I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
No you’re confused.
I didn’t say I haven’t paid ‘any’ attention to the VAT on schools policy. Nor indeed to education generally.
I said I haven’t paid attention to your particular situation and nor do I intend to.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
The thing is, in times of falling rolls, many state schools will close without much fanfare. My first three schools no longer exist, for instance. (Now, I think this is wrong and we should let staff/pupil ratios improve instead but Whitehall knows best.)
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
Under Blair that was the arm twisting, provide access and value to the local state school sector, otherwise we will take away your charity status. That was sharing faculties, teachers, grants, scholarships, widen access, etc.
If they are going to be treated as businesses, they will act like that, and large amounts of that will go. There will also an even bigger push to recruit foreign students. China is already a big buyer of UK private school places, that will just continue to increase further.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
Incorrect. Most private schools pay less on average than the state sector. They also mostly do not have TPS now.
Unless we're talking Eton, Clifton, Roedean etc who won't be noticeably affected by this policy despite being the ones we should be targeting.
Pensions are another reason why trying to run a school commercially is a mug's game.
Have to push back on the 'can't put up prices by 20%' thing though. For a start, entering the VAT system will let schools claim back VAT on some of their costs. And more importantly, the schools serving ninetysomething percent of the population have had to get very good at cutting costs while mostly keeping quality up.
It's never a happy occasion when an institution closes, or when people's lives are shook about. But it happens to ordinaries all the time, and sometimes the only conclusion is to note that we're at the Find Out stage of FAFO.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
I was referring to the idea that all the Tories need is to finally turn away from being so lefty. It's quite silly when you think of it, but in any case ignore the real reasons for present distress, which aren't policy related in my view.
Individual Tories can be as left wing as they like, I just don't see why they're in the Tory Party, which has a right wing membership, supporter base, and public policy platform. In the cause of public confidence in democracy, surely it would be better to be elected to Labour or the Lib Dems, rather than be elected as Tories and behave and vote as Lib Dems once elected. Or if they're instinctively left wing but don't like getting too close to actual working class people, why not form a social democracy party, and rally people to the cause of dull competence? It is the parasitical nature of this group within the Tory Party that's the root of it's problems - let the Tory Party succeed or fail because on its own policies, not because it was performatively right wing but a statist mess in practice.
As we all, I think, understand, there is an excellent argument for breaking both the Conservative and Labour parties into two or three pieces on ideological grounds, but it won't happen because of the electoral system - and if those parties attempt to become purer by purging the members from their own opposite wing, the risk is that they also shed the corresponding bloc of voters and find it impossible to win a Parliamentary majority.
Or, to put it more succinctly, parties that wander far from the centre of public opinion don't typically win elections. It happened to the Tories when they became self-indulgent post-1997, and it happened to Labour in 2019. So, you're either lumbered with the soft centre right or you turn into Ukip. Sorry.
Besides, there is almost no demand for a low tax, small state party left in this country. There's enormous demand for a cakeist, huge state paid for by everybody but me party - the Johnson voter coalition was built upon it - but I doubt that's what you're after.
The 'centre' is a complete fantasy though. Our political 'centre' demands that we spend £4.5 TRILLION (Civitas report) on Net Zero. In the full knowledge that it will just drive all emission-creating businesses to dirty coal burning India and China. There is no objective assessment whereby that can be seen as a moderate idea. It is a profoundly radical and unprecedented idea. The centrist agenda demands conformity simply because the ideas are weak and if a big party decides to go seriously off the reservation, it is likely to bring the whole thing down.
There is indeed a centre, and it has little to do with Net Zero. It principally revolves around housing: those who don't have it suffer and are desperate to get it, those who do have it won't tolerate having it messed with by politicians (hence the utter hatred of IHT, council tax, high interest rates and virtually all construction projects.) People also want lots of goodies paid for by everyone but themselves, but basically it's down to houses.
Most of our problems can be traced directly back to the housing crisis, and that originated with Mrs T. Rent seeking, low productivity, lack of investment, sky high taxes on incomes, labour immobility, social immobility and the growing dominance of inherited wealth, the plunging birth rate, all of it.
1st, am personally very sympathetic to CR's situation, however am NOT qualified to analyze it OR come to a political or electoral (let alone education) conclusion about it. Except to hope & wish the best for CR's family.
2nd, what I'm wonder about is the TIMING of the announcement from CR's school? Was it released before OR after Rishi Sunak set the date for GE 2024?
Reason I'm asking, is because IF the answer is after PM's announcement, then sound somewhat like the letters that many American mill owners & other businessmen sent to their employees on the eve of the 1896 presidential election:
- If (I paraphrase) you vote for William Jennings Bryan tomorrow instead of William McKinley, don't bother coming to work next week, because the mill (or whatever) will be closed.
How effective this was is debatable, but WMcK did win the industrial workingmen's vote that year over WJB.
3rd, which is NOT saying that that's what's happening re: CR's school, OR that he should care one way or another about that (for him anyway) tangential possibility.
IIRC the school told parents about the impending closure a week or so ago, but it only got picked up by the papers after the election was announced.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
The problem with Corbyn is that he's never been on the right side of history; except when he opposed the Iraq War, Apartheid in South Africa, Poll Tax, supported miners strike, protested austerity, voted against tuition fees, stood up for Kurds/Palestinians, warned PFI would be an expensive disaster, warned against privatisation of water and rail would be a disaster.
Always wrong. Prsumably the good people of Islington North will realise the Private Health CEO is the way to go
Could you just give me a quick list of all the British politicians who were in favor of apartheid in South Africa? Just so I can understand how he stood alone against the consensus.
Being British politicians, they would have been in favour of it, not in favor of it.
I see what you did there.
The world is not going to end if we stop putting a “u” in words ending “our”. Worse things have happened to languages.
The problem with Corbyn is that he's never been on the right side of history; except when he opposed the Iraq War, Apartheid in South Africa, Poll Tax, supported miners strike, protested austerity, voted against tuition fees, stood up for Kurds/Palestinians, warned PFI would be an expensive disaster, warned against privatisation of water and rail would be a disaster.
Always wrong. Prsumably the good people of Islington North will realise the Private Health CEO is the way to go
Could you just give me a quick list of all the British politicians who were in favor of apartheid in South Africa? Just so I can understand how he stood alone against the consensus.
Being British politicians, they would have been in favour of it, not in favor of it.
I see what you did there.
The world is not going to end if we stop putting a “u” in words ending “our”. Worse things have happened to languages.
I’d fight pretty hard for sulphur rather than sulfur. And don’t get me started on aluminium.
As a chemist, you should know that in the IUPAC wars of the 60s and 70s, we got aluminium and they got sulfur as the official spellings.
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
1st, am personally very sympathetic to CR's situation, however am NOT qualified to analyze it OR come to a political or electoral (let alone education) conclusion about it. Except to hope & wish the best for CR's family.
2nd, what I'm wonder about is the TIMING of the announcement from CR's school? Was it released before OR after Rishi Sunak set the date for GE 2024?
Reason I'm asking, is because IF the answer is after PM's announcement, then sound somewhat like the letters that many American mill owners & other businessmen sent to their employees on the eve of the 1896 presidential election:
- If (I paraphrase) you vote for William Jennings Bryan tomorrow instead of William McKinley, don't bother coming to work next week, because the mill (or whatever) will be closed.
How effective this was is debatable, but WMcK did win the industrial workingmen's vote that year over WJB.
3rd, which is NOT saying that that's what's happening re: CR's school, OR that he should care one way or another about that (for him anyway) tangential possibility.
I suspect parents with children at private schools don't need to be persuaded by the school not to vote Labour.
An interesting aspect is that Labour's VAT policy would at face value seem to cut itself off from c. 7% of the electorate. Probably a good proportion of the 7% would be unlikely to vote Labour any way but still it's a big chunk of the electorate not to be fighting for.
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
The only pushback you’ve so far listed is that the private school which was likely to be closing soon is blaming Labour’s VAT change which won’t even be implemented to 2025/6/6
(Sighs theatrically).
If you were a parent, wanting the best for your kids. you might want to send them to a good private school. You might not be rich, and might have to scrimp and save to send them. Knowing that there might be a large increase in fees ahead might stop you sending them - after all, no-one wants to swap their kids' schools unnecessarily.
A 20% increase in fees might make the difference between sending a kid to the school or not - and it may only take a few parents not sending their kids to push the school to the edge.
So it may be the *fear* of the tax, both by the parents and the school, that has caused this.
Or it may well be them being financially squeezed by the end of the fix on their mortgages.
There are many reasons that the financial viability of this school is affected by changes in the cost of living.
Fortunately for CR Alton is a pleasant market town in one of the most prosperous parts of the country with several state schools rated very highly. Its not exactly an inner city sink school area.
It's always sad when kids have to shift schools for no fault of their own, but also sad that universities go bust because of sudden changes to rules on visas. Governments shift policy all the time.
Shit happens. The SNP wrecked my retirement plans when they abolished the right to buy. At the time, my son was living in a 2-bedroom council flat. I was (still am) alone in a 3-bedroom terrace with a garden. The plan was to buy the council flat and then swap. Ten years on, my son and his wife and daughter are renting a 2-bedroom housing association flat with little prospect of getting on the housing ladder.
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
Yes, hard to see any winners from it , just pure dogma.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
The only pushback you’ve so far listed is that the private school which was likely to be closing soon is blaming Labour’s VAT change which won’t even be implemented to 2025/6/6
(Sighs theatrically).
If you were a parent, wanting the best for your kids. you might want to send them to a good private school. You might not be rich, and might have to scrimp and save to send them. Knowing that there might be a large increase in fees ahead might stop you sending them - after all, no-one wants to swap their kids' schools unnecessarily.
A 20% increase in fees might make the difference between sending a kid to the school or not - and it may only take a few parents not sending their kids to push the school to the edge.
So it may be the *fear* of the tax, both by the parents and the school, that has caused this.
Or it may well be them being financially squeezed by the end of the fix on their mortgages.
There are many reasons that the financial viability of this school is affected by changes in the cost of living.
Fortunately for CR Alton is a pleasant market town in one of the most prosperous parts of the country with several state schools rated very highly. Its not exactly an inner city sink school area.
It's always sad when kids have to shift schools for no fault of their own, but also sad that universities go bust because of sudden changes to rules on visas. Governments shift policy all the time.
Shit happens. The SNP wrecked my retirement plans when they abolished the right to buy. At the time, my son was living in a 2-bedroom council flat. I was (still am) alone in a 3-bedroom terrace with a garden. The plan was to buy the council flat and then swap. Ten years on, my son and his