Time for part four in the series that reviews the result of the May 18 election seat by seat, one chunk at a time. As will be the routine in posts covering the capital cities, we start with a colour-coded map showing the two-party preferred swing at polling booth level, with each booth allocated a geographic catchment area by means explained in the first post in this series. Click for an enlarged image.
Now to compare actual election results to those predicted by a demographic linear regression model, to help identify where candidate or local factors might be needed to explain the result. I now offer a new-and-improved form of the model that includes interaction effects to account for the differences in demographic effects between the cities and the regions. The utility of the change, if any, will become more apparent when I apply it to regional seats, which confounded the original version of the model. The coefficients and what-have-you can be viewed here – the table below shows the modelled predictions and actual results for Labor two-party preferred, ranked in order of difference between the result and the prediction of the model.
The main eyebrow-raisers are that the model anticipates a stronger performance by Labor in nearly every Liberal-held seats, to the extent that blue-ribbon Higgins and Goldstein are both rated as naturally highly marginal. While this could prove a portent of things to come in these seats, it might equally reflect a model leaning too heavily on the “secular/no religion” variable to cancel out the association between income and Liberal support in the inner cities.
As in Sydney, the numbers provide strong indications of incumbency advantages, with both Labor and Liberal members tending to outperform the model and thus appear at opposite ends of the table. I suspect this reflects both the obvious explanation, namely personal votes for sitting members, and a lack of effort by the parties into each other’s safe seats. A tendency for parties to perform more modestly when a seat is being vacated is not so overwhelming as to prevent strong results relative to the model for Labor in Jagajaga and Liberal in Higgins.
With that out of the way:
Aston (Liberal 10.1%; 2.7% swing to Liberal): Aston attracted a lot of discussion after the 2004 election when the Liberals recorded a higher two-party vote than they did in their jewel-in-the-crown seat of Kooyong. Now, for the first time since then, it’s happened again, and by a fairly substantial margin (the Liberal-versus-Labor margin in Kooyong having been 6.7%). As illustrated in the above table, the swing places Alan Tudge’s margin well beyond what the seat’s demographic indicators would lead you to expect.
Bruce (Labor 14.2%; 0.1% swing to Labor): Located at the point of the outer suburbs where the Labor swing dries up, cancelling out any half-sophomore effect that may have been coming Julian Hill’s way after he came to the seat in 2016.
Calwell (Labor 18.8%; 0.9% swing to Liberal): Among the modest number of Melbourne seats to swing to the Liberals, reflecting its multiculturalism and location at the city’s edge. Maria Vamvakinou nonetheless retains the fifth biggest Labor margin in the country.
Chisholm (Liberal 0.6%; 2.3% swing to Labor): Labor’s failure to win Chisholm after it was vacated by Julia Banks was among their most disappointing results of the election, but the result was entirely within the normal range both for Melbourne’s middle suburbs and a seat of its particular demographic profile. The swing to Labor was concentrated at the northern end of the electorate, which may or may not have something to do with this being the slightly less Chinese end of the electorate.
Cooper (Labor 14.6% versus Greens; 13.4% swing to Labor): With David Feeney gone and Ged Kearney entrenched, the door seems to have slammed shut on the Greens in the seat formerly known as Batman. After recording high thirties primary votes at both the 2016 election and 2018 by-election, the Greens crashed to 21.1%, while Kearney was up from 43.1% at the by-election to 46.8%, despite the fact the Liberals were in the field this time and polling 19.5%. In Labor-versus-Liberal terms, a 4.2% swing to Labor boosted the margin to 25.9%, the highest in the country.
Deakin (Liberal 4.8%; 1.7% swing to Labor): While Melburnian backers of the coup against Malcolm Turnbull did not suffer the retribution anticipated after the state election, it may at least be noted that Michael Sukkar’s seat swung the other way from its demographically similar neighbour, Aston. That said, Sukkar’s 4.8% margin strongly outperforms the prediction of the demographic model, which picks the seat for marginal Labor.
