I made a promise to myself that I would try and steer clear of Political comment because whenever I do on Twitter on here on my website, it gets me into hot water. Well - get the bath ready😀

I will have my say first and then hope I can post an excellent article by Camilla Toominey in the Telegraph.

When I was a little girl I was actually quite bright (what happened). We lived in a rough area - Woolwich, SE London (now very gentrified in places with accommodation on the site of the old Woolwich Arsenal selling at eye watering sums).  My father was brought up in India  with excellent schooling.

Daddy was a non commissioned soldier (though he did rise through the ranks to Captain) on very little pay but he managed £4 a term for me to go to a small Convent School in Charlton.  Everything is relative but when I started work at 17 I was paid by the BBC the huge sum of £6.10shillings.

I passed my 11+ with flying colours to the extent that I was offered a Scholarship to study at a private school - Christ's Hospital.  We lived in a Labour borough controlled by the LCC (London County Council). Because my father had paid that small sum to send me to what he considered to be a good school (not private just a fee paying convent) I was denied the Scholarship.  

I have often queried this with my father but he remained adamant that was why I couldn't accept the Scholarship.  I have never forgotten that or forgiven Labour.  

I am not a dyed in the wool Conservative and am shocked at their Government so I've no idea for whom I will vote but I never ever would vote Labour because in my book they wish to bring everyone down to a level. (Communism by another name - and that doesn't work) They don't like Business and the rich but it is exactly the rich who pay the largest amount of tax to HMRC. 

It is obvious that Labour will be our next Government possibly with a huge majority and that, in my humble opinion, is dangerous. (It is always dangerous to not have an effective opposition). Labour, like all parties, is promising so much but where is the funding?  In relative terms the biggest Tax burden falls on the middle classes.   The super rich don't feel the pinch, the poor are ring fenced.

And just watch the power of the Unions grow again.  I'm all for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and there are many worthy workers who should be paid more but WHERE I ask you is the money to come from.  When I was born this country had 48 million inhabitants - we are now approaching 70 million with many millions not contributing to the economy.  People expect too much of the NHS which was never meant to deal with all the demands put upon it when begun after WW2.  

I lived in Australia in the early 60's and they had a Health System which worked and still does today.  If you were poor you got medical treatment for free but as your income increased so did your contributions to the State Health System.  Of course they have a much smaller population but you get to see a doctor quickly - you pay and then are reimbursed a percentage of the fee.  So you are not getting something for nothing but neither is the system abused.

The NHS is a Sacred Cow which no one dares touch but it is outdated.  I read that money is thrown at the NHS but is not used efficiently and much goes into Administration and paying huge salaries to Trust directors.  When I was young, there were Hospital Matrons who ran their wards with a rod of iron.  There were dedicated nurses who didn't need degrees and for those who wished to work in a caring profession but didn't wish to take qualifications you had the nursing auxiliaries.  I've been in hospital several times in my life and it seemed to me that the old system worked better.  However, IT didn't exist and there were jobs for everyone.  The situation is very different today and likely to get worse with more AI.  I'm so glad I was born when I was and though I would have loved grandchildren am now thankful I don't have any - I would be so worried for their future.

THE TELEGRAPH - Camilla Tominey

“How are you going to accommodate private school pupils into the already oversubscribed state sector if their parents can no longer afford the fees under a future Labour government?”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has forecast that Labour imposing 20 per cent VAT on private school fees (and stripping private schools of business rate relief) could result in three to seven per cent of privately educated pupils switching to state schools as a result – up to 40,000 children.

Shadow minister after shadow minister refused to answer the question of what will happen to them, insisting that talk of an exodus had been overblown by vested interests – even though the IFS is completely independent. Wes Streeting, Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall and even Bridget Phillipson, the woman hoping to be the next education secretary, appeared unable to provide a practical solution, preferring instead to blame “scaremongering from the private schools lobby” for the critical response to a policy Sir Keir Starmer had insisted will be implemented “straight away” if he wins the keys to Downing Street next month.

Then the shadow attorney general let the cat out of the bag by admitting that the policy does indeed risk increasing class sizes in the state sector. She was surprisingly relaxed about it considering she belongs to a party that has consistently railed against “Tory cuts” to the education sector and teacher shortages.

“Certainly, some schools that have vacancies [may take ex-private pupils]. My primary schools and my secondary schools have space and they’re very welcome”, said Thornberry, who is hoping to be re-elected as the Labour MP for Islington South and Finsbury on July 4. 

“They are good schools and people should send their children there. I mean, it’s fine, and if we have to, in the short term, have larger classes, we have larger classes.”

So now we are finally closer to the truth.

Labour hopes the policy will raise £1.7 billion, which it has pledged to spend on recruiting 6,500 new state school teachers (it’s going to need them) rolling out a new national “oracy” programme and ensuring all state schools in England have access to mental health counselling. (Curiously, Labour has said nothing about the mental health of private school pupils who will be affected by this policy).

But the truth Thornberry has exposed is that it will inevitably come at a cost. Teaching unions are already agitating over potential redundancies after two independent schools announced they will close at the end of the summer term – both blamed in part on Labour’s VAT plan.

Labour hoped this was a policy only the “privileged” would have to worry about. But the impact on all parents – including those who send their children to state schools (and note to the left: my son attends a state school) – has now been laid bare. It is certainly a dramatic departure from how Labour fought and won a general election in 1997. Back then, privately educated Tony Blair made five clear pledges to the electorate, the first of which was to cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds.

Amid a 2007 row over his then Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly sending one of her children to a £15,000-a-year private school for pupils with learning difficulties, Blair made it clear he supported “the right of parents to choose the school they send their children to”.

“What the Prime Minister supports absolutely is the right of parents to make choices about their children’s education which are best suited to their children’s needs irrespective of who their parents are or what job they do,” a spokesman said.

How times have changed.