On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
I've just received a letter from the Trustees and Headmaster of my local indepeneent school this evening. It will be closing from September this year. The charity is no longer viable. It's been in the community for 86 years. We're in shock, along with all the other parents and families, but it's the staff I really feel for many of whom have worked there for decades.
Thanks Labour.
PM Starmer has a lot to answer for. Chuck him out!
You'll forgive me if I don't see the funny side: lots of staff I know personally will now lose their jobs, and my children will need to find another school. It's going to be deeply distressing for a lot of people. We are all very upset.
These are the sorts of little people and schools that are already getting hit by the policy. Not the Etons, not the Winchesters; the little guy; the little independent charitable trusts at the heart of local communities. And the policy is specifically cited as the key factor making the school unviable for the next academic year. And, yes, this real bastard of a real policy is already having an effect in the real world. Almost all those children will now decant into local state schools, at significant extra cost to the taxpayer.
I will log-off for the rest of the evening. I'm very upset and I suspect if I stay I will say something I regret.
If it helps, @Casino_Royale , I think the Labour party policy on private schools is vindictive and reflexive. You will recall my rant about how the two parties are effectively adrift at the moment, thrashing around without an underlying theory of the world and how to govern. This is an example of that. I am getting more lefty as I age but unnecessary cruelty is unnecessary, and I'm pretty sure there's a Pratchett quote about that.
As I said up thread, the fun will be in a year or twos time as the wave of “pushy parents”, “taking all the places” at the good state schools happens.
Good. Things only seem to change when a certain class of people start having problems. The Conservatives might not have shafted state schooling and FE colleges if they thought it would affect people like them.
The people being pushed out will be the people who are not of “a certain class”
See the complaints about how the best of the Free Schools have been “hijacked” by middle class parents.
The privately educated are give or take the top 7-10% by wealth or earnings. This demographic have traditionally skewed Conservative and by virtue of our poor social mobility (both up and down) their parents most likely followed the same pathway.
These are the true blue* conservatives for whom the struggles of FE colleges and comprehensives do not directly hurt.
I saw that. One of the most universally offensive job ads ever.
Reminds me of Booth’s poverty map of London which had a category “vicious, semi criminal” (covering most of Deptford).
I note no linkage to the original advert, or description of what the job is.
I will keep the outrage bus on idle until we see some evidence that this is actually a true advert.
Also criminal class is pejorative.
I’ve already taken out the various registrations and setup some charities using the term the Legally Challenged Community (LCC).
As the director of Justice For The Legally Challenged I am owed £2.8 million per year. Pension should be 30% of salary, non contributory, for a term of office over 1 year. I will have no knowledge or legal responsibility for anything.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I saw that. One of the most universally offensive job ads ever.
Reminds me of Booth’s poverty map of London which had a category “vicious, semi criminal” (covering most of Deptford).
Why is the capitalisation of deaf optional?
And whoever coined the term 'global majority' clearly doesn't know what a majority is. And I'm not sure what the job is, but there's not many jobs which encourage applications from people without formal education.
Because Deaf is a specific community of pre-lingually deaf whose first language tends to be BSL, whereas deaf means can't hear well. A very substantial difference, with considerable practical implications. Putting both options in is at least clear and explicit to those familiar with the issue. And those who aren't won't be d/Deaf anyway so it doesn't matter what they think.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
Labour proposed a non-dom tax now implemented by the Tories. Also Labour’s fault I presume - the Bad Man forced me into it?
VAT adds 20% to the cost and that makes it non-viable? I can think of a great many things which have seen cost price increases of more than 29% and yet the businesses are still going. And some are not - and supposedly that is just capitalism’s
I saw that. One of the most universally offensive job ads ever.
Reminds me of Booth’s poverty map of London which had a category “vicious, semi criminal” (covering most of Deptford).
Why is the capitalisation of deaf optional?
And whoever coined the term 'global majority' clearly doesn't know what a majority is. And I'm not sure what the job is, but there's not many jobs which encourage applications from people without formal education.
Because Deaf is a specific community of pre-lingually deaf whose first language tends to be BSL, whereas deaf means can't hear well. A very substantial difference, with considerable practical implications. Putting both options in is at least clear and explicit to those familiar with the issue. And those who aren't won't be d/Deaf anyway so it doesn't matter what they think.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
Inclusiveness Officer needs sacking for failing to add "dogs, blacks or Irish"
Dogs were missing, but blacks and Irish were specifically mentioned. In fact, confusingly, the advert asked for black OR global majority, but then clarified that global majority included black. So black was doubly covered.
The criminal class. 😂😂😂😂 east end gangsters and road men will be queueing up to get their applications in for this.
Global Majority seems to be a pretty new buzzword too.
I know this is all well intentioned but, dear me.
I'm really not convinced it's well intentioned. Changing the buzzwords tends to be done to distinguish between those who know the new buzzwords and those who don't.
& TM. & a few other unlikely heroes from the 70's & 80's who pop up in the depths of the report.
It's not going to win you any votes. And it's a disaster for the public finances.
But it's the right thing to do. I'm proud of ye.
Did Sunak (and presumably Hunt) mention they tried to stall payments as recently as last December and only did the right thing because enough Tory MPs rebelled, this being the first whipped vote Sunak lost?
Inclusiveness Officer needs sacking for failing to add "dogs, blacks or Irish"
Dogs were missing, but blacks and Irish were specifically mentioned. In fact, confusingly, the advert asked for black OR global majority, but then clarified that global majority included black. So black was doubly covered.
A shame about the dogs though.
What about black dogs owned by young, rather pushy RAF officers?
While the job ad in question is clearly bollocks, I think one thing that is sadly lacking in many organisations' inclusion and diversity policies and monitoring programmes is class background.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
Inclusiveness Officer needs sacking for failing to add "dogs, blacks or Irish"
Dogs were missing, but blacks and Irish were specifically mentioned. In fact, confusingly, the advert asked for black OR global majority, but then clarified that global majority included black. So black was doubly covered.
A shame about the dogs though.
Just 'dogs' would be too broad. There's a risk that Golden Retrievers would crowd out the disadvantaged, the inbred and the proscribed breeds. In fact there's clearly a need for more diversity officers to be hired to deal with this pressing issue of discrimination, particularly faced with this Tory government's persecution of Bully XLs.
I've just received a letter from the Trustees and Headmaster of my local indepeneent school this evening. It will be closing from September this year. The charity is no longer viable. It's been in the community for 86 years. We're in shock, along with all the other parents and families, but it's the staff I really feel for many of whom have worked there for decades.
Thanks Labour.
Look I am hardly Labours biggest fan but why is it them you are blaming?
Casino isn’t - the school is - see subsequent post.
I suspect in many cases it’s not the whole story, but it doesn’t take much to push a struggling business over the edge - they may well have seen future enrolment fall in anticipation of a 20% rise in fees.
I am no big fan of the current iteration of the Labour Party, but on this I am with them all the way.
Excuse me for a moment whilst I look for my tiny violin.
Or, as someone said, with some adaptions, about a different sector of education,
Tough shit, people want tax benefits for independent schools to end.
If their business model isn't sustainable without VAT exemption then they'll have to change their business model to one that can succeed.
As I've said before, I'm sure plenty of state schools would be happy to advise on how to cut costs. Or is that just for other people's schools?
Yes, this sucks for the children, parents and staff involved. Welcome to the world the 93 percent live in l.