Dunkley (LABOR NOTIONAL GAIN 2.7%; 1.7% swing to Labor): Together with Corangamite, Dunkley was one of only two Victorian seats gained by Labor on any reckoning, and even they can be excluded if post-redistribution margins are counted as the starting point. With quite a few other outer urban seats going the other way, and a part-sophomore effect to be anticipated after he succeeded Bruce Billson in 2016, it might be thought an under-achievement on Chris Crewther’s part that he failed to hold out the tide, notwithstanding the near universal expectation he would lose. However, his performance was well beyond that predicted by the demographic model, which estimates the Labor margin at 6.6%.
Fraser (Labor 14.2%; 6.1% swing to Liberal): Newly created seat in safe Labor territory in western Melbourne, it seemed Labor felt the loss here of its sitting members: Bill Shorten in Maribyrnong, which provided 34% of the voters; Maria Vamvakinou in Calwell, providing 29%; Tim Watts in Gellibrand, providing 20%; and Brendan O’Connor in Gorton, providing 16%. The newly elected member, Daniel Mulino, copped the biggest swing against Labor in Victoria, reducing the seat from first to eleventh on the national list of safest Labor seats.
Gellibrand (Labor 14.8%; 0.3% swing to Liberal): The city end of Gellibrand followed the inner urban pattern in swinging to Labor, but the suburbia at the Point Cook end of the electorate tended to lean the other way, producing a stable result for third-term Labor member Tim Watts.
Goldstein (Liberal 7.8%; 4.9% swing to Labor): Tim Wilson met the full force of the inner urban swing against the Liberals, more than accounting for any sophomore effect he might have enjoyed in the seat where he succeeded Andrew Robb in 2016. Nonetheless, he maintained a primary vote majority in a seat which, since its creation in 1984, has only failed to do when David Kemp muscled Ian Macphee aside in 1990.
Gorton (Labor 15.4%; 3.0% swing to Liberal): The swing against Brendan O’Connor was fairly typical of the outer suburbs. An independent, Jarrod Bingham, managed 8.8%, with 59.2% of his preferences going to Labor.
Higgins (Liberal 3.9%; 6.1% swing to Labor): One of many blue-ribbon seats that swung hard against the Liberals without putting them in serious danger. Nonetheless, it is notable that the 3.9% debut margin for Katie Allen, who succeeds Kelly O’Dwyer, is the lowest the Liberals have recorded since the seat’s creation in 1949, surpassing Peter Costello’s 7.0% with the defeat of the Howard government in 2007. Labor returned to second place after falling to third in 2016, their primary up from 14.9% to 25.4%, while the Greens were down from 25.3% to 22.5%. This reflected a pattern through much of inner Melbourne, excepting Melbourne and Kooyong.
Holt (Labor 8.7%; 1.2% swing to Liberal): The populous, northern end of Holt formed part of a band of south-eastern suburbia that defied the Melbourne trend in swinging to Liberal, causing a manageable cut to Anthony Byrne’s margin.
Hotham (Labor 5.9%; 1.7% swing to Labor): The swing to third-term Labor member Clare O’Neil was concentrated at the northern end of the electorate, with the lower-income Vietnamese area around Springvale in the south went the other way.
Isaacs (Labor 12.7%; 3.4% swing to Labor): What I have frequently referred to as an inner urban effect actually extended all along the bayside, contributing to a healthy swing to Mark Dreyfus. The Liberal primary vote was down 7.4%, partly reflecting more minor party competition than in 2016. This was an interesting case where the map shows a clear change in temperature coinciding with the boundaries, with swings to Labor in Isaacs promptly giving way to Liberal swings across much of Hotham, Bruce and Holt.
Jagajaga (Labor 6.6%; 1.0% swing to Labor): Jenny Macklin’s retirement didn’t have any discernible impact on the result in Jagajaga, which recorded a modest swing to her Labor successor, Kate Thwaites.
Kooyong (Liberal 5.7% versus Greens): Julian Burnside defied a general Melburnian trend in adding 2.6% to the Greens primary vote, and did so in the face of competition for the environmental vote from independent Oliver Yates, whose high profile campaign yielded only 9.0%. Labor was down 3.7% to 16.8%, adrift of Burnside’s 21.2%. But with Josh Frydenberg still commanding 49.4% of the primary vote even after an 8.3% swing, the result was never in doubt. The Liberal-versus-Labor two-party margin was 6.7%, a 6.2% swing to Labor.
