Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
I think PC enough though based on my EDI training
Serious (and I really mean serious) advice: do not try that one out in real life.
'People of Colour This is primarily used in the USA and has not been fully adopted within the UK although it has become more popular.
I've been asked "Where are you from?" when I was in a pub in Liverpool, "Rainhill," I said, an L35 postcode.
"No," he said (I'd never seen him before). "Where are you really from?"
It was curiosity only - Scousers are like that.
I had a similar experience in a club in Liverpool: a cheerfully drunk scouse girl in front of me in the cloakroom queue overheard my accent and asked where I was from. "Stockport". I said. "Oh my God, there's no way you're from Stockport. Where are you realy from." Baffling.
A girlfriend of mine faced a similar line of conversation once. She was born in Newcastle, parents from South Shields, had lived in Durham most of her life. Not a strong northeastern accent, but recognisable as such to an outsider. In her local pub in Durham, she ordered a bottle of Newcastle Brown at the bar, to be regaled by the adjacent customer with "I bet they don't have that where you're from." Doubly baffling, since not only was where she was from "here", but Newcastle Brown was, in those days, available in almosr every pub in the country (and maybe still is for al I know).
Still exits apparently, though it’s decades since I came across it. Used to be known as ‘dog’ for some unfathomable reason.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
That 10% attrition rate is too low because some smaller private schools will just close.
And none of the pupils will go to other private schools?
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
At a social event at the Palace, why would anyone need to ask? There are many other things to talk about including the supposed theme of the reception.
The poor old dear is well out of it. I'd rather die than spend five minutes at a creepfest like that. If the guests weren't so besotted with their own importance they'd come to the same conclusion.
Oh, I agree, but at that sort of craven boot licking contest like a Palace reception this sort of snootiness is to be expected.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
That 10% attrition rate is too low because some smaller private schools will just close.
And none of the pupils will go to other private schools?
But fees at those will be much higher already. I wouldn't be surprised if the real attrition rate becomes 30-40% and private schooling is the preserve of the actual elite rather than merely higher earners or middle income people who make the lifestyle sacrifice.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
She's been Woman of the Bedchamber since
she was 21
Woman of the effing what Chamber?
The Royals really are a bunch of weirdos.
History, innit.
On my walk on Monday I passed a church that was over 1000 years old. I couldn’t help but think off US history (well the non native Americans at least) and it’s lack of anything truly old.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
Your formulation is better, but I think some would find a way to take offence.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
Your formulation is better, but I think some would find a way to take offence.
Yes but at that point you can write them off as morons.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
That 10% attrition rate is too low because some smaller private schools will just close.
And none of the pupils will go to other private schools?
But fees at those will be much higher already. I wouldn't be surprised if the real attrition rate becomes 30-40% and private schooling is the preserve of the actual elite rather than merely higher earners or middle income people who make the lifestyle sacrifice.
In the 20 years we had kids at private schools there was a clear changing of the guard from a school dominated by old, inherited money to the kids of professional people who wanted results for their money.
Educational attainment at the school increased markedly and some of the petty snobbery fell away. It is a much better place for the changes. VAT would significantly reverse that progress and increase the costs of the local authorities who would need to fund more children in overstretched schools. It is self defeating madness but has an air of inevitability about it.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Not only that, it would be good for State schools to have more pushy parents lobbying for higher standards and better resources.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
There you go again. Soak the private sector again.
Stripping the VAT exemption from school fees presupposes that education is only a social good if it is provided by the state. And it's an absolutely risible argument. Maybe it takes a PB poster who has been to both private and state schools to point this out....
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
I admit I had a bit of a chuckle at this comment about a certain level of handwringing about the lack of 'cultural Christian' or similar on the census.
And it’s not the function of the census to provide a comfort blanket for people who realise their contemporary secular beliefs are somewhat at odds with how they would like to regard themselves. “Save me Jesus but not just yet”.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Not at my school, without building new classrooms
We might have had small classes, but we also had a lot of small classrooms
I've been asked "Where are you from?" when I was in a pub in Liverpool, "Rainhill," I said, an L35 postcode.
"No," he said (I'd never seen him before). "Where are you really from?"
It was curiosity only - Scousers are like that.
Yeah, like people in the West of Scotland are fascinated with your educational background. "And which school did you go to?"
Regarding the “which school did you go to?” question, and referring back to the previous thread, I spent my childhood in the south of England, where I went to a primary school with a maximum class size of 45. I had no problems with class sizes. I then went to a grammar school, where I was bullied to the extent that I hated school and didn’t build up enough confidence to take an OU degree until I was in my forties. Grammar schools aren’t the wonderful places that HYFUD tells us they are. I only started to recover when I moved to Scotland and was made to feel at home.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
There you go again. Soak the private sector again.
Stripping the VAT exemption from school fees presupposes that education is only a social good if it is provided by the state. And it's an absolutely risible argument. Maybe it takes a PB poster who has been to both private and state schools to point this out....