State schools get taxpayer subsidy regardless of their performance, unless their rolls completely collapse the worst that will happen is they get converted to an academy, they won't go out of business
That's not really true, though.
The building will survive, because you need somewhere to teach the children involved. But a new head/deputy etc will almost always be brought in, and the sponsoring academy trust will take over from the previous governors.
If we're talking about it in business terms, it's a different business in the same premises with the same customers.
(Credentials: serving as a governor for a school in limbo between the terrible Ofsted report and a MAT takeover.)
Not just the same customers. It's a different business in the same premises with the same customers and the same staff. And, probably, the same governors. (I'm intrigued by your comment about the MAT taking over from the governors - in the two schools I have direct experience of, the governors stayed put from LA to MAT, more's the pity.)
The primary in our little town is about to have its fifth head in five years, despite it being an LA school five years ago and a MAT school now, and despite having gone through the Good/Inadequate/Good dance during that time.
Is it a different business? I guess they hired someone who knows how to fill in safeguarding paperwork to Ofsted's satisfaction, which is what they failed on previously. So that's a difference.
I still wouldn't (and didn't) send my kid there, because the place is a shambles.
That does sound pretty pointless. The cycle at the one I was involved in was that the original head and CoG went around the time of the terrible Ofsted. There was then about a year of limbo- interim head and governors picking up the pieces while the new MAT were chosen. They then kept the staff they wanted and eased out the ones they didn't.
It does all depend on having replacements available, which isn't always easy.
(And yes, the school needed the jump start and it wasn't getting it from the council. But the process can be tough on the just as well as the unjust.)
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
What? Are you saying that cash flow forecasting is not a thing, and that "my business is viable if I charge 1x and not viable if I charge 1.2x" is a statement which can never have meaning, and/or can never be true or probably true?
O/T Something odd has just happened with the weather. A couple of hours ago it felt very warm, now it's distinctly chilly. And floods are forecast on Wednesday and Thursday, especially in NE Scotland.
Inclusiveness Officer needs sacking for failing to add "dogs, blacks or Irish"
Dogs were missing, but blacks and Irish were specifically mentioned. In fact, confusingly, the advert asked for black OR global majority, but then clarified that global majority included black. So black was doubly covered.
A shame about the dogs though.
What about black dogs owned by young, rather pushy RAF officers?
You may recall my deprecation of the term "biological male" due to its ambiguity: are we talking genetically or genitals? (that's not a question to you btw, more an observation). JK Rowling uses the phrase "enpenised" to avoid this, although it's not universally used.
That is why I called him a man. That is what he is. What his internal feelings are or what he wears are irrelevant.
It is his conduct which was to launch a campaign of harassment and discrimination against a woman which was the issue here. Public money is being paid to an organisation which is being led by a man who has publicly stated that he does not care about the law. Damages will also come out of taxpayers' money.
How can a man who has set about harassing and discriminating against a woman rape counsellor remain in charge of a rape counselling centre?
This is about good governance, accountability, compliance with the law and not misusing public funds.
The odd thing is, not knowing anything about this before today; the campaign of harassment appears to be against her.
I've just received a letter from the Trustees and Headmaster of my local indepeneent school this evening. It will be closing from September this year. The charity is no longer viable. It's been in the community for 86 years. We're in shock, along with all the other parents and families, but it's the staff I really feel for many of whom have worked there for decades.
Thanks Labour.
Look I am hardly Labours biggest fan but why is it them you are blaming?
Casino isn’t - the school is - see subsequent post.
I suspect in many cases it’s not the whole story, but it doesn’t take much to push a struggling business over the edge - they may well have seen future enrolment fall in anticipation of a 20% rise in fees.
I am no big fan of the current iteration of the Labour Party, but on this I am with them all the way.
Excuse me for a moment whilst I look for my tiny violin.
Or, as someone said, with some adaptions, about a different sector of education,
Tough shit, people want tax benefits for independent schools to end.
If their business model isn't sustainable without VAT exemption then they'll have to change their business model to one that can succeed.
As I've said before, I'm sure plenty of state schools would be happy to advise on how to cut costs. Or is that just for other people's schools?
Yes, this sucks for the children, parents and staff involved. Welcome to the world the 93 percent live in l.
State schools get taxpayer subsidy regardless of their performance, unless their rolls completely collapse the worst that will happen is they get converted to an academy, they won't go out of business
That's not really true, though.
The building will survive, because you need somewhere to teach the children involved. But a new head/deputy etc will almost always be brought in, and the sponsoring academy trust will take over from the previous governors.
If we're talking about it in business terms, it's a different business in the same premises with the same customers.
(Credentials: serving as a governor for a school in limbo between the terrible Ofsted report and a MAT takeover.)
Not just the same customers. It's a different business in the same premises with the same customers and the same staff. And, probably, the same governors. (I'm intrigued by your comment about the MAT taking over from the governors - in the two schools I have direct experience of, the governors stayed put from LA to MAT, more's the pity.)
The primary in our little town is about to have its fifth head in five years, despite it being an LA school five years ago and a MAT school now, and despite having gone through the Good/Inadequate/Good dance during that time.
Is it a different business? I guess they hired someone who knows how to fill in safeguarding paperwork to Ofsted's satisfaction, which is what they failed on previously. So that's a difference.
I still wouldn't (and didn't) send my kid there, because the place is a shambles.
Altogether more likely from that report OFSTED invented errors in the paperwork as they'd been ordered to fail it so it could be force academised.
They don't really care about the impact while they do it.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
I suspect the impact of Trussonomics on the heavy mortgages of thirtysomething parents in the catchment area are the more immediate cause of the financial distress affecting private schools.
Incidentally are those private schools that are heavily dependent on overseas parents from Cina etc also to be impacted by student visas, or is that just Universities?
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
What? Are you saying that cash flow forecasting is not a thing, and that "my business is viable if I charge 1x and not viable if I charge 1.2x" is a statement which can never have meaning, and/or can never be true or probably true?
So the school is closing on the basis that Labour might win a majority and implement the VAT change?
I'd say the chances of a Labour majority are 90% and, if so, the VAT going through maybe 60%. Which would mean there's a 46% chance VAT won't be applied.
Surely any viable business would a) wait and see if the change actually happened, and b) look at ways to mitigate the impact, raise further funds etc., before folding. I mean, just raise the fees by 20% ffs.
I've just received a letter from the Trustees and Headmaster of my local indepeneent school this evening. It will be closing from September this year. The charity is no longer viable. It's been in the community for 86 years. We're in shock, along with all the other parents and families, but it's the staff I really feel for many of whom have worked there for decades.
Thanks Labour.
Bit melodramatic. If your school has closed, it was already in the mire.
A. Labour aren’t in power yet B. Private Education is a dog eat dog world. I grew up on prep schools in Scotland and Yorkshire. 2 of the 3 my folks taught at have closed, as have many of those we played at sport. Changing trends - decline in boarding, senior schools opening junior depts, you only need a poor head teacher and the word rapidly gets around. Fashion is a fickle thing.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
I suspect the impact of Trussonomics on the heavy mortgages of thirtysomething parents in the catchment area are the more immediate cause of the financial distress affecting private schools.
Incidentally are those private schools that are heavily dependent on overseas parents from Cina etc also to be impacted by student visas, or is that just Universities?
Not as I understand it - studying as a child at a boarding school doesn’t generally entail bringing your family along.
& TM. & a few other unlikely heroes from the 70's & 80's who pop up in the depths of the report.
It's not going to win you any votes. And it's a disaster for the public finances.
