George Osborne chooses £11,000pa private school for his two children

Tonight's London Evening Standard (no link) is reporting that the Shadow Chancellor is planning to send his two children to an £11,000 prep school; Norland Place.  [Hat-tip: Sky News blog.]

This will be controversial and contrasts with Mr Cameron's hope to send his children to state schools.

But if it is politically difficult few Conservatives will quarrel with Mr Osborne putting his children's future before any short-term electoral considerations.  If someone has wealth - and Mr Osborne is heir to a considerable fortune (the Osborne & Little wallpaper company) - it is much better to spend that money on your children than on personal luxuries.

PS Ben Brogan adds an interesting PS to this blog post of his.  Apparently the prep school story was a Telegraph exclusive.  The Telegraph contacted Mr Osborne's office for a quote only to see the story appear a few hours later in the Standard - and in a relatively favourable way.  If true Mr Osborne may have succeeded in partially spiking The Telegraph's story but he is playing a risky game.  The Tory-Telegraph relationship is going through another rocky patch and such tactics won't help. 

7am, 2nd February: A spokesperson for George Osborne issued the following statement to The Telegraph: "George has always said that, like any parents, he and his wife would choose what they thought was the right school for their children. That's what they've done, and George has never tried to lecture other parents on what they should do. Norland Place is near their home, and indeed was the school that George himself went to, and was very happy at."

1pm: Simon Chapman relates this issue to supply-side schools reform.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

I would have done the same if I could afford it. State education currently fails our children and I fully sympathise with anyone who wants to pay to ensure that their children have a good education.

[Conservative Homer]

Good. Every child in private education is not only benefiting their own education, but reducing class sizes in state schools as well. Everything in a governments power should be done to encourage private schooling.

We should bring back assisted places or tax relief for private education ASAP.

[Alan S]

I have no objection to George Osborne spending his inheritance on good education for his kids or good healthcare for himself (should he have private insurance).
What I object to is his opposition to grammar school education for poorer families and the ending of the patient passport healthcare policy that would have helped poorer families afford faster private medical care.

[Comstock]

YES another Tory own goal. IMHO private education is vile and Osbourne is out of touch.

Law and Justice, the Hon Member for Sidcup with his hands in the till, Labour ahead in the polls and now this.
What a great week!

[Tory Lady]

Well done George. Only by striving for the Best, can our country pull up the poorest.
Conservatives should lead by example and not dumb down.
We should also not pander with the politics of envy.
A successful policy now would be to return taxes to those parents who opt for private schooling and who are relieving the pressure on the state schools. What a winner for the electorate.

[Alan]

George Osborne is not wrong to send his children to a private school. However he is wrong to send his children to a private school but also dismiss school voucers. Why should only the rick be given choice? Let all parents decide which school their child goes to.

He can't both support comprehensive education yet pay for his kids to bail out of it.

[Comstock]

I wonder if the shadow chancellor can do the following sum?

5.50*37.5*52

The answer is 10,764, Georgie boy.

Thats right, your private schooling is costing more than many workers earn.

Can't wait to read tomorrow's Mirror :D

Night all.....

[Ash Faulkner]

I don't blame him, I'd do the same. Though I agree with Alan, choice should not be the preserve of the rich and Osbourne should support vouchers. But there we are.

As for comstock, why is private education 'vile'? Because it is, at present, the preserve of the rich? The fact is private schools are generally far better than state ones. To dismiss them because they are 'vile' and go against your principles is to put ideology before education - which is precisely what this country has been doing for the past four decades, and it hasn't work very well.

[Politico]

It still has the image that the party is an out of touch elite.

[Ash Faulkner]

Perhaps, but some things are more important than the reputation of a political party, and to any parent, their child's education is one of them. As Diane Abbott so happily proves.

[matthew]

The sickening thing is not that he chooses to do this, but that politicians do this because they are wealthy and can afford to, while doing absolutely nothing to challenge the status quo of state education, even when they know it is not good enough for their own children.

They are prepared to pay all the games and posturing about state education and comprehensives with other people's children, but when it comes to their own it's a different story.

Useless hypocrites.