Eton should be paying reparations. I just don’t see why Mogg jnr needs a tax break to go private.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Difficult to say. However it is possible that the increase on demand for state education will cost more money than the VAT brings in.
I would like to know what these schools do for their charitable status.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
Yet cosmetic private practice is, therapeutic isn't. VAT is a mess, famously over the pasty temperature issue.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
There you go again. Soak the private sector again.
Stripping the VAT exemption from school fees presupposes that education is only a social good if it is provided by the state. And it's an absolutely risible argument. Maybe it takes a PB poster who has been to both private and state schools to point this out....
Eton should be paying reparations. I just don’t see why Mogg jnr needs a tax break to go private.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
Yet cosmetic private practice is, therapeutic isn't. VAT is a mess, famously over the pasty temperature issue.
The parallel with travel is actually quite an interesting one - and hadn't occured to me until @Ratters asked. Transport and education are both public goods. They're therefore in part subsidised by the sate.
Cosmetic practice isn't really a public good, thereaputic is...
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Difficult to say. However it is possible that the increase on demand for state education will cost more money than the VAT brings in.
I would like to know what these schools do for their charitable status.
Usually scholarships etc.
But paid for services are not charitable, and parents cannot deduct fees against their own tax as charitable donations.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
There you go again. Soak the private sector again.
Stripping the VAT exemption from school fees presupposes that education is only a social good if it is provided by the state. And it's an absolutely risible argument. Maybe it takes a PB poster who has been to both private and state schools to point this out....
Eton should be paying reparations. I just don’t see why Mogg jnr needs a tax break to go private.
Class warfare. Boring.
In what way is it class warfare? Mogg has no class.
Are Labour planning to end the VAT exemption on all educational services and vocational training courses, or only the ones they don't like for ideological reasons?
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
Yet cosmetic private practice is, therapeutic isn't. VAT is a mess, famously over the pasty temperature issue.
The parallel with travel is actually quite an interesting one - and hadn't occured to me until @Ratters asked. Transport and education are both public goods. They're therefore in part subsidised by the sate.
Cosmetic practice isn't really a public good, thereaputic is...
Surely making plug ugly people look better is a public service?
On topic, to declare my interest, I went to a public school but paid for by a scholarship obtained by virtue, apparently of my own academic brilliance (better than being a cocky gobshite I suggest).
Was I provided with a good education? In academic terms, yes - as for being prepared for the real world, no. When I left at 18, I knew almost nothing of the real world. One was "expected" to go to University (Oxbridge of course) and that was the time and place for life. Both career and sex education were brief and perfunctory.
It's changed a lot since then I would imagine but at the time it was the ultimate throwing in at the deep end.
Education, as defined, isn't just about the accumulation of knowledge or information but also the development of what might be called "life skills" which include analysis, empathy, the ability to listen, the more practical skills such as changing a light bulb or fixing a blocked sink.
At least I knew how to place a bet, read racing form and play poker - perhaps that's all one needs.
I admit I had a bit of a chuckle at this comment about a certain level of handwringing about the lack of 'cultural Christian' or similar on the census.
And it’s not the function of the census to provide a comfort blanket for people who realise their contemporary secular beliefs are somewhat at odds with how they would like to regard themselves. “Save me Jesus but not just yet”.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
I knew about the others, but always assumed VAT was levied on flights.
Moving company fees are liable for VAT - unless you're moving abroad. A bizarre exemption, but saved me a decent wedge of money recently.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Difficult to say. However it is possible that the increase on demand for state education will cost more money than the VAT brings in.
I would like to know what these schools do for their charitable status.
One of the issues I find with this debate is those of us who have been privately educated explain all the public good that is done by private education:
- scholarships - outreach - donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs - building of facilities that can be used by community - custodianship of historic buildings - freeing up spaces in state schools - training of staff who may go into state sector
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
I knew about the others, but always assumed VAT was levied on flights.
Moving company fees are liable for VAT - unless you're moving abroad. A bizarre exemption, but saved me a decent wedge of money recently.
Same with courier services. Parcel to Newcastle - that'll be a 20% surcharge. Parcel to New Zealand, nope....
I admit I had a bit of a chuckle at this comment about a certain level of handwringing about the lack of 'cultural Christian' or similar on the census.
And it’s not the function of the census to provide a comfort blanket for people who realise their contemporary secular beliefs are somewhat at odds with how they would like to regard themselves. “Save me Jesus but not just yet”.
Excuse my ignorance having never been to a private school, but could most not just increase class sizes by 20% to remain viable? I imagine that would still put them well below the 30-odd there were in all classes at my school, so still be relatively attractive to their target market.
Apart from any other issue, why should school fees be exempt from VAT when other paid for services are not?
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
Travel (bus, train, taxi, flights) isn't subject to VAT either.
Yet cosmetic private practice is, therapeutic isn't. VAT is a mess, famously over the pasty temperature issue.
The parallel with travel is actually quite an interesting one - and hadn't occured to me until @Ratters asked. Transport and education are both public goods. They're therefore in part subsidised by the sate.
Cosmetic practice isn't really a public good, thereaputic is...