But it's the right thing to do. I'm proud of ye.
Bollocks, they only doing it now cos they know the incoming Labour government will have to foot the bill.
A very easy argument to make. Indeed, you could go further if you wished, accusing them of using it as a whip to beat the NHS. Using their last days in office to plant a bomb, so to speak.
But I think, genuinely, Hunt and Sunak deserve credit.
They have agency. They've chosen to do the right thing. They want to make the NHS better. Right a wrong.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe their hands were forced. Maybe the cynical explanation is the correct one. It's all strategy. The victims used as pawns yet again in the cynical game of politics. They get to award themselves virtue points without paying any price.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
Indeed. It's astounding how our rightwingers are rushing to blame everyone other than the right wing governments (I hesitate to call them conservative) who have been in power for 14 years, the odd LD infusion excepted admittedly.
While the job ad in question is clearly bollocks, I think one thing that is sadly lacking in many organisations' inclusion and diversity policies and monitoring programmes is class background.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
I once sat in on the graduate recruitment panel of an insurance company where the chair vetoed a seemingly good candidate on the basis that 'his father is a lorry driver'. Admittedly that was in the 80s but it shocked me at the time and I've never forgotten.
While the job ad in question is clearly bollocks, I think one thing that is sadly lacking in many organisations' inclusion and diversity policies and monitoring programmes is class background.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
I once sat in on the graduate recruitment panel of an insurance company where the chair vetoed a seemingly good candidate on the basis that 'his father is a lorry driver'. Admittedly that was in the 80s but it shocked me at the time and I've never forgotten.
While the job ad in question is clearly bollocks, I think one thing that is sadly lacking in many organisations' inclusion and diversity policies and monitoring programmes is class background.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
I once sat in on the graduate recruitment panel of an insurance company where the chair vetoed a seemingly good candidate on the basis that 'his father is a lorry driver'. Admittedly that was in the 80s but it shocked me at the time and I've never forgotten.
Quite right too. Utter bastard. The convener I mean, not the candidate.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
While the job ad in question is clearly bollocks, I think one thing that is sadly lacking in many organisations' inclusion and diversity policies and monitoring programmes is class background.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
I once sat in on the graduate recruitment panel of an insurance company where the chair vetoed a seemingly good candidate on the basis that 'his father is a lorry driver'. Admittedly that was in the 80s but it shocked me at the time and I've never forgotten.
Quite right too. Utter bastard. The convener I mean, not the candidate.
The candidate might have fared better if he had been a bastard, as it happens.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
Edit: or the water company might introduce cryptosporidium or a bolide might hit the green bit in the middle, whatever it is called, of the senior XI's cricket pitch.
& TM. & a few other unlikely heroes from the 70's & 80's who pop up in the depths of the report.
It's not going to win you any votes. And it's a disaster for the public finances.
But it's the right thing to do. I'm proud of ye.
I wouldn’t call Hunt and May actual ‘heroes’ in this matter - indeed it’s clear from the report that Hunt changed his mind about recommending an enquiry to the PM only when he thought they might lose a Commons vote over the issue.
It’s nonetheless much to their credit that they made the decisions they did, rather than maintaining the line from the previous three decades that the best possible treatment had been administered “given the state of medial knowledge at the time”.
The politicians most culpable were the health ministers under Thatcher (notably Ken Clarke, whose considerable political weight set the line subsequently followed), based on assertions which were provably untrue, and which at best they took no steps to verify.
While the job ad in question is clearly bollocks, I think one thing that is sadly lacking in many organisations' inclusion and diversity policies and monitoring programmes is class background.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
I once sat in on the graduate recruitment panel of an insurance company where the chair vetoed a seemingly good candidate on the basis that 'his father is a lorry driver'. Admittedly that was in the 80s but it shocked me at the time and I've never forgotten.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
I suspect the impact of Trussonomics on the heavy mortgages of thirtysomething parents in the catchment area are the more immediate cause of the financial distress affecting private schools.
Incidentally are those private schools that are heavily dependent on overseas parents from Cina etc also to be impacted by student visas, or is that just Universities?
Not as I understand it - studying as a child at a boarding school doesn’t generally entail bringing your family along.
I know that most teenagers seem to be incapable of attending a university open day without mummy and daddy holding their hands, but the parents don't tend to stay for the full three or four years.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Edit: the bit missed so far is that for this policy to be successful in terms of raising money, the schools and parents need to stay, and just pay the higher fees. As has been pointed out previously, the crossover to the policy costing money isn’t terribly deep.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
I noticed today that Matt Goodwin hasn't corrected his recent poll which has been affected by a processing error, and so I sent him an email to make sure he was aware of the error.
One interesting consequence of the error is that the 0% support he published for the SNP provides a good example of how the endpoints of a LOESS smooth can be affected by an outlier - you can see the SNP line is dragged right down in the Wikipedia graph.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
What? Are you saying that cash flow forecasting is not a thing, and that "my business is viable if I charge 1x and not viable if I charge 1.2x" is a statement which can never have meaning, and/or can never be true or probably true?
So the school is closing on the basis that Labour might win a majority and implement the VAT change?
I'd say the chances of a Labour majority are 90% and, if so, the VAT going through maybe 60%. Which would mean there's a 46% chance VAT won't be applied.
Surely any viable business would a) wait and see if the change actually happened, and b) look at ways to mitigate the impact, raise further funds etc., before folding. I mean, just raise the fees by 20% ffs.
This is silly. If you can show that the expectations of consumers are economically irrelevant there's a nobel prize waiting for you.
& TM. & a few other unlikely heroes from the 70's & 80's who pop up in the depths of the report.
It's not going to win you any votes. And it's a disaster for the public finances.
But it's the right thing to do. I'm proud of ye.
Bollocks, they only doing it now cos they know the incoming Labour government will have to foot the bill.
A very easy argument to make. Indeed, you could go further if you wished, accusing them of using it as a whip to beat the NHS. Using their last days in office to plant a bomb, so to speak.
But I think, genuinely, Hunt and Sunak deserve credit.
They have agency. They've chosen to do the right thing. They want to make the NHS better. Right a wrong.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe their hands were forced. Maybe the cynical explanation is the correct one. It's all strategy. The victims used as pawns yet again in the cynical game of politics. They get to award themselves virtue points while the opposition bear the costs.
I don't think so, though.
Like the Post Office; things reach such a point that you cannot really ignore them. But as ever, if a report has recommendations, I would like to see a government response to each point (obvs. with a few weeks to generate a reasonable response). The response should say what they are doing to address each point (and they can say 'ignore! if they disagree with it, or want to address the core issue another way.)
Many reports have good recommendations that get lost amongst the bigger picture ones. In this case, the apology and the demand for compensation might cause (say) recommendation 6 ("Monitoring liver damage for people who were infected with Hepatitis C") or 9 ("Protecting the safety of haemophilia care") to be forgotten - and sometimes these less-discussed recommendations are as, if not more, important.
I'm pleased that he actually makes this point in Recommendation 12.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
I suspect the impact of Trussonomics on the heavy mortgages of thirtysomething parents in the catchment area are the more immediate cause of the financial distress affecting private schools.
Incidentally are those private schools that are heavily dependent on overseas parents from Cina etc also to be impacted by student visas, or is that just Universities?
Not as I understand it - studying as a child at a boarding school doesn’t generally entail bringing your family along.
I know that most teenagers seem to be incapable of attending a university open day without mummy and daddy holding their hands, but the parents don't tend to stay for the full three or four years.