Why is Osborne calling for radical change to state education with proper discipline? Just do nothing, educate his own children in luxury, and let the 10 million children stuck in state schooling fester. Why would he care? He obviously only cares about himself, and his fortune. It's all just a game to him. A jolly jape for jolly old Gideon.

[Tony Makara]

Its sad to see the bitterness coming from some people. Yet again it shows how people try to score political points over children. When are we, as a nation, going to move away from bitter class distinctions? We all belong to the same nation, whether we are millionaires or minimum wage. We need to extend opportunity to others, yes, but at the same time people shouldn't be bitter about those that are well off. Inverted snobbery should have no place in our country.

[Anon]

Remind me of some of the reasons about our grammar school debacle and how we should not believe in selection BETWEEN schools.

You cannot on the one hand deny a form of selection to one group and then for your own family choose selection which frankly is solely based on how much money you have.

[Richard]

"Thats right, your private schooling is costing more than many workers earn."

But less than most people earn. The middle classes make up the majority of the country, the days of class war are over. If people are able to afford to buy their children a good education, why shouldn't they? Is it really vile to want to give your children a good education?

What is your opinion of attempts to introduce low cost private education for those who can't usually afford the standard fees? The Civitas New Model Schools for example? Is making private education more affordable "vile"?

http://www.newmodelschool.co.uk/

[David]

What I find offensive is that George Osbourne supports policies which prevent other parents from making the same sort of choices.

The burden of taxation financially hobbles most people, to the extent that the state school is the only option. The Conservatives opposes education vouchers and they oppose selection on academic ability.

For decades now the Conservatives have supported the Left's ideological position on education. But they choose a very different sort of educational environment for their own children.

Whenever I'm tempted to vote Conservative, I remember their policies on education, which strongly favour state control, and come to my senses again.

[Catherine]

But without his family's money, he wouldn't be Shadow Chancellor

[School vouchers NOW!]

George Osborne's spokesman said ''George has always said that, like any parents, he and his wife would choose what they thought was the right school for their children''.

Of course he's lucky he has that choice, many parents don't and under Osborne they still wouldn't have choice. Gove needs to argue for school vouchers.

Frankly this makes the party out of touch. I knew he was a liability.

[MHDH]

Well done, Osborne. I think you are a very weak Shadow Chancellor, but this shows some spine compared to the pathetic, shameless grandstanding of Cameron in sending his kids to a state school.

I really would love to have been a fly on the wall chez Dave when the family discussed that decision. I'll bet his baronet father-in-law and wealthy stockbroker father were cock-a-hoop.

[Comstock]

Morning, lots of stuff to respond too! Tony M: "Its sad to see the bitterness coming from some people..When are we, as a nation, going to move away from bitter class distinctions? We all belong to the same nation, whether we are millionaires or minimum wage"

That is something we could have a whole thread on! Am I proud to be British? Yes Do I have more in common with a British billionaire than a French office clerk? No.

"What is your opinion of attempts to introduce low cost private education for those who can't usually afford the standard fees? "

I don't agree with it, Richard. I think everyone should go to their local state school- end of. That would still make him fortunate. If George doesn't like the schools in London what is wrong with the ones in Tatton?

Ash said "The fact is private schools are generally far better than state ones." In terms of what? If you are talking about preperation for life, I'm not so sure. OK you could make a case that a private school equals nine GCSEs, a good comp eight, an average comp seven and a sink comp only five, but that doesn't equal preperation for life. Surely school is about getting rich kids to learn about the world and poor kids to aspire to better.....

To dismiss them because they are 'vile' and go against your principles is to put ideology before education

Sure, disclaimer on all the above- I don't have children. I actually have some sympathy for lower middle class parents who scrimp and save to send their kids to private school- but that doesn't make it right...

[John Ionides]

For those advocating school vouchers it seems that Gove is putting forward precisely the supply side reforms that would be required before vouchers would be effective (and the idea that the money follows the child may not be implemented as vouchers, but is a very similar concept).

As for lizards like Cormstock; why shouldn't I be surprised. The reason that independent schooling is flourishing is because the state sector is so blotchy. Why is state education so bad? Not least because of a lot of crazy left wing thinking that equates equality with reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator.