Are Labour planning to end the VAT exemption on all educational services and vocational training courses, or only the ones they don't like for ideological reasons?
Would a knitting class run by a yarn shop be exempt from VAT under current rules?
I guess a lot of things like music tuition might be exempt because people would be under the VAT threshold.
I've always rather liked the Channel Islands. Might have to move there permanently if proposals like this start to kick in as well as huge increases to my tax bill.
On topic, to declare my interest, I went to a public school but paid for by a scholarship obtained by virtue, apparently of my own academic brilliance (better than being a cocky gobshite I suggest).
Was I provided with a good education? In academic terms, yes - as for being prepared for the real world, no. When I left at 18, I knew almost nothing of the real world. One was "expected" to go to University (Oxbridge of course) and that was the time and place for life. Both career and sex education were brief and perfunctory.
It's changed a lot since then I would imagine but at the time it was the ultimate throwing in at the deep end.
Education, as defined, isn't just about the accumulation of knowledge or information but also the development of what might be called "life skills" which include analysis, empathy, the ability to listen, the more practical skills such as changing a light bulb or fixing a blocked sink.
At least I knew how to place a bet, read racing form and play poker - perhaps that's all one needs.
When I was in primary school I was asked if I wanted to sit the scholarship exam for Winchester. I declined, as even at age 10 I knew that although the fees would be paid, my parents wouldn’t be able to afford all the extra costs without family suffering.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
No because the extra 100k kids will need classrooms to sit in which means investment to build them and the attrition rate will be higher than that. It also completely pushes the last vestiges of working class kids like me out of a grammar school education because those middle class parents will funnel their cash into nearby houses and private tutors to get their kids into the local grammar. But fuck this kids too, I guess, their life chances don't matter because Labour need to hurt "rich" people.
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
Maybe not "class war", but the politics of envy? Hell, yes.
Starmer started with the state money that Sunak’s old school, Winchester, receives.
I asked this question of Jonathan on the last thread and never got a response: what state money does Winchester receive?
Every time someone suggests something that might negatively affect the wealthy you can guarantee that someone will trot out the old "politics of envy" line.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Difficult to say. However it is possible that the increase on demand for state education will cost more money than the VAT brings in.
I would like to know what these schools do for their charitable status.
One of the issues I find with this debate is those of us who have been privately educated explain all the public good that is done by private education:
- scholarships - outreach - donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs - building of facilities that can be used by community - custodianship of historic buildings - freeing up spaces in state schools - training of staff who may go into state sector
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
I’m 59, but the memory of my public school education still brings makes me shudder. I was homesick, bullied and the quality of education was no better than I’d have got a decent comp, where I’d have been much happier. It was only in my mid-twenties that I really started to learn the stuff that I now find worthwhile.
It took me a long time to forgive my parents for the experience (I have now), but just because you went to a public school does not mean that you support them as an institution.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
No because the extra 100k kids will need classrooms to sit in which means investment to build them and the attrition rate will be higher than that. It also completely pushes the last vestiges of working class kids like me out of a grammar school education because those middle class parents will funnel their cash into nearby houses and private tutors to get their kids into the local grammar. But fuck this kids too, I guess, their life chances don't matter because Labour need to hurt "rich" people.
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
Always impressive when Brexiteers decide to bugger off. Patriotism vs pocketbook is no contest.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
No because the extra 100k kids will need classrooms to sit in which means investment to build them and the attrition rate will be higher than that. It also completely pushes the last vestiges of working class kids like me out of a grammar school education because those middle class parents will funnel their cash into nearby houses and private tutors to get their kids into the local grammar. But fuck this kids too, I guess, their life chances don't matter because Labour need to hurt "rich" people.
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
Always impressive when Brexiteers decide to bugger off. Patriotism vs pocketbook is no contest.
Look on the bright side. Every time a brexiteer leaves, the country’s average IQ increases.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
No because the extra 100k kids will need classrooms to sit in which means investment to build them and the attrition rate will be higher than that. It also completely pushes the last vestiges of working class kids like me out of a grammar school education because those middle class parents will funnel their cash into nearby houses and private tutors to get their kids into the local grammar. But fuck this kids too, I guess, their life chances don't matter because Labour need to hurt "rich" people.
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
I'm not arguing with you regarding whether it is a sensible or well thought out policy, I am merely running the numbers.
On the "should private schools be allowed to be charities?" issue,
1. It's difficult to see a workable basis for the defence
"That's just class war", "You're just jealous", "Our enrichment always trickles down to you proles", and "We serve the nation" - none of these exactly cut it. They don't like it up 'em! Perhaps they will do something like set up a commission of inquiry under somebody who went to a state school, says "Gorblimey, mate" every few sentences, blows his nose on his sleeve, and whose parents were both sh*t shovellers for tuppence three farthings a week, but will that help them much? You know what they say about fooling all the people all of the time.