The university students in question are *supposed* to be mature students studying for post grad qualifications. Since they come from countries where getting married at 20 is how it rolls…
I saw that. One of the most universally offensive job ads ever.
Reminds me of Booth’s poverty map of London which had a category “vicious, semi criminal” (covering most of Deptford).
Why is the capitalisation of deaf optional?
And whoever coined the term 'global majority' clearly doesn't know what a majority is. And I'm not sure what the job is, but there's not many jobs which encourage applications from people without formal education.
Because Deaf is a specific community of pre-lingually deaf whose first language tends to be BSL, whereas deaf means can't hear well. A very substantial difference, with considerable practical implications. Putting both options in is at least clear and explicit to those familiar with the issue. And those who aren't won't be d/Deaf anyway so it doesn't matter what they think.
Thanks... that's today's totally random but interesting piece of information from pb covered now.
& TM. & a few other unlikely heroes from the 70's & 80's who pop up in the depths of the report.
It's not going to win you any votes. And it's a disaster for the public finances.
But it's the right thing to do. I'm proud of ye.
Bollocks, they only doing it now cos they know the incoming Labour government will have to foot the bill.
A very easy argument to make. Indeed, you could go further if you wished, accusing them of using it as a whip to beat the NHS. Using their last days in office to plant a bomb, so to speak.
But I think, genuinely, Hunt and Sunak deserve credit.
They have agency. They've chosen to do the right thing. They want to make the NHS better. Right a wrong.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe their hands were forced. Maybe the cynical explanation is the correct one. It's all strategy. The victims used as pawns yet again in the cynical game of politics. They get to award themselves virtue points while the opposition bear the costs.
I don't think so, though.
Like the Post Office; things reach such a point that you cannot really ignore them. But as ever, if a report has recommendations, I would like to see a government response to each point (obvs. with a few weeks to generate a reasonable response). The response should say what they are doing to address each point (and they can say 'ignore! if they disagree with it, or want to address the core issue another way.)
Many reports have good recommendations that get lost amongst the bigger picture ones. In this case, the apology and the demand for compensation might cause (say) recommendation 6 ("Monitoring liver damage for people who were infected with Hepatitis C") or 9 ("Protecting the safety of haemophilia care") to be forgotten - and sometimes these less-discussed recommendations are as, if not more, important.
I'm pleased that he actually makes this point in Recommendation 12.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Edit: the bit missed so far is that for this policy to be successful in terms of raising money, the schools and parents need to stay, and just pay the higher fees. As has been pointed out previously, the crossover to the policy costing money isn’t terribly deep.
3 shouldn’t lead to a 20% fee rise. That would imply schools don’t currently suffer any unrecoverable input VAT.
School fees are VAT-exempt, not zero-rated. Currently they can’t recover VAT on any of their costs. In future they would be able to. Salaries are of course not subject to VAT but facilities costs, contractors, equipment, professional fees and so on are. So depending on the P&L of school they should be able to maintain current profitability with a fee rise substantially less than 20%.
Judge Juan Merchan told the jury to step out of the courtroom.
“I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom,” Merchan said, addressing the [defence] witness Robert Costello.
So when they’re a witness on the stand and you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say ‘jeez,’ and you don’t say ‘strike it.’ Because I’m the only one who can strike ... You don’t roll your eyes, do you understand that? Do you understand that? Are you staring me down right now?’
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
There is a further option, the school could reduce costs, and improve productivity, for example increasing class sizes or reducing the number of courses run etc.
After all, that us what is expected of state schools, FE colleges, Universities, hospitals, councils, businesses etc. Its called efficiency savings.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Nobody said all private schools were going to close at the end of the summer term
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
Increasingly, they do seem to be thinking by years. The day of putting a child into a private school at 5 or 11 and leaving them there to 11 or 18 seems to be over. Put them in for the early years up to year 4, away from OFSTED's fatuous curriculum framework that hampers the teaching of reading. Or put them in for GCSEs so they can sit in maths lessons without having their classmates try to burn the school down. For the rest, stick with the state. Cheaper.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Not all private schools are in the same explicit position. A price shock of 20% in any line of business will reshape the market.
The chance of Labour winning a majority exceed 95%.
The chances that a Labour government will go ahead with this policy are 100%
The chances that the policy would pass the Commons with a Labour majority in the house - 100%
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Nobody said all private schools were going to close at the end of the summer term
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
I just find it laughable that a private school closing after 14 years of Tory government is 'Labour's fault'.
From discussions with a few friends actively involved with private education, the whole sector is struggling. I suspect @Foxy put his finger on the reasons earlier.
& TM. & a few other unlikely heroes from the 70's & 80's who pop up in the depths of the report.
It's not going to win you any votes. And it's a disaster for the public finances.
But it's the right thing to do. I'm proud of ye.
Bollocks, they only doing it now cos they know the incoming Labour government will have to foot the bill.
A very easy argument to make. Indeed, you could go further if you wished, accusing them of using it as a whip to beat the NHS. Using their last days in office to plant a bomb, so to speak.
But I think, genuinely, Hunt and Sunak deserve credit.
They have agency. They've chosen to do the right thing. They want to make the NHS better. Right a wrong.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe their hands were forced. Maybe the cynical explanation is the correct one. It's all strategy. The victims used as pawns yet again in the cynical game of politics. They get to award themselves virtue points while the opposition bear the costs.
I don't think so, though.
Like the Post Office; things reach such a point that you cannot really ignore them. But as ever, if a report has recommendations, I would like to see a government response to each point (obvs. with a few weeks to generate a reasonable response). The response should say what they are doing to address each point (and they can say 'ignore! if they disagree with it, or want to address the core issue another way.)
Many reports have good recommendations that get lost amongst the bigger picture ones. In this case, the apology and the demand for compensation might cause (say) recommendation 6 ("Monitoring liver damage for people who were infected with Hepatitis C") or 9 ("Protecting the safety of haemophilia care") to be forgotten - and sometimes these less-discussed recommendations are as, if not more, important.
I'm pleased that he actually makes this point in Recommendation 12.
BTW, sorry to be a bit weird but, umm, your profile picture...????
LOL. I should change that. (*) When a certain poster was wittering on about AI, I did a simple experiment. The prompt was something like 'redheaded female triathlete', and that was the first result I got back. I think I was making a point on the curating of results (picking the best of a group).
(*) But not to one of me in my trisuit. That would cause irreparable mental damage to all posters...
I saw that. One of the most universally offensive job ads ever.
Reminds me of Booth’s poverty map of London which had a category “vicious, semi criminal” (covering most of Deptford).
Why is the capitalisation of deaf optional?
And whoever coined the term 'global majority' clearly doesn't know what a majority is. And I'm not sure what the job is, but there's not many jobs which encourage applications from people without formal education.
Because Deaf is a specific community of pre-lingually deaf whose first language tends to be BSL, whereas deaf means can't hear well. A very substantial difference, with considerable practical implications. Putting both options in is at least clear and explicit to those familiar with the issue. And those who aren't won't be d/Deaf anyway so it doesn't matter what they think.
Thanks... that's today's totally random but interesting piece of information from pb covered now.
Interesting indeed. However there's an ambiguity with sentences beginning "Deaf people..." Logicians use iff to mean if and only if - I would have gone with deaf or deaff.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
Increasingly, they do seem to be thinking by years. The day of putting a child into a private school at 5 or 11 and leaving them there to 11 or 18 seems to be over. Put them in for the early years up to year 4, away from OFSTED's fatuous curriculum framework that hampers the teaching of reading. Or put them in for GCSEs so they can sit in maths lessons without having their classmates try to burn the school down. For the rest, stick with the state. Cheaper.