Lalor (Labor 12.4%; 1.8% swing to Liberal): The area around Werribee marks a Liberal swing hot spot in Melbourne’s west, showing up as a slight swing in Lalor against Labor’s Joanne Ryan.
Macnamara (Labor 6.2%; 5.0% swing to Labor): Talked up before the event as a three-horse race, this proved an easy win for Labor, who outpolled the Greens 31.8% to 24.2%, compared with 27.0% to 23.8% last time, then landed 6.2% clear after preferences of the Liberals, who were off 4.6% to 37.4%. The retirement of Michael Danby presumably explains the relatively weak 5.0% primary vote swing to Labor in the seven booths around Caulfield and Elsternwick at the southern end of the electorate, the focal point of its Jewish community. The result for the remainder of the election day booths was 9.7%.
Maribyrnong (Labor 11.2%; 0.8% swing to Liberal): Nothing out of the ordinary happened in the seat of Bill Shorten, who probably owes most of his 5.0% primary vote swing to the fact that there were fewer candidates this time. Typifying the overall result, the Liberals gained swings around Keilor at the electorate’s outer reaches, while Labor was up closer to the city.
Melbourne (Greens 21.8% versus Liberal; 2.8% swing to Greens): The Greens primary vote in Melbourne increased for the seventh successive election, having gone from 6.1% in 1998 to 22.8% when Adam Bandt first ran unsuccessfully in 2007, and now up from 43.7% to 49.3%. I await to be corrected, but I believed this brought Bandt to within an ace of becoming the first Green ever to win a primary vote majority. For the second election in a row, Bandt’s dominance of the left-of-centre vote reduced Labor to third place. On the Labor-versus-Liberal count, Labor gained a negligible 0.1% swing, unusually for a central city seat.
Menzies (Liberal 7.2%; 0.3% swing to Labor): Very little to report from Kevin Andrews’ seat, where the main parties were up slightly on the primary vote against a smaller field, and next to no swing on two-party preferred, with slight Liberal swings around Templestowe in the west of the electorate giving way to slight Labor ones around Warrandyte in the east.
Scullin (Labor 21.7%; 2.1% swing to Labor): Third-term Labor member Andrew Giles managed a swing that was rather against the outer urban trend in his northern Melbourne seat.
Wills (Labor 8.2% versus Greens; 3.2% swing to Labor): The Greens likely missed their opportunity in Wills when Kelvin Thomson retired in 2016, when Labor’s margin was reduced to 4.9%. Peter Khalil having established himself as member, he picked up 6.2% on the primary vote this time while the Greens fell 4.3%. Khalil also picked up a 4.2% swing on the Labor-versus-Liberal count, strong even by inner urban standards, leaving him with the biggest margin on that measure after Ged Kearney in Cooper.
Gees, Bucephalus, you are a miserable sod aren’t you?
I take exception to your comment about me “whining”. You always seem to want to become personal, and then you get upset when you are responded to in kind. I call that rank hypocrisy but then who is surprised?
You picked the eyes of the ABC article, and to a lesser extent what I had to say – which admittedly is an interpretation of what the ABC item said, and thereby up for debate – but avoided the salient point that the taxpayer funds going into the private sector frees the hands of the richest by way of the state paying for their recurring costs. Thereby, and correctly, the private sector having to raise funds for the other lovelies through borrowing and benefactors. Tell me which government schools can do this?
Your typical approach, heard ad nauseum from conservative? mouth-pieces such as yourself, is that “If only the government sector could come up to the private sector, rather than “drag” the private sector down to the “mediocrity” of the public sector”, all would be well.
Your comment about per capita funding would be laughed out of court in any serious conversation school funding…………..
lizzie @ #1228 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 3:19 pm
It really is absurd that a recently defeated candidate can be appointed as a senator.
Rex Douglas says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:47 pm
KK
Mexicanbeemer
It’s probably all changed now, but I went to a private school in England which received govt funding provided they took a certain number of ‘scholarship’ children. I was in the first year of that arrangement, and we were looked down on by the Head, coming from poorer families with the wrong accent, and only our brains to recommend us. The prejudice lasted throughout my time there, although I didn’t fully understand until I was leaving!!!
Bitterness and ignorance?
Nope not bitter and definitely not ignorant.