2. There's a rich fund of facts for the offence to dip into
These include
• a) fee-fixing, • b) sexual abuse cases (such as by John Smyth at Winchester), • c) cases of various crimes including murder committed by males who went through the private boarding school system (e.g. Rurik Jutting at Winchester), • d) exam cheating, • e) videos of "chav hunts" etc. and other stuff that can be released at opportune moments.
Imagine a public schoolboy - not an ex-pupil but a lad who is still at one of these schools - who wants to bring down the system. Who's he going to call? Well it won't be the Sun. It will be Keir Starmer's office now!
3. Removing charity status doesn't mean as much to the schools as people think, but it does mean a lot to ruling class parents because it puts 20% VAT on the fees
And that's a humiliation they think is a major step on the way to "communism". Say hello to rule by a Russian Pinko Woke Corbyn Council Trash alliance - the usual "bolshies", troublemakers, and traitors.
If the Tory party is to back down, it will do it quickly. But somehow I don't see this happening - not without tax cuts elsewhere for the rich. (Got to see the funny side here.)
4. It's a bit late for Labour to go back to noticing the private schools as it did up until the early 1970s
- not that it ever actually did anything about those wretched institutions, but at least it noticed them. So it's a good thing it's noticing them once again.
5. The Tories may make "improving" state schools (har har!) a big thing.
Sounds crazy because obviously they don't give a f*ck, but it could happen. They could even play the "call it a pandemic of abuse against girl pupils" card, which issue was curiously stomped on earlier this year.
On topic, I think this is quite clever politics - a wedge issue (like fox hunting) that has a tiny real life impact but says a lot about your general principles.
It’s a touch risky, as in some seats they need to woo folk who might consider private schooling - but to the red wall it says ‘we’re with you’. But it’s good to see Labour actually showing points of difference.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
No because the extra 100k kids will need classrooms to sit in which means investment to build them and the attrition rate will be higher than that. It also completely pushes the last vestiges of working class kids like me out of a grammar school education because those middle class parents will funnel their cash into nearby houses and private tutors to get their kids into the local grammar. But fuck this kids too, I guess, their life chances don't matter because Labour need to hurt "rich" people.
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
I am actually thrilled that Starmer has presented this - being pro aspiration was New Labour's silver bullet.
Sir Keir, I grew up under Blair. You're no Tony. You're not even a two-bit Gordon Brown....
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
I get it. As the evidence builds against your case you simply doubledown on baseless assertions and throw in a bit of sarcasm too.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
Your formulation is better, but I think some would find a way to take offence.
If it's not a question routinely asked of the white people they come across then yup, it is fairly easy to see why it is offensive.
Are Labour planning to end the VAT exemption on all educational services and vocational training courses, or only the ones they don't like for ideological reasons?
Only the ones they don't like for ideological reasons.
So many people owe the Duke and Duchess of Sussex an apology.
This was not a member of the royal family but a very elderly lady in waiting who made an error but said a question many of her generation would have asked.
The Palace correctly asked her to retire
Recollections may vary.
"a question" is seemingly a bit of an understatement.
It’s a bit shit, but she’s 83 ffs. Some old people are not fully up to speed with modern Britain. Cut her some slack.
i didnae realise she is 83. That's RIDIC
Some old biddy has a somewhat outdated view of the world. OMFG BURN HER
Ngozi Fulani is a thick trouble maker. I am mildly drunk, in St Andrews, on St Andrews Day, wearing a kilt. Several people have asked me in the course of the day where I am "really from." I have not felt offended by this. I read this story in reverse, as entitled Guardian black aristocracy picking on the white and elderly.
Why "entitled"? I believe the correct terminology in this context is "uppity". Wonder what my home town has done to deserve your presence.
Having privileged access to a mouthpiece through which she can advertise her own importance to the world. 83 year olds are 83, why not just tell the confused old dear the answer to her question, first go?
The lady did. First organization (why she was there at all) then location.
On topic, I think this is quite clever politics - a wedge issue (like fox hunting) that has a tiny real life impact but says a lot about your general principles.
It’s a touch risky, as in some seats they need to woo folk who might consider private schooling - but to the red wall it says ‘we’re with you’. But it’s good to see Labour actually showing points of difference.
It’s not about aspiration - it’s about fairness.
Ho ho ho. Brave call Minister.
The statement it makes is - 'We don't like success, so we're gonna keep taxing it more and more- then we can all be mediocre and the country can go to the dogs'.
One of the issues I find with this debate is those of us who have been privately educated explain all the public good that is done by private education:
- scholarships ** Education ** - outreach ** Education ** - donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs ** Education/Community ** - building of facilities that can be used by community ** So, community ** - custodianship of historic buildings ** s/of/of their attractive brochure-worthy/ ** - freeing up spaces in state schools ** I guess ** - training of staff who may go into state sector ** Or might not **
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
Not ignore, very much wonder why it is VAT-free and charitable. Some vague maybe/maybe-not and CoE-esque 'look at our pretty buildings' isn't really cutting it for me. If we give VAT/tax breaks to everyone and everything that may or may not go on to work in the state sector or lives in a Victorian or Edwardian building then that would level the ground a little.