So Osborne has voted with his feet. As has Diane Abbot and not doubt countless other Labour party members, who conveniently forget their criticisms when it comes to their own children. The hypocrisy of Cormstock and his ilk is staggering.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Not much of a story is it? It will be interesting to see how big a splash it makes in the media. Not huge I think. I wan't aware that the relations between the party and the Telegraph were 'rocky' rather I thought people like Iain Martin were trying to champion Osborne as a'hare' to use your phrase Tim. But then what do I know, I'm stunned that a newspaper like the Daily Telegraph would choose to make the Shadow Chancellor's choice of school a story anyway .I thought that's the sort of thing best left to a total rag like the Mirror.

[Comstock the lizard]

The hypocrisy of Cormstock and his ilk is staggering.

Eh? Surely a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another i.e. talks the leftie talk and then sends their kids to a private school. I don't have any children, as I just pointed out above.

So how can I be a hypocrite?

Oh and it's COMSTOCK, and I quite like lizards :D

[Dave]

So Osborne will send his kids to private school, well good for him. Why should he put them at risk of lousy education and violence, Lord of the Flies style, from the local feral infants? If it's good enough for that great leftie, Dianne Abbott.....

On another note, read this piece on Brown by Andy Gimson:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YFBD0QCJE0APPQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2008/01/31/npolice331.xml

"We imagine Mr Brown felt happy his half-hour ordeal was over, and quite pleased with how it had gone. For although David Cameron had been very rude to him, and accused him of being "physically incapable of answering a straight question", the Prime Minister had managed to tough it out.

Yet in that moment when he retreated from Mr Johnson while wearing such a broad grin, some of us found the evasive shamelessness of our Prime Minister crystallised.

Dickensian powers of exaggeration are needed to get to grips with Mr Brown, an obsessive workaholic who will say absolutely anything to show he is always in the right, and Mr Johnson has those powers of magnification.

To treat Mr Brown as if he is amenable to reason, which is the polite fiction maintained by Mr Cameron and also by Nick Clegg for the Liberal Democrats, is a compliment the Prime Minister does not deserve. Mr Johnson's spontaneous indignation somehow helped to expose that fiction, though Mr Brown is doing that himself by insisting on so many implausibilities that he is becoming unbelievable."

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

This is of course the descision of the Osborne family, and it isn't the business of anyone else.
I think it would be far worse if he decided to send his children to a deprived state school, because of the short-term electoral considerations of the Party. It might have pleased the Guardian and the Mirror though.

[Editor]

Please be courteous to one another. Commenters who play the man and not the ball will have their contributions overwritten.

[David Cooper]

This ought to be a non-story. It only becomes a story by virtue of the fact that politicians have the power to deny electors what they want so far as education opportunities are concerned. For my own part, George Osborne's "nothing but the best" is preferable to David Cameron's "mustn't be seen to denigrate state education", but in any event the worst image here is the memory of the graphic on this site last year of the ladder being pulled up.

[Tony Makara]

My experience in life is that snobbery is never top-down but rather the other way around. How often I've heard people moaning about a person being wealthy and sending their kids to a posh school etc, yet at the same time they think its acceptable for their premier league hero's to earn 50,000 quid a week and live in a mansion with a swimming pool and a wag for recreation. What George Osborne is doing for his kids is commendable, he is a father who wants the best for his kids. Besides money isn't always a guarantee of academic excellence, look at Diana Spencer for example, money can provide a good learning environment but its all down to the talent of the child in the end.

[tim]

The highlighting of Queen Sloane types is dangerous for the fop leadership of the Tory Party.
This will just be more of the same.
Cameron and Osbornes inheritance tax plans would bnefit them to the tune of a million,something that labour will use.

[Tory Lady]

Statistics show that State Schools have a much poorer performance in every sphere, in comparison to Private Schools.
Private Schools spend less per pupil than State Schools, and have less facilities.
Surely these simple facts, supported by 14% of Parents who chooses to send their children to them, indicates they are an example to be emulated.
I suggest the conservatives move all schools into Private Management and Independent Status and make them free at the point of the Education. We are likely to save the Taxpayer one hell of a lot of money.
Good on you George.