Maybe you needed to spend more time learning 😉
Bucephalus
Outside certain elite schools, most schools don’t offer much in the way of an advantage so their parents would be better off investing the fees in a way that provided their children with some financial foundation.
What a child does at uni or tafe and how they behave are more important factor towards being successful than what school the child goes to when they are 10, so for many it is a vanity project.
There is a place for private schools but they should be self efferent or sell x number of places to government each year.
Narns says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:22 pm
briefly:
Labor have won from Opposition just 4 times in the last century.
You keep saying this but it’s misleading and trite. The Libs have won from Opposition just 5 times in the same period:
1931 Lyons
1949 Menzies
1977 Fraser
1996 Howard
2013 Abbott
And “just 4 times” doesn’t include Curtin taking over from Fadden in 1941.
The Tories won following the split over conscription during WW1. They won again in 1931, 1975, 1996, 2010 (but Gillard formed a minority government) and 2013.
Curtin took over from a minority position.
Labor won in 1929, 1975 and 2007 only to see their governments collapse (1931), be torn down (1974 and 1975) and 2010 (the deposing of the incompetent Rudd) in short order.
The longest interval between Labor’s successes was 43 years – from 1929 to 1972. Since 1996, 23 years ago, Labor has won just the single election. Labor has been in office in the following years since 1919: 1929-1931; 1941-49; 1972-75; 1983-96; 2007-2013. that’s less than 33 years out of 100. The recurrent theme in Australian political history is that Labor Governments are usually rare and short-lived. They have achieved a great deal, but they are the exception.
The Liberals on the other hand usually win and yet accomplish nothing at all.
Psyclaw
Gril dncae byo het afetr het flloewd het.
Assuming one spelling error only.
I found four valid re arrangements.
After the dance the boy followed the girl
or
The girl followed the boy after the dance
etc.
I looked for the secret message but failed to see how random word sets relate to the grammar police.
Things get more entertaining if you assume 2 errors.
Near us is a public primary, public secondary* and a catholic parish primary. They’re all close to each other and all good schools with similar facilities. They lost dedicated school bus services in the ACT bus network changes but, so far as I know, did not whinge like the more exclusive private schools.
*In the ACT, secondary schools teach years 7-10 and colleges teach years 11 & 12.
Private schools are an institutional expression of permanent inequality. They are the inverse of under-investment in the public domain. They signify over-consumption in the private domain.
Tricot says: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:44 pm
Gees, Bucephalus, you are a miserable sod aren’t you?
************************************************************
TRICOT – Over the years I would rate you as one of the sharpest and most intelligent posters on PB …… but why you would get into an argument with your old nemesis *Bucephalus AKA *Compact Crank …….
I.E. *TROLL ……. relevance deprivation disorder nutters who feed off knowing they are upsetting others …
Trolls feel rewarded by creating the biggest altercation possible. They want to get a reaction out of you. When you fight with a troll, he wins. When you reason with a troll, he wins. Any time that you give a troll attention, he gets exactly what he wants.
Trolls are basically sociopaths and are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth. You cannot reason with a troll. Attempting to do so only wastes your time and feeds the troll with the attention they are seeking .
The best way to deal with trolls is to IGNORE THEM !!!!!! When you ignore a troll, he
doesn’t get the attention and satisfaction of creating an escalated conflict.
phoenixRED says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:00 pm
You have a problem with discussing public policy?
briefly says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 3:54 pm
There always has been and forever will be inequality.
Define over-consumption.
lizzie @ #1221 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 3:10 pm
Those millions of people who weren’t paying attention and discovered they only got $255 only have themselves to blame. Those of whom voted Liberal can choke on it in a big bucket of off prawns.
briefly @ #1257 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 3:54 pm
As Labor keeps saying….oh, wait
Inequality has little to do with what school one goes too. Recently we saw a homeless person from a private school background be murdered by another homeless person that also from a private school background.
The real inequality is between those with a degree/trade and those without.
Skynews are scum
With very little evidence they are reporting that the offender in Clarence St was shouting Allah Akbar. The vision infact shows a very deranged man
A body has now been found near the scene
Bucephalus
“Many parents of private school children are not the wealthy types that you think they are.”