I've always rather liked the Channel Islands. Might have to move there permanently if proposals like this start to kick in as well as huge increases to my tax bill.
I'm actually half considering what I never thought I would and to move to the Middle East with my family for 10 years.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
Your formulation is better, but I think some would find a way to take offence.
If it's not a question routinely asked of the white people they come across then yup, it is fairly easy to see why it is offensive.
I often get asked where I am from, but there isn't any racial connotation to the question with me, just curiosity. That isn't true though if the person being questioned is black etc.
I've always rather liked the Channel Islands. Might have to move there permanently if proposals like this start to kick in as well as huge increases to my tax bill.
I'm actually half considering what I never thought I would and to move to the Middle East with my family for 10 years.
Qatar is lovely it seems, if you aren't gay or a migrant labourer.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
Your formulation is better, but I think some would find a way to take offence.
If it's not a question routinely asked of the white people they come across then yup, it is fairly easy to see why it is offensive.
If black South Africans asked white South Africans where they really came from would it be equally offensive? In my view yes
One of the issues I find with this debate is those of us who have been privately educated explain all the public good that is done by private education:
- scholarships ** Education ** - outreach ** Education ** - donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs ** Education/Community ** - building of facilities that can be used by community ** So, community ** - custodianship of historic buildings ** s/of/of their attractive brochure-worthy/ ** - freeing up spaces in state schools ** I guess ** - training of staff who may go into state sector ** Or might not **
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
Not ignore, very much wonder why it is VAT-free and charitable. Some vague maybe/maybe-not and CoE-esque 'look at our pretty buildings' isn't really cutting it for me. If we give VAT/tax breaks to everyone and everything that may or may not go on to work in the state sector or lives in a Victorian or Edwardian building then that would level the ground a little.
Education isn't a charitable endeavour these days?
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
And thousands of extra kids that need spaces at local schools. It will be an increase in the cost base for the state with a tiny increase in revenue. It's laughable to think that £1.7bn could be raised from this.
Back of the envelope suggests it would be small revenue positive for the government.
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
No because the extra 100k kids will need classrooms to sit in which means investment to build them and the attrition rate will be higher than that. It also completely pushes the last vestiges of working class kids like me out of a grammar school education because those middle class parents will funnel their cash into nearby houses and private tutors to get their kids into the local grammar. But fuck this kids too, I guess, their life chances don't matter because Labour need to hurt "rich" people.
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
I'm not arguing with you regarding whether it is a sensible or well thought out policy, I am merely running the numbers.
I think the point @MaxPB is making is that you can't just run a raw calc on pupil numbers because of the knock on effects to the viability of smaller private schools and the required expansion of infrastructure provision at state schools.
I've always rather liked the Channel Islands. Might have to move there permanently if proposals like this start to kick in as well as huge increases to my tax bill.
I'm actually half considering what I never thought I would and to move to the Middle East with my family for 10 years.
Qatar is lovely it seems, if you aren't gay or a migrant labourer.
Just compiling a list of PBers likely to make a half arsed defence of Lady brazen old racist Hussey. Petronellas I'll call them.
Not excusing Lady Hussey's behaviour but she is over 83 so would have remembered when Windrush first arrived. That may have been a question typical of her generation then even if unacceptable now.
My late grandmother was Sir Marmaduke Hussey's secretary for a time
It's actually quite an interesting question whether there is a widely acceptable form of words to ask someone from an ethnic minority what place their ancestors came from.
As a British woman of colour, where did your ancestors originate from?
You can't really throw that into an informal conversation; it reads like a census form.
Doesn't that just illustrate what a stupid question it is? Of all the things to ask, why that? Why not eg what are you here for? What does your organisation do? And take it from there. I wonder whether perhaps it does illustrate the thick posho mindset that the only thing that matters is who your family are not what you've done with your life.
Not really, I wasn't suggesting that it should be the only question one asks a new acquaintance, or even in the top 10, but equally in a conversation I don't think any polite enquiry should be taboo.
It's not polite to ask someone where they're from and then refuse to believe the answer they give you.
Yes, and there's a much better way to ask it too, "oh ok, where are your family originally from?" is a bland and acceptable way to get the same information. If someone gets upset after that then they are being oversensitive IMO. Being asked "where are you actually from?" is, a bit much but then she's 83 and probably a racist.
Your formulation is better, but I think some would find a way to take offence.
If it's not a question routinely asked of the white people they come across then yup, it is fairly easy to see why it is offensive.
If someone can’t see why Lady SH’s comments were nasty and offensive (it’s the weird persistence which gives the lie to any idea that she’s some muddled oldie), I don’t know what to say. Fwiw I think Ms Fulani’s response has been measured and graceful.
I’m 59, but the memory of my public school education still brings makes me shudder. I was homesick, bullied and the quality of education was no better than I’d have got a decent comp, where I’d have been much happier. It was only in my mid-twenties that I really started to learn the stuff that I now find worthwhile.
It took me a long time to forgive my parents for the experience (I have now), but just because you went to a public school does not mean that you support them as an institution.