You may not think that way yourself, of course.
Yes - I think I’ve mentioned the fashion for sending the children to the local Free School for 6th form. That plus tutors in 3 subjects guarantees lots of As.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Nobody said all private schools were going to close at the end of the summer term
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
I just find it laughable that a private school closing after 14 years of Tory government is 'Labour's fault'.
From discussions with a few friends actively involved with private education, the whole sector is struggling. I suspect @Foxy put his finger on the reasons earlier.
Logic fail. Why is it laughable to think that people are motivated by what has been happening for the last 14 years but not by their expectations for next year? Is that true of, for example, you? And again why do you not have the courage of what I am guessing are your convictions? Do you think private education is a good thing and labour should therefore be absolved of blame for harming its prospects?
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
Increasingly, they do seem to be thinking by years. The day of putting a child into a private school at 5 or 11 and leaving them there to 11 or 18 seems to be over. Put them in for the early years up to year 4, away from OFSTED's fatuous curriculum framework that hampers the teaching of reading. Or put them in for GCSEs so they can sit in maths lessons without having their classmates try to burn the school down. For the rest, stick with the state. Cheaper.
You may not think that way yourself, of course.
Yes - I think I’ve mentioned the fashion for sending the children to the local Free School for 6th form. That plus tutors in 3 subjects guarantees lots of As.
You can buy an awful lot of tuition and an awful lot of enrichment and have plenty of change from typical school fees. And the number of truly terrible state schools is quite a lot smaller than it used to be. That's one of the reasons Ofsted goes round sometimes finding bad things that aren't really there these days.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
Increasingly, they do seem to be thinking by years. The day of putting a child into a private school at 5 or 11 and leaving them there to 11 or 18 seems to be over. Put them in for the early years up to year 4, away from OFSTED's fatuous curriculum framework that hampers the teaching of reading. Or put them in for GCSEs so they can sit in maths lessons without having their classmates try to burn the school down. For the rest, stick with the state. Cheaper.
You may not think that way yourself, of course.
Yes - I think I’ve mentioned the fashion for sending the children to the local Free School for 6th form. That plus tutors in 3 subjects guarantees lots of As.
You can buy an awful lot of tuition and an awful lot of enrichment and have plenty of change from typical school fees. And the number of truly terrible state schools is quite a lot smaller than it used to be. That's one of the reasons Ofsted goes round sometimes finding bad things that aren't really there these days.
There's a certain irony that OFSTED, which as @Northern_Al rightly points out had done a lot to improve the state sector between the fiascos of failed teacher Woodhead and failed investment fund manager Spielman isn't willing to accept its success and modify its approach.
Instead, taking orders from those crooks at the DfE while unconvincingly claiming they don't to take part in a very unwise policy driven by ideology rather than reality.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
There is a further option, the school could reduce costs, and improve productivity, for example increasing class sizes or reducing the number of courses run etc.
After all, that us what is expected of state schools, FE colleges, Universities, hospitals, councils, businesses etc. Its called efficiency savings.
Strangely, I don't recall such gnashing of teeth on the right when university fees went up by an infinite %, then 300%, then 300% again.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is
How do you think the ERCC behaved - happy with that, or see room for improvement?
I think all children should be forced onto hormones for at least three months, to explore their gender identity.
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Find one post from either me or @Cyclefree where we have said "trans people don't have a right to exist".
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
When you say it like that, you sound very reasonable.
And yet you post things like uncritical links to JK Rowling's inceasingly fash-adjacent tweets (where even the notorious left winger and trans rights advocate Elon Musk has said maybe ease up a bit, JK), and you post the new gender identity guidelines approvingly, depsite the fact they contain the line "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" which, far from being reasonable, is a new section 28 that attempts to deny the very concept of transgender people, as others in the thread the other day pointed out (I will not rehash the argument in detail). Imagine being told you simply *don't exist* as a child. As others have said, words have consequences.
And yes, I do find some of the things you post traumatic. A dear trans friend of mine was traumatised, to death, by people who denied her existence. People just like you.
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
There is a further option, the school could reduce costs, and improve productivity, for example increasing class sizes or reducing the number of courses run etc.
After all, that us what is expected of state schools, FE colleges, Universities, hospitals, councils, businesses etc. Its called efficiency savings.
Strangely, I don't recall such gnashing of teeth on the right when university fees went up by an infinite %, then 300%, then 300% again.
Don't know whether I count as 'of the right' but mine were definitely gnashing.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
There is a further option, the school could reduce costs, and improve productivity, for example increasing class sizes or reducing the number of courses run etc.
After all, that us what is expected of state schools, FE colleges, Universities, hospitals, councils, businesses etc. Its called efficiency savings.
Strangely, I don't recall such gnashing of teeth on the right when university fees went up by an infinite %, then 300%, then 300% again.
Don't know whether I count as 'of the right' but mine were definitely gnashing.
Yeah, I was probably 'of the right' and tooth-gnashing too, to be fair. I mainly hated it because Labour did it.
An obvious riposte is the way the thing is funded - loans, fixed fees etc. But there's a free market approach to make all schools private and fund an average bursary per person for that. However, you then fnd yourself in the over 3s' nursery education situation, where the government fees aren't enough at a load of providers and many people either have to top it up or get something really shitty.
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
Increasingly, they do seem to be thinking by years. The day of putting a child into a private school at 5 or 11 and leaving them there to 11 or 18 seems to be over. Put them in for the early years up to year 4, away from OFSTED's fatuous curriculum framework that hampers the teaching of reading. Or put them in for GCSEs so they can sit in maths lessons without having their classmates try to burn the school down. For the rest, stick with the state. Cheaper.
You may not think that way yourself, of course.
Yes - I think I’ve mentioned the fashion for sending the children to the local Free School for 6th form. That plus tutors in 3 subjects guarantees lots of As.
You can buy an awful lot of tuition and an awful lot of enrichment and have plenty of change from typical school fees. And the number of truly terrible state schools is quite a lot smaller than it used to be. That's one of the reasons Ofsted goes round sometimes finding bad things that aren't really there these days.
Yes and tuition is a flexible cost. I can pay for it if my child falls behind, or to stretch them in an area they excel, or prepare for exams, as and when required.
Whereas private schools you are committing to, for someone with two children, in the region of £50k per year for 7 years at a time. You can't take them in and out as your finances change without disruption. That's £350k post tax per school. £1.5m gross taxable income (assuming higher rate tax payer obviously!) if spread across primary and secondary education for the two children.
I could in theory stretch to private school for my children (1 and 4) but it would be difficult on top of mortgage costs, even with total income that would mean most would assume we could afford it.
But the cost commitment is daunting in any scenario (no job is 100% secure over 15 years) unless you have a big pot of cash of family wealth sitting ready to be spent.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
There is a further option, the school could reduce costs, and improve productivity, for example increasing class sizes or reducing the number of courses run etc.
After all, that us what is expected of state schools, FE colleges, Universities, hospitals, councils, businesses etc. Its called efficiency savings.
Strangely, I don't recall such gnashing of teeth on the right when university fees went up by an infinite %, then 300%, then 300% again.
Don't know whether I count as 'of the right' but mine were definitely gnashing.
You’re probably Literally Worse Than Hitler these days.