This is the same hoary old chestnut that is dragged out every time the opulence of Private Schools is being questioned and the wealth of the 95% of parents who send their children to them is highlighted. In fact, it has been said that the Private Schools are well aware of the fact that they are the incubators of the offspring of the privileged and so their scholarship system, as well as drawing the best from the Public School system to boost their own KPIs, was developed to counter that narrative.
People aren’t silly. They know this.
pRED………….Thanks and you are right of course. I actually raised the ABC item as it seemed to have hit stoney ground whereas I would have thought it was worthy of debate here. I have no idea what motivates some, but conversely over the years most contributors I have read here tend to hold views with sincerity………………while others are here for a verbal punch-up. No harm in that from time to time as there is literally no skin off anyone at all – other than the bruised ego or two?
Bucephalus @ #1249 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 3:49 pm
Yep.
It’s just absurd.
Mexicanbeemer @ #1264 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 4:13 pm
Exackerley. I live in a ‘well-to-do’ suburb (only because my parents were friends of a family that own the house I rent), and the preponderance of tradesman’s vans and utes parked outside of the houses around here has exploded in recent times. And they aren’t working on the houses, they own them.
Also, one of my son’s best friends has just finished his Plumbing apprenticeship and he now is paid $80/hour, first year out. As much or more than first year out doctors I would hazard a guess.
Tricot says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:22 pm
pRED………….Thanks and you are right of course.
*******************************************************
*Compact Crank – admittedly he doesn’t come over as a total LoopyLu cranially challenged dropkick like Nath who comes over as a total bullshitting buffoon that convinces no-one …….. but CRANK …to me he is a classical fifth columnist type who tries to undermine others thoughts by projecting this reasonable but subliminally subversive approach usually moralising over issues of which he personally does not obey but preaches to others to obey and can be quite convincing to anyone who does not see through his schtik …. …
You cannot reason with Compact Crank/Bucephalus . Attempting to do so only WASTES YOUR TIME and feeds him with the attention he is seeking .
Scotty’s offered his thoughts, but no prayers….yet.
C@tmomma @ #1271 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 4:24 pm
Base salary (no overtime) of an intern in NSW is ~$52,000.
I see mundo has the memory of a goldfish. He appears to be unaware of the ‘Hit List’, ‘Class Envy’ and ‘My Taxes should contribute to my kid’s Private School too!’ campaigns waged against Labor when they dared stick their heads above the parapet about Private Schools funding and opulence. Why Bucephalus has been flexing his muscle with some of the same defenses here today. So whatever Labor would have to say about the inequities of Private School funding vis a vis Public School funding, you can bet dollars to diamonds a full-blown hysterical campaign would be cranked up by the usual suspects to drown them out.
Base salary (no overtime) of an intern in NSW is ~$52,000.
😯
Frednyk
Without the rules of grammar, communication is impossible.
For example, the subject precedes a transitive verb and the object follows it.
As I posted above, I was trying to communicate “After the dance the girl followed the boy”
Whilst the grammar police might be an anathema to some, grammar itself is essential.
Daily Telegraph reporting man with knife escaped from mental health facility.
CBD people have certainly developed innovative ways of dealing with knife wielders.
C@tmomma @ #1276 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 4:41 pm
Sorry – old info
Current base salaries:
Intern (year 1 post grad) $68,000
Senior Registrar (year 10 +) $140,000.
C@tmomma says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:41 pm
Base salary (no overtime) of an intern in NSW is ~$52,000.
And the plumber didn’t do a $100,000 degree to get there.
Yawn
A person is dead
Stabbed
In Sydney’s CBD
Who cares. Happens daily
rhwombat @ #1277 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 4:52 pm
A Plumber would do $140k standing on his head these days.
Tradies are well paid and I say good luck to them but it highlights why we need to change the way we see wealth against just being financially successful.
frednk @ #1278 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 4:54 pm
Nor do the docs get the tax deductions for their utes and tools that the Plumbers do.Maybe doctors get a tax deduction for their instruments and CE but that would be about it, wouldn’t it?
C@tmomma @ #1282 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 4:58 pm
As long as he’s not standing on someone else’s head…
A perfect example of the need for correct order in a sentence.
Headline in The New Daily.