My Tory-voting father felt the same about Winchester - loathed it and would have welcomed its closure. Mostly as he disliked boarding, I think.
I've been asked "Where are you from?" when I was in a pub in Liverpool, "Rainhill," I said, an L35 postcode.
"No," he said (I'd never seen him before). "Where are you really from?"
It was curiosity only - Scousers are like that.
Yeah, like people in the West of Scotland are fascinated with your educational background. "And which school did you go to?"
Regarding the “which school did you go to?” question, and referring back to the previous thread, I spent my childhood in the south of England, where I went to a primary school with a maximum class size of 45. I had no problems with class sizes. I then went to a grammar school, where I was bullied to the extent that I hated school and didn’t build up enough confidence to take an OU degree until I was in my forties. Grammar schools aren’t the wonderful places that HYFUD tells us they are. I only started to recover when I moved to Scotland and was made to feel at home.
There can be bullying in any school but in grammar schools at least those most reluctant to learn and most likely to disrupt are generally excluded
On the "should private schools be allowed to be charities?" issue,
1. It's difficult to see a workable basis for the defence
"That's just class war", "You're just jealous", "Our enrichment always trickles down to you proles", and "We serve the nation" - none of these exactly cut it. They don't like it up 'em! Perhaps they will do something like set up a commission of inquiry under somebody who went to a state school, says "Gorblimey, mate" every few sentences, blows his nose on his sleeve, and whose parents were both sh*t shovellers for tuppence three farthings a week, but will that help them much? You know what they say about fooling all the people all of the time.
2. There's a rich fund of facts for the offence to dip into
These include
• a) fee-fixing, • b) sexual abuse cases (such as by John Smyth at Winchester), • c) cases of various crimes including murder committed by males who went through the private boarding school system (e.g. Rurik Jutting at Winchester), • d) exam cheating, • e) videos of "chav hunts" etc. and other stuff that can be released at opportune moments.
Imagine a public schoolboy - not an ex-pupil but a lad who is still at one of these schools - who wants to bring down the system. Who's he going to call? Well it won't be the Sun. It will be Keir Starmer's office now!
3. Removing charity status doesn't mean as much to the schools as people think, but it does mean a lot to ruling class parents because it puts 20% VAT on the fees
And that's a humiliation they think is a major step on the way to "communism". Say hello to rule by a Russian Pinko Woke Corbyn Council Trash alliance - the usual "bolshies", troublemakers, and traitors.
If the Tory party is to back down, it will do it quickly. But somehow I don't see this happening - not without tax cuts elsewhere for the rich. (Got to see the funny side here.)
4. It's a bit late for Labour to go back to noticing the private schools as it did up until the early 1970s
- not that it ever actually did anything about those wretched institutions, but at least it noticed them. So it's a good thing it's noticing them once again.
5. The Tories may make "improving" state schools (har har!) a big thing.
Sounds crazy because obviously they don't give a f*ck, but it could happen. They could even play the "call it a pandemic of abuse against girl pupils" card, which issue was curiously stomped on earlier this year.
You could level things up by putting the DfE in charge of private schools and let state schools run themselves, and then see who’s best.
I’m 59, but the memory of my public school education still brings makes me shudder. I was homesick, bullied and the quality of education was no better than I’d have got a decent comp, where I’d have been much happier. It was only in my mid-twenties that I really started to learn the stuff that I now find worthwhile.
It took me a long time to forgive my parents for the experience (I have now), but just because you went to a public school does not mean that you support them as an institution.
My Tory-voting father felt the same about Winchester - loathed it and would have welcomed its closure. Mostly as he disliked boarding, I think.
Yes, boarding was the problem. I have never felt so miserable as I did those first nights at school, aged 10.
I've always rather liked the Channel Islands. Might have to move there permanently if proposals like this start to kick in as well as huge increases to my tax bill.
I'm actually half considering what I never thought I would and to move to the Middle East with my family for 10 years.
Qatar is lovely it seems, if you aren't gay or a migrant labourer.
The last thread was bad enough, dominated by this issue. My own view on the politics of it is that Rishi's a bit posh but so was Boris and so was Cameron and everyone knew it, so I'm not convinced this is the election winner Labour thinks it is.
I'm not sure that the perception of Sunak as a privileged oik had really sunk in yet, but I don't think that that is Starmer's main motivation for the policy.
The main electoral benefit to Labour is fiscal. It basically allows Labour to invest £1.7bn to turn around state education, without anyone being able to easily question where the money is coming from. And if the Conservatives do try to challenge the fiscal arithmetic, it'll just be another opportunity for Labour to dismiss their claims and bang on about what they think is going to be a highly popular policy.
There's also an internal niche benefit to Starmer. In any world of rational behaviour, it would totally silence his far left critics, those who seem obsessed with discrediting Starmer and who seem much less concerned to win the next GE. Well it won't silence them, but they'll just end up looking like the utter factional marginalised numpties that they are.
I doubt it will raise any money for the exchequer.
Each private school parent is effectively donating their place - and the funding that goes with it - to someone else, and paying private on top.