I caused my daughter’s head to spin the other day. She was going through the music lists on my NAS box and looking up the bands political views. Rage Against The Machine, System Of A Down, Five Finger Death Punch, Fela Kuti, Susana Baca….
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
I noticed today that Matt Goodwin hasn't corrected his recent poll which has been affected by a processing error, and so I sent him an email to make sure he was aware of the error.
One interesting consequence of the error is that the 0% support he published for the SNP provides a good example of how the endpoints of a LOESS smooth can be affected by an outlier - you can see the SNP line is dragged right down in the Wikipedia graph.
That's Price to Earnings Ratio of -5x. I was always told that a company with a P/E ratio of less than 10x was cheap. And -5 is definitely less than 10.
So it must be really cheap, right?
(Although... come to think about it... I'm not sure that the metric was designed to work with negative earnings...)
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
But not till the following academic year, at least ...
That's far from certain. They might well impose it mid year, given most parents pay monthly or termly.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Plus parents don’t think by the year. They think primary, secondary and uni.
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
Increasingly, they do seem to be thinking by years. The day of putting a child into a private school at 5 or 11 and leaving them there to 11 or 18 seems to be over. Put them in for the early years up to year 4, away from OFSTED's fatuous curriculum framework that hampers the teaching of reading. Or put them in for GCSEs so they can sit in maths lessons without having their classmates try to burn the school down. For the rest, stick with the state. Cheaper.
You may not think that way yourself, of course.
Yes - I think I’ve mentioned the fashion for sending the children to the local Free School for 6th form. That plus tutors in 3 subjects guarantees lots of As.
You can buy an awful lot of tuition and an awful lot of enrichment and have plenty of change from typical school fees. And the number of truly terrible state schools is quite a lot smaller than it used to be. That's one of the reasons Ofsted goes round sometimes finding bad things that aren't really there these days.
I heard something hilarious the other day. In order to reduce costs, a couple of the parents doing this have their daughters sharing a tutor.
The girls want quiet for the online tutoring sessions. So they persuaded the Free School to let them use a room just after school for the video call tuition session.
One of their less advantaged fellow students had some questions. So they brought her into their little tuition session - to get help.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
Mawkish bollocks, they are indigenous to the Galapagos islands where I have just been and immune to egg collecting and habitat loss. The blueness is a sexually selected characteristic; the paraphrase of this fact in the link is infantile.
That's Price to Earnings Ratio of -5x. I was always told that a company with a P/E ratio of less than 10x was cheap. And -5 is definitely less than 10.
So it must be really cheap, right?
(Although... come to think about it... I'm not sure that the metric was designed to work with negative earnings...)
The price/revenue is a slightly more challenging 7,787. So I’m conflicted.
That's Price to Earnings Ratio of -5x. I was always told that a company with a P/E ratio of less than 10x was cheap. And -5 is definitely less than 10.
So it must be really cheap, right?
(Although... come to think about it... I'm not sure that the metric was designed to work with negative earnings...)
The price/revenue is a slightly more challenging 7,787. So I’m conflicted.
Ummmm... I'm sorry, but you're using the quarterly revenue number, which makes Trump stock look much more expensive than it is.
Annualizing it means its price-to-revenues are a mere 2,000x.
Excellent by @michaelpforan on the failures at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre- where a male CEO unlawfully harassed, discriminated against & sacked a female employee in name of gender ideology
Why Roz Adams won | Michael Foran | The Critic Magazine
I really do wonder why you're so obsessed with this. Don't you live in Jersey or Guernsey where the trans population is basically zero?
It comes off as weird and obsessive and mean spirited, which is a shame as when you're posting about other stuff you seem like a genuinely nice person.
...It was about a charity for rape victims led by a man who cheated his way into his job...
No. I don't think so. He claimed to be a woman but he had no GRC either here or in India. He was legally and biologically a man. The post was reserved for women - lawfully - under the Equality Act. He cheated. He was a mate of Nicola's. His partner got a £1.4 million contract for something or other. And he got put into various bodies with which the SNP was consulting and said all the things the SNP wanted to hear.
The judgment is damning. I have read all 109 pages. My fellow lawyer in the LegalFeminists was the barrister who acted for the complainant. She also won the recent case brought by Rachel Meade against Social Work England, the regulator and Westminster City Council for discrimination. In that case she got exemplary damages, which is pretty rare and happens only when the defendant has behaved very badly indeed.
We are talking about accountability. Well here we have an example. This was not about someone acting in good faith and getting the law wrong. This was someone who suborned an organisation's purposes, showed no regard for rape victims, deliberately ignored the law and set out to destroy a woman's career because she dared disagree with him. He and the rest of the senior management responsible for this fiasco should resign. And, if not be sacked.
It's just more weird, bee in the bonnet, traaaaaaaaaans stuff again, which I really don't want to engage with. Many of my IRL friends are trans or gender nonconforming, and they are all good eggs.
I don't want to get dragged into the mud of the argument, but one thing I've always felt is how fash-adjacent TERF ideology is. Note the people eagerly rallying around JK Wizardstick these days. "Men should be men and women should be women" is one step away from "and women should get back to the kitchen" which is why I find *trans exclusionary* feminism so odd.
But as I say, I don't want to turn this into another trans thread. I just want trans people to be allowed to get on with their lives.
I know there are those saying 'trans is political' but most trans people I know aren't, and just want to live their lives without their bodies being turned into another outpost of the culture war.
Again as I said the other day, I won't engage in endless trans debate, but if trans or gender nonconforming people are reading this thread, know that there are people who support you. You are valid.
But rape victims aren't valid to you. You won't say you support them. Or women who have been harassed and discriminated against.
Mawkish bollocks, they are indigenous to the Galapagos islands where I have just been and immune to egg collecting and habitat loss. The blueness is a sexually selected characteristic; the paraphrase of this fact in the link is infantile.
What's wrong with the paraphrase? It's perfectly adequate for the general public without the arguments that 'sexual' will bring, 'sexual selection' being a technical term of art in zoology.
That's Price to Earnings Ratio of -5x. I was always told that a company with a P/E ratio of less than 10x was cheap. And -5 is definitely less than 10.
So it must be really cheap, right?
(Although... come to think about it... I'm not sure that the metric was designed to work with negative earnings...)
The price/revenue is a slightly more challenging 7,787. So I’m conflicted.
Ummmm... I'm sorry, but you're using the quarterly revenue number, which makes Trump stock look much more expensive than it is.
Annualizing it means its price-to-revenues are a mere 2,000x.
Which, I think you will agree, is a bargain.
Reflects their expectation of huuuge exponential growth in the future Pie in the sky you might say
A male Latino being Latinxy, like the Teletubby Tinky.
3 - This individual - a Tik Tok person called Tynx with a temper on her, La Tynx.
Though I'd go for Tik Tok Tak Toe Tynx.
Sadly, as with the famous students identifying as cats and needing litter trays story, it is entirely possible that it is not true.
But by that point the damage is done. People will believe it, and the bell cannot be unrung.
This may be satire but the phrase "global majority" is common use now and I am perplexed as the point that phrase is trying to prove? Also no race is a global majority anyway
as we are on the subject of woke nonsense , I see the BBC have a prominent story currently on their webpage about a bisexual who apparently nobody can really relate to her ! I mean what outstanding journalism to get this scoop - up there with Watergate isnt it? I mean being bisexual seems to be positively mainstream these days given the multitude of titles one can be now
That's Price to Earnings Ratio of -5x. I was always told that a company with a P/E ratio of less than 10x was cheap. And -5 is definitely less than 10.