[tim]

Tory Lady,
Actually all the state primaries in this area are excellent.
Have a look at the results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/school_tables/primary_schools/html/207.stm

Whatever Georges decision is based on,it is unlikely to be educational achievement.

How does His choice score?

Well it can't do any better than the state schools.

Does it publish results?

[Comstock]

OK last one from me- I gotta go out "This is of course the descision of the Osborne family, and it isn't the business of anyone else."

I disagree, Bucks Tory, purely because George has *chosen* to enter public life and to seek to lead the rest of us.

That, IMHO, makes this fair game. I do feel sorry for the children if this turns nasty though

[MICHAEL MCGOUGH]

Not really news,certainly much less so than the machinations being undertaken by Cameron to secure places at a church school when he is outwith it's catchment area.Far better to pay up if you can afford to and ease the shortage of state places caused by mass unlimited unplanned for migration.

[David Belchamber]

Comstock, despite Blair and Brown's best efforts, this is still a free country and there is nothing illegal - or immoral - in choosing to educate children privately.
Since many independent schools are grammar schools that were forced by a Labour government to choose between staying in the maintained sector or going private, there are more similarities than differences between them.
You should remember (or perhaps learn for the first time) that over 70% of parents are (i) first time buyers of independent education (they intended to go state but found it too awful) and (ii) these parents are desperately trying to pay the school fees out of salaries. They are not, repeat not, wealthy people and some make huge sacrifices to put their children through independent schools and remember that some 600,000 pupils being educated privately saves taxpayers over £2.2bn a year
These same parents who have difficulty in keeping up with Brown's unacknowledged rate of inflation (i.e. twice or three times 2.1%) also pay their taxes and therefore contribute towards the cost of state education.
When I talk about independent schools, I am ignoring the 50 or so very large boarding schools, the so called "public schools", like Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc. Although outside this country they are rightly regarded as being some of the best schools in the world, they are not typical of the majority of independent schools that just try to give a good all-round education.
"All-round" is important; not only do they get top exam results (although as GCSE has now become so dumbed down about 50 now score nil in the league tables because they have moved to a more rigorous exam) and get a disporportionate number of students into universities, they also excell in sports, drama, music etc. I noticed the other day that a report on my old school remarked in passing that pupils had the choice of 15 sports last spring term.
Money is not the only or even the main point of difference between the systems; indeed in the Greater Manchester area, the independent grammar schools do not charge a great deal more than the cost of a state place and in independent schools, provision must be made to generate surpluses out of annual fees for major refurbishments and new building.
No, Comstock, what would benefit the country as a whole is for the government of the day to ignore class envy and other forms of misplaced envy and actually seek to work with independent schools to try and improve the general quality of education.
As one person suggested, the government could start by reintroducing the assisted places scheme that Blair scrapped as soon as he got in.

[sjm]

And in what way did Blair's children go to their local schools? He chose what he thought was best for his family, as has Osborne, as has Abbott.

We should be worrying about what is so wrong with State schools that parents are beggaring themselves to send their children into private education.

[sjm]

And in what way did Blair's children go to their local schools? He chose what he thought was best for his family, as has Osborne, as has Abbott.

We should be worrying about what is so wrong with State schools that parents are beggaring themselves to send their children into private education.

[tim]

As I say,the state Primaries near Osbornes house get fantastic results.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/school_tables/primary_schools/html/207.stm

This is unlikely to be about educational achievement.George is entitled to keep his reasons private if he chooses,but looking at the excellence of the state primaries near him,it is a bit odd.

Does Norland Park publish results?

[Ray Gillespie]

Get a life Cockstock - go and clutter up some other website with your rubbish.

What George Osborne does with his kids is nothing to do with any of us.

[bill]

Ray,
I think you should rephrase that.

Remeber the fuss the Tory press made about Leo Blairs MMR?

[Oh Dear.]

Story in tomorrows papers.

Norland.

Nearly all white school with Ham on the menu!

[Kentish Man]

This shouldn't be a story but for one thing - the Grammar Schools thing (yet again).

I have no problem with the Osborne sprogs going to private school - good for George & Mrs O. It's just a shame that he is denying a similar standard of education (and choice) for those living in areas with no Grammar schools.