The state makes a net loss on each parent who decides to quit. And a 20% increase in costs, and closures of dozens of marginal independent schools, will certainly lead to a lot moving - as well as less employment for teachers as well.
It will make private education more elite, not less.
It doesn't matter if kids suffer, Labour will have hit the "rich".
It's a good reminder that any party can pursue stupid policies, just for the optics.
I don't know if you saw my earlier analysis, which suggested that it was unlikely that the policy would be revenue negative. So it doesn't seem like a stupid policy. Also, going to a state school doesn't equate to suffering.
I did and I thought your calculations were simplistic.
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Higher fees means more VAT revenue and more money for the 93% of children who are state educated. And presumably many of the pupils at these smaller schools will go to other private schools rather than suffer the unbearable anguish of attending a comprehensive school.
Difficult to say. However it is possible that the increase on demand for state education will cost more money than the VAT brings in.
I would like to know what these schools do for their charitable status.
One of the issues I find with this debate is those of us who have been privately educated explain all the public good that is done by private education:
- scholarships - outreach - donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs - building of facilities that can be used by community - custodianship of historic buildings - freeing up spaces in state schools - training of staff who may go into state sector
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
I’m 59, but the memory of my public school education still brings makes me shudder. I was homesick, bullied and the quality of education was no better than I’d have got a decent comp, where I’d have been much happier. It was only in my mid-twenties that I really started to learn the stuff that I now find worthwhile.
It took me a long time to forgive my parents for the experience (I have now), but just because you went to a public school does not mean that you support them as an institution.
But surely you accept that people should be allowed the choice? And that public goods are performed?
One of the issues I find with this debate is those of us who have been privately educated explain all the public good that is done by private education:
- scholarships ** Education ** - outreach ** Education ** - donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs ** Education/Community ** - building of facilities that can be used by community ** So, community ** - custodianship of historic buildings ** s/of/of their attractive brochure-worthy/ ** - freeing up spaces in state schools ** I guess ** - training of staff who may go into state sector ** Or might not **
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
Not ignore, very much wonder why it is VAT-free and charitable. Some vague maybe/maybe-not and CoE-esque 'look at our pretty buildings' isn't really cutting it for me. If we give VAT/tax breaks to everyone and everything that may or may not go on to work in the state sector or lives in a Victorian or Edwardian building then that would level the ground a little.
Education isn't a charitable endeavour these days?
God, the state of left wing thinking.
God, the state of right wing thinking.
Is that the level of debate and engagement your private education gifted us? It's no wonder you need charity.
I've always rather liked the Channel Islands. Might have to move there permanently if proposals like this start to kick in as well as huge increases to my tax bill.
I'm actually half considering what I never thought I would and to move to the Middle East with my family for 10 years.
Qatar is lovely it seems, if you aren't gay or a migrant labourer.
Today I feel like both
Funny to hear the boos all around the ground in last night’s game when he appeared on the large screen.
Comments
This is primarily used in the USA and has not been fully adopted within the UK although it has become more popular.
Some perceive it as a more positive term than 'BAME' or 'BME'.
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/ethnic-minority-lawyers/a-guide-to-race-and-ethnicity-terminology-and-language
The Royals really are a bunch of weirdos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_of_the_Stool
Many smaller marginal schools will close entirely - so the loss to the exchequer will be larger- and other schools will have to raise their fees by even more to cover the reduction in the pupil roll.
We'll get a smaller, more expensive, more elite private school sector that's more reliant on international students.
There will be no extra revenue and no improvement to the state sector.
Loved her to bits.
On my walk on Monday I passed a church that was over 1000 years old. I couldn’t help but think off US history (well the non native Americans at least) and it’s lack of anything truly old.
https://upperwylyevalleyteam.com/our-churches/st-james-tytherington/
(I know it says 12th, but there is evidence of 10th century in there too)
As I said, weirdos.
'Can you read the bottom line?'
'Read it? I know the fellow!'
RIP.
Educational attainment at the school increased markedly and some of the petty snobbery fell away. It is a much better place for the changes. VAT would significantly reverse that progress and increase the costs of the local authorities who would need to fund more children in overstretched schools.
It is self defeating madness but has an air of inevitability about it.
Stripping the VAT exemption from school fees presupposes that education is only a social good if it is provided by the state. And it's an absolutely risible argument. Maybe it takes a PB poster who has been to both private and state schools to point this out....
(I acknowledge that VAT rules are bizarre...)
And it’s not the function of the census to provide a comfort blanket for people who realise their contemporary secular beliefs are somewhat at odds with how they would like to regard themselves. “Save me Jesus but not just yet”.
https://twitter.com/ahuntbrumlaw/status/1597981276879097856?cxt=HHwWgMDU4afgla0sAAAA
We might have had small classes, but we also had a lot of small classrooms
There are c. 570k pupils in private education in the UK. If we estimate average school fees of £17,500 per year, it means total revenues for the sector are around £10bn.
If we assume that the sector will shrink by 20%, then we're talking £1.4-1.5bn of VAT revenue, less the costs of educating c. 100k in the State sector.