So it must be really cheap, right?
(Although... come to think about it... I'm not sure that the metric was designed to work with negative earnings...)
The price/revenue is a slightly more challenging 7,787. So I’m conflicted.
Ummmm... I'm sorry, but you're using the quarterly revenue number, which makes Trump stock look much more expensive than it is.
Annualizing it means its price-to-revenues are a mere 2,000x.
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that. And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Thanks for an excellent and very powerful thread header Ms. Cycle.
My late mother had a friend (Sue) who had two hemophiliac children (twins) who died from HIV/AIDS as a result of being given infected blood products in the 1980s.
A few years later their mum (my mothers friend) died from cancer... My mum always said she died from the stress and heartbreak of losing her children.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
It may be the responsible thing to do. If they think it's going to fail when Labour bring it the tax, then rather than take another year's intake in and risk it, decide to close in better, if not good, order.
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Come off it. That's just blaming Labour who might or might not bring in the legislation. Might as well pack in the school because electricity prices might go up again.
1) Labour are certain to get in 2) They are certain to go ahead with this 3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Applies equally to all private schools. Will they all be closing at the end of summer term?
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
Nobody said all private schools were going to close at the end of the summer term
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
I just find it laughable that a private school closing after 14 years of Tory government is 'Labour's fault'.
From discussions with a few friends actively involved with private education, the whole sector is struggling. I suspect @Foxy put his finger on the reasons earlier.
Logic fail. Why is it laughable to think that people are motivated by what has been happening for the last 14 years but not by their expectations for next year? Is that true of, for example, you? And again why do you not have the courage of what I am guessing are your convictions? Do you think private education is a good thing and labour should therefore be absolved of blame for harming its prospects?
Do I think private education is a good thing? No.
Should Labour take some credit for harming its prospects? Yes.
Is the private education business model sustainable regardless of Labour's prospects, or VAT? No.
On the private schools thing. On a personal level it is clearly awful for the staff, the current students and likely many of the alumni.
But, the prevailing view of the class who use private schools is that businesses need to stand on their own feet. If charging VAT like any other service business makes it unviable then surely that is the very same capitalism they eulogise.
As for blaming Labour, puhlease. Who is the government?
Not a valid point, because it's not the government which proposes to put the Vat on
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
But... @Casino_Royale's school is closing before Labour come into power and impose VAT so it's ridiculous to blame Labour's or Starmer. The school is clearly not viable even when VAT-exempt.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
Blaming the closure on Labour, who aren't in power, does seem ridiculous. It appears the school is not viable at present, under Conservative rule.
I can't help but notice interest rates appear to be going.... precisely nowhere.
Could this be the new normal?
The Government supporters will be trying to wring every drop of feelgood juice out of Wednesday morning's inflation figures, If it goes sub 2%, there'll be the usual old,nonsense about how wonderful Sunak and the Tories are - the Party will unite around Sunak and Hunt and claim they should be given another five years, etc.
For them, cutting interest rates equals self preservation.
Comments
What is a valid point is that the blow would be reduced by more than half if vat were the 8% it was when the blessed Mags ascended the throne
These are the true blue* conservatives for whom the struggles of FE colleges and comprehensives do not directly hurt.
*Whatever happened to our @BluestBlue anyway?
I’ve already taken out the various registrations and setup some charities using the term the Legally Challenged Community (LCC).
As the director of Justice For The Legally Challenged I am owed £2.8 million per year. Pension should be 30% of salary, non contributory, for a term of office over 1 year. I will have no knowledge or legal responsibility for anything.
Who wants in at the ground floor?
VAT adds 20% to the cost and that makes it non-viable? I can think of a great many things which have seen cost price increases of more than 29% and yet the businesses are still going. And some are not - and supposedly that is just capitalism’s
Talking of criminal,class, this is the only criminal class I’m aware of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(2016_TV_series)#Premise
I think skirts should be mandatory in schools, except in Scotland.
I think boobies should be free on the NHS for anyone who wants them.
I also think the trans debate is incredibly boring and, as I said in my last-but-one post, I think you're a nice person when you're not banging on about it endlessly. I've been nothing but polite, and yet I'm being called "despicable" and "rude" for daring to say that trans people have a right to exist.
Frankly, F the pair of you.
Talking to neighbours who are governors of a famous local private school and even as a 'big name' school they are struggling. But that's the market.
A shame about the dogs though.
I'm sure most employers will be able to provide data on the proportion of women, ethnic minority, LGBTIQQA+ and disabled employees, but ask them what proportion qualified for free school meals and they'd be clueless.
It does all depend on having replacements available, which isn't always easy.
(And yes, the school needed the jump start and it wasn't getting it from the council. But the process can be tough on the just as well as the unjust.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2650122
They don't really care about the impact while they do it.
Exhibit A - Caversham.
Incidentally are those private schools that are heavily dependent on overseas parents from Cina etc also to be impacted by student visas, or is that just Universities?
I'd say the chances of a Labour majority are 90% and, if so, the VAT going through maybe 60%. Which would mean there's a 46% chance VAT won't be applied.
Surely any viable business would a) wait and see if the change actually happened, and b) look at ways to mitigate the impact, raise further funds etc., before folding. I mean, just raise the fees by 20% ffs.
A. Labour aren’t in power yet
B. Private Education is a dog eat dog world. I grew up on prep schools in Scotland and Yorkshire. 2 of the 3 my folks taught at have closed, as have many of those we played at sport. Changing trends - decline in boarding, senior schools opening junior depts, you only need a poor head teacher and the word rapidly gets around. Fashion is a fickle thing.
But I think, genuinely, Hunt and Sunak deserve credit.
They have agency. They've chosen to do the right thing. They want to make the NHS better. Right a wrong.
Maybe I'm naive. Maybe their hands were forced. Maybe the cynical explanation is the correct one. It's all strategy. The victims used as pawns yet again in the cynical game of politics. They get to award themselves virtue points without paying any price.
I don't think so, though.
If SKS has this potency up to a year ahead ...
As I said below, it's probably not the only factor. But I can easily see it being a significant factor.
If it's anything like the schools I went to, it's a shame for parents, staff, and the local community. Something that can never be brought back once it is gone.
Edit: or the water company might introduce cryptosporidium or a bolide might hit the green bit in the middle, whatever it is called, of the senior XI's cricket pitch.
It’s nonetheless much to their credit that they made the decisions they did, rather than maintaining the line from the previous three decades that the best possible treatment had been administered “given the state of medial knowledge at the time”.
The politicians most culpable were the health ministers under Thatcher (notably Ken Clarke, whose considerable political weight set the line subsequently followed), based on assertions which were provably untrue, and which at best they took no steps to verify.
2) They are certain to go ahead with this
3) A price increase of 20% will create a demand shock.
I don’t think any of those are really debatable.
Edit: the bit missed so far is that for this policy to be successful in terms of raising money, the schools and parents need to stay, and just pay the higher fees. As has been pointed out previously, the crossover to the policy costing money isn’t terribly deep.
PS 1) No. 2) No. Neither of these are certain.
That, in itself, is likely to be putting parents off. The uncertainty is worse for planning than a certainty.
And it's also putting fees up in advance to stagger the rise when it comes.