[Andy Stidwill]

What people don't like is someone who sends their children to private schools, but then lectures them on how wonderful state comprehensive schools are and how people shouldn't hesitate to send their children to them. If that's true, why did they do differently?

[John Wilkin]

"Surely school is about getting rich kids to learn about the world and poor kids to aspire to better"

No Comstock - it's about teaching children to read and write. Preparation for life is about numeracy and literacy, not social engineering

[m dowding]

Dear, oh dear. Wealthy heir sends kids to private school, is in politics for whatever, not snout grubbing.
Now Labour ex-PM joins bank notepaper heading, state non-job earnings,lucrative "celebrity" speech giving on the back of Iraq war and soldiers lives, the list is endless. That is just one of the "champagne socialists!How soon will we have "Lord Steward Presser", Lord Hain and "don't I look gorgeous in ermine?" Mandy.
Sorry, Comstock, you can keep Molly Brown and that lot of ghastly morons who put dogma and failed socialism before the people of this country. My solution to education failings and useless social engineering meddling. Privatise the lot. As in everything in life, cream rises to the top. If you shake it around, however, the whole lot turns sour. H'mmmmmmmm.

[MICHAEL MCGOUGH]

"Story in tomorrows papers.
Norland.
Nearly all white school with Ham on the menu!"

The real story is that PORK,in all it's forms has been eradicated from state school meals for fear of offending muslims(it was never an issue for jews)and that Halal meat is fed to non muslim children without their/their parent's knowledge.

[Moral minority]

How can Osborne afford £2k per annum on an MP's salary?

Before his election, Osborne had only worked as an adviser at CCHQ and in Whitehall and cannot have earned a personal fortune to fund substantial deposits on his houses in Tatton and London, both millionaire areas. He must be using the family fortune or his Parliamentary allowances to fund his children's education and homes, either to pay the mortgages or pay for them outright.

Osborne is just a spoilt trustafarian who lives the life of a multimillionaire without have earned the right to do so. We are back to the pre-Thatcher Tory Party of inherited wealth and privelege. The problem is that the trustafarians such as Dave and Boy George can afford high taxes unlike "ordinary" families. When Osborne talks about matching Labour's spending levels and Dave lectures traditional Tories on sharing, i.e. stealing, the proceeds of growth, I reach for the sick bag.

The Conservative Party must be the party of meritocracy, rather than the Bullingdon Club elite, if is to return to Government. Cameron must replace Osborne, a political liability, as Shadow Chancellor with William Hague (who went to a comprehensive). In fact, most of friends and relatives would prefer Hague as Leader.

[RobD]

Some people seem to be reacting as if George were a Labour minister not a Conservative shadow minister. We as conservatives believe in choice, if we get into power Osbpourne will be working with Gove to bring some of that choice back to parents not as fortunate as himself. We may not be promising to build more Grammars but we do have some excellent policies to give parents more choice. Personally I would like to see us bring back assisted places as quickly as Blair got rid of them, I hope this will be one of the bold policies we will see before the election.

However even if we succeed in improving schooling for everyone I would still defend the right of the next generation of Tory MPs to send their children to private school. If they think they get something a little different by paying why shouldn't they be allowed to? Apart from anything else they are making the state schools less crowded while providing more than their fair share of tax to educate those who remain, it seems like a win-win to me and only the most socialist idealists could disagree.

[tim]

Nobodys answered why Osborne has chosen to ignore fantastic state schools.
Norland Park results unavailable.

[Michael Rutherford]

I don't see the problem. When a Labour MP like Diane Abbott does it it's different, because she's standing on an anti-private school platform and telling all other parents they should be ashamed. She is a hypocrit.

Osbourne has never said private schools should be banned. In Britain we have the option of state schools and private schools and Osbourne has made use of that option.

[Ahmed Shah Masood]

The fees are £11,000, what will the extras cost? I bet the whole package comes closer to £40,000 for the pair. How can a man with that much money and such a protected background claim to be in touch with the needs of the ordinary person in the street?

[tim]

But what Osborne has said,in effect given the excellence of the State Primaries in his area,is.

"No matter how good the state option is,I will not use it"