100k * £6,000/year is £600m of additional costs.
So, we're talking about a net gain for the government of maybe £800m.
Of course, it all depends on what price elasticity of demand is.
FECK ARSE
FECK ARSE
FECK ARSE
FECK ARSE
FECK ARSE
I would like to know what these schools do for their charitable status.
Cosmetic practice isn't really a public good, thereaputic is...
But paid for services are not charitable, and parents cannot deduct fees against their own tax as charitable donations.
On topic, to declare my interest, I went to a public school but paid for by a scholarship obtained by virtue, apparently of my own academic brilliance (better than being a cocky gobshite I suggest).
Was I provided with a good education? In academic terms, yes - as for being prepared for the real world, no. When I left at 18, I knew almost nothing of the real world. One was "expected" to go to University (Oxbridge of course) and that was the time and place for life. Both career and sex education were brief and perfunctory.
It's changed a lot since then I would imagine but at the time it was the ultimate throwing in at the deep end.
Education, as defined, isn't just about the accumulation of knowledge or information but also the development of what might be called "life skills" which include analysis, empathy, the ability to listen, the more practical skills such as changing a light bulb or fixing a blocked sink.
At least I knew how to place a bet, read racing form and play poker - perhaps that's all one needs.
Moving company fees are liable for VAT - unless you're moving abroad. A bizarre exemption, but saved me a decent wedge of money recently.
(Thing 1 is 13 and reasonably church-literate. This might be the year to introduce her to Father Ted.)
- scholarships
- outreach
- donation of equipment/time/space to local state schools and other voluntary orgs
- building of facilities that can be used by community
- custodianship of historic buildings
- freeing up spaces in state schools
- training of staff who may go into state sector
And yet those who want to tear anything that isn't state provision down just ignore us.
I guess a lot of things like music tuition might be exempt because people would be under the VAT threshold.
WOW
These kinds of policies just push me further into the "it's time to go" camp, something I fought off last year when my wife wanted to go. The nation is simply become anti-aspiration and personal achievement is sneered at by a large section of society as selfish.
It took me a long time to forgive my parents for the experience (I have now), but just because you went to a public school does not mean that you support them as an institution.
It means nothing any longer, except to burnish those particular schools' credentials
They're just old private schools
Poland through as it stands on fair play
Same goal difference and goals scored.
1. It's difficult to see a workable basis for the defence
"That's just class war", "You're just jealous", "Our enrichment always trickles down to you proles", and "We serve the nation" - none of these exactly cut it. They don't like it up 'em! Perhaps they will do something like set up a commission of inquiry under somebody who went to a state school, says "Gorblimey, mate" every few sentences, blows his nose on his sleeve, and whose parents were both sh*t shovellers for tuppence three farthings a week, but will that help them much? You know what they say about fooling all the people all of the time.
2. There's a rich fund of facts for the offence to dip into
These include
• a) fee-fixing,
• b) sexual abuse cases (such as by John Smyth at Winchester),
• c) cases of various crimes including murder committed by males who went through the private boarding school system (e.g. Rurik Jutting at Winchester),
• d) exam cheating,
• e) videos of "chav hunts" etc. and other stuff that can be released at opportune moments.
Imagine a public schoolboy - not an ex-pupil but a lad who is still at one of these schools - who wants to bring down the system. Who's he going to call? Well it won't be the Sun. It will be Keir Starmer's office now!
3. Removing charity status doesn't mean as much to the schools as people think, but it does mean a lot to ruling class parents because it puts 20% VAT on the fees
And that's a humiliation they think is a major step on the way to "communism". Say hello to rule by a Russian Pinko Woke Corbyn Council Trash alliance - the usual "bolshies", troublemakers, and traitors.
If the Tory party is to back down, it will do it quickly. But somehow I don't see this happening - not without tax cuts elsewhere for the rich. (Got to see the funny side here.)
4. It's a bit late for Labour to go back to noticing the private schools as it did up until the early 1970s
- not that it ever actually did anything about those wretched institutions, but at least it noticed them. So it's a good thing it's noticing them once again.
5. The Tories may make "improving" state schools (har har!) a big thing.
Sounds crazy because obviously they don't give a f*ck, but it could happen. They could even play the "call it a pandemic of abuse against girl pupils" card, which issue was curiously stomped on earlier this year.
It’s a touch risky, as in some seats they need to woo folk who might consider private schooling - but to the red wall it says ‘we’re with you’. But it’s good to see Labour actually showing points of difference.
It’s not about aspiration - it’s about fairness.
Sir Keir, I grew up under Blair. You're no Tony. You're not even a two-bit Gordon Brown....
Although Argentina are a league above Poland and could do Mexico's work for them without breaking a sweat.
Same old Labour.
The statement it makes is - 'We don't like success, so we're gonna keep taxing it more and more- then we can all be mediocre and the country can go to the dogs'.
God, the state of left wing thinking.
Is that the level of debate and engagement your private education gifted us? It's no wonder you need charity.