Many reports have good recommendations that get lost amongst the bigger picture ones. In this case, the apology and the demand for compensation might cause (say) recommendation 6 ("Monitoring liver damage for people who were infected with Hepatitis C") or 9 ("Protecting the safety of haemophilia care") to be forgotten - and sometimes these less-discussed recommendations are as, if not more, important.
I'm pleased that he actually makes this point in Recommendation 12.
https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/sites/default/files/Volume-1.pdf
School fees are VAT-exempt, not zero-rated. Currently they can’t recover VAT on any of their costs. In future they would be able to. Salaries are of course not subject to VAT but facilities costs, contractors, equipment, professional fees and so on are. So depending on the P&L of school they should be able to maintain current profitability with a fee rise substantially less than 20%.
“I want to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom,” Merchan said, addressing the [defence] witness Robert Costello.
So when they’re a witness on the stand and you don’t like my ruling, you don’t say ‘jeez,’ and you don’t say ‘strike it.’ Because I’m the only one who can strike ... You don’t roll your eyes, do you understand that? Do you understand that? Are you staring me down right now?’
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/may/20/donald-trump-hush-money-trial-michael-cohen-testimony-live?filterKeyEvents=false#liveblog-navigation
As someone else remarked a few days back, many parents will think “2 years of primary left, we will stick it out so she leaves school with her friends. Then decide about secondary.”
After all, that us what is expected of state schools, FE colleges, Universities, hospitals, councils, businesses etc. Its called efficiency savings.
1 and 2 are certain to the extent that if you want to bet against them and are prepared to put the stake money into escrow I will give you some lovely odds against
And what are you frightened of anyway? Why are you not saying Yes, even before winning power labour are abolishing class inequality and a good thing too, that is what it says on the labour tin?
You may not think that way yourself, of course.
The chance of Labour winning a majority exceed 95%.
The chances that a Labour government will go ahead with this policy are 100%
The chances that the policy would pass the Commons with a Labour majority in the house - 100%
From discussions with a few friends actively involved with private education, the whole sector is struggling. I suspect @Foxy put his finger on the reasons earlier.
(*) But not to one of me in my trisuit. That would cause irreparable mental damage to all posters...
There aren't any.
This is "no debate" by another name - now presented as "moral panic".
What I have said - consistently - is that where "men who think they are women/trans women"'s right impose on those on those of natal women there needs to be careful balancing of rights - and as Employment Tribunal's have repeatedly shown public bodies (almost always not companies) have been getting this wrong.
Trans rights are NOT superior to women's rights - which is how ERCC operated - led by a man who said he was a woman.
Perhaps you could "reframe your trauma perspective" from "trans rights" to "trans rights AND women's rights?
Instead, taking orders from those crooks at the DfE while unconvincingly claiming they don't to take part in a very unwise policy driven by ideology rather than reality.
And yet you post things like uncritical links to JK Rowling's inceasingly fash-adjacent tweets (where even the notorious left winger and trans rights advocate Elon Musk has said maybe ease up a bit, JK), and you post the new gender identity guidelines approvingly, depsite the fact they contain the line "schools should not teach about the broader concept of gender identity" which, far from being reasonable, is a new section 28 that attempts to deny the very concept of transgender people, as others in the thread the other day pointed out (I will not rehash the argument in detail). Imagine being told you simply *don't exist* as a child. As others have said, words have consequences.
And yes, I do find some of the things you post traumatic. A dear trans friend of mine was traumatised, to death, by people who denied her existence. People just like you.
There are a million and one places on the internet you can go and spout your hatred of trans people. It's a shame you do it here, as I quite like it here.
Trans people exist. Trans people are valid. Trans people are human beings, just like you and I. Gender exists, and children should be allowed to learn about it in school. Their identities should not be denied to them by an authoritarian government in its death throes, looking to sow a bit of division and pick on a minority in the name of identity politics.
If you don't agree with that, fine. But I'll keep on arguing with you until my last breath, because I hate everything the TERF ideology stands for. Whether the rest of the site wants to hear that debate on a daily basis I will leave up to you.
An obvious riposte is the way the thing is funded - loans, fixed fees etc. But there's a free market approach to make all schools private and fund an average bursary per person for that. However, you then fnd yourself in the over 3s' nursery education situation, where the government fees aren't enough at a load of providers and many people either have to top it up or get something really shitty.
"The defense call Robert Costello."
A wave of "oooohhhhs" wash over the press gallery.
But before we see him, Hoffinger asks to approach—sidebar.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792638204748718251
Selfishly, I would love to see testimony from a lawyer so shady that even Michael Cohen didn't trust him.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792640571682533795
MERCHAN: Mr Costello, I'd like to discuss proper decorum in my courtroom. As a witness on the stand, if you don't like my ruling, you don't say jeez, and you don't say strike it, bc I'm the only one who can do that.
And if you don't like my ruling, you don't give me sideeye...
…Merchan, angrily: Are you staring me down right now?
Clear the courtroom, the judge says.
https://x.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1792647627340730448
I'm not sure what a Latinx is.
I have a few options.
1 - Some sub-species of lynx.
2 - A female Latino.
A male Latino being Latinxy, like the Teletubby Tinky.
3 - This individual - a Tik Tok person called Tynx with a temper on her, La Tynx.
Though I'd go for Tik Tok Tak Toe Tynx.
Whereas private schools you are committing to, for someone with two children, in the region of £50k per year for 7 years at a time. You can't take them in and out as your finances change without disruption. That's £350k post tax per school. £1.5m gross taxable income (assuming higher rate tax payer obviously!) if spread across primary and secondary education for the two children.
I could in theory stretch to private school for my children (1 and 4) but it would be difficult on top of mortgage costs, even with total income that would mean most would assume we could afford it.
But the cost commitment is daunting in any scenario (no job is 100% secure over 15 years) unless you have a big pot of cash of family wealth sitting ready to be spent.
Total revenue was $770,500
THIS COMPANY HAS A MARKET CAP OF $6 BILLION
https://x.com/JuddLegum/status/1792654588337906014
I caused my daughter’s head to spin the other day. She was going through the music lists on my NAS box and looking up the bands political views. Rage Against The Machine, System Of A Down, Five Finger Death Punch, Fela Kuti, Susana Baca….
That's the WWF, not the NHS, and it's a retirement scheme for the current generation of Tory MPs.
"Adopt a Blue-footed Booby."
https://gifts.worldwildlife.org/gift-center/gifts/Species-Adoptions/Blue-Footed-Booby
So it must be really cheap, right?
(Although... come to think about it... I'm not sure that the metric was designed to work with negative earnings...)
But by that point the damage is done. People will believe it, and the bell cannot be unrung.
The girls want quiet for the online tutoring sessions. So they persuaded the Free School to let them use a room just after school for the video call tuition session.
One of their less advantaged fellow students had some questions. So they brought her into their little tuition session - to get help.
Not sure why I find this so funny.
So I’m conflicted.
Annualizing it means its price-to-revenues are a mere 2,000x.
Which, I think you will agree, is a bargain.
Could this be the new normal?
Pie in the sky you might say
The question should be - is this a return to the old normal?
Who is an attorney.
My late mother had a friend (Sue) who had two hemophiliac children (twins) who died from HIV/AIDS as a result of being given infected blood products in the 1980s.
A few years later their mum (my mothers friend) died from cancer... My mum always said she died from the stress and heartbreak of losing her children.
Thinking of Sue and her twins today.
Should Labour take some credit for harming its prospects? Yes.
Is the private education business model sustainable regardless of Labour's prospects, or VAT? No.
For them, cutting interest rates equals self preservation.