Bucephalus
The extra spending has an effect, but it is not an effect on educational outcomes. Instead, the effect is to reduce economic mobility and in particular to preserve the economic advantage of the already wealthy. In effect the government is providing a subsidy to the wealthy to enable us to remain wealthy across generations, and this is a grotesque misappropriation of public money.
Now, some will say that it’s not just the already wealthy who send their children to private schools. That is true: many low income couples work two jobs each to save to send their children to such schools. And there the perfidy deepens: the children of poor parents (paying the same fees) actually don’t gain access to the networks and so on that us rich kids did. So in in addition to the wealthy being subsided by the government they are also being cross-subsidised by poor parent who are paying the same fees but whose kids are not getting the same benefits.
I say this as both an (unwitting and largely uninterested) beneficiary of the wealth-preservation effect of private schools and as some more than willing to contemplate a (Medicare GP like) approach wherein a Commonwealth monopsony purchases most schooling from private providers.
Psyclaw
….
For example, the subject precedes a transitive verb and the object follows it.
English being what English is, the fun would be to find the exception, but by definition I think this one is pretty safe; but is it useful?
Please bring coffee
or
coffee please bring
Both versions have a clear meaning, the noun and the verb get you there.
C@tmomma @ #1284 Tuesday, August 13th, 2019 – 5:00 pm
Salaried MO’s (including procedural specialists who get pretty impressive salaries eg $200-300,ooo/yr) can deduct CE & professional costs (Medical Indemnity etc), but that’s about it. Private practice billing (above the Medicare rebate) lets one claim the usual rorts.
And a further comment on private schooling.
The really well run independent schools (such as mine) run a rort whereby the matriculation (etc.) scores of the “dumb rich” are inflated by extremely high scores of academic scholarship students and the way in which that interacts which the matriculation score computation. So there is a third subsidy: smart students (whether wealthy or not) subsidise the scores of the wealthy but less smart, getting them into University for which they are completely unsuited (and fail, to the benefit of no-one). Moreover the effect is reinforced by the pilfering of smart students from the public system (so as to exploit their abilities) thereby further inflating those private schools’ averages and hence further inflating the scores of the wealthy but less smart.
Ch 10 news says a woman was found deceased inside an apartment (the CBD hotel?) and another woman was injured before the alleged attacker was stopped by bystanders. He is described as a 20yo from Blacktown(?)
rhwombat:
The best thing is that doctors’ rooms—in the CBD—are owned by their self-managed super funds, which have borrowed to fund the purchase (and deduct the interest) . That’s an absolute cracker!
My parents wanted to send me to PLC Croydon. I told them, in my best 11yo voice, to please don’t do it as I didn’t want to be around a bunch of snobs. 😆
Mexicanbeemer:
Isn’t the case. Many children attend public primary schools and then private secondary schools, and in fact this is dominant mode in many private schools.
Moreover, parents for whom sending their children to private is a financial challenge almost always chose public schools at primary level, and private only at secondary level.
Noting this, a government could legitimately say that it will only subsidise private secondary education.
C@tmomma
says:
Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 5:26 pm
My parents wanted to send me to PLC Croydon. I told them, in my best 11yo voice, to please don’t do it as I didn’t want to be around a bunch of snobs.
________________________
You should have gone there. They might have taught you some manners.
Quite some years ago I remember visiting the house of a butcher living in Sydney’s Eastern Suburbs, who had a shop some distance away in the Western Suburbs. Apparently butchering was a good financial lurk in those days.
However, it seems that owning a butchery nowadays is not necessarily a path to riches due to high meat prices and competition from the supermarkets. Canberra’s large shopping malls seem to be largely devoid of independent butcheries. Most of the others seem to have a specialty product e.g. multiple flavours of sausages, or else serve the upper end of the market.
Just read the Sydney attacker had a history of mental health issues, according to The Guardian .
C@t,
glad you didn’t go to PLC Croydon. My granddaughter has been going since kindy and as a teenager is insufferable!!
Private schools do not add capacity to the education workforce. They aren’t training their own parallel workforce at their own universities. They use teachers who were trained at public universities. The private schools piggyback on publicly funded resources. Private schools divert teachers from the public schools. Private schools therefore add to the strain on public schools. They do nothing to help public schools.