts to funding, that teachers are poorly paid, and that tax relief is available to the public schools where they send their own children need to Think On.

Doodledog

Callistemon21

It's Hobson's Choice here unless you pay 🙂

And there's no choice at all if you can't. But I don't think that means that someone who represents an area with a poor school should necessarily sacrifice their children on the alter of her own ambition.

I do, however, think that people who persist in making (and voting for) policies that ensure that state schools have cuts to funding, that teachers are poorly paid, and that tax relief is available to the public schools where they send their own children need to Think On.

Several teachers I knew who worked in the state system here sent their own children to private schools.

But they aren't making policies for others to live by.

Doodledog

But they aren't making policies for others to live by.

One in particular was spectacularly useless and should not have been teaching an important subject to top stream GCSE pupils. Her own child, of course, got the benefit of a private education courtesy of mother's salary for doing very little towards teaching those children whose parents could not afford a private education.

Thank goodness we could afford some private tuition - many could not.

Callistemon21

Doodledog

But they aren't making policies for others to live by.

One in particular was spectacularly useless and should not have been teaching an important subject to top stream GCSE pupils. Her own child, of course, got the benefit of a private education courtesy of mother's salary for doing very little towards teaching those children whose parents could not afford a private education.

Thank goodness we could afford some private tuition - many could not.

I don't approve of 2 tier systems for health and education, but I think the case you mention is the fault of the teacher, not the system. The school should have sorted it out one way or another, and if she hadn't sent her children to a private school it wouldn't have improved her own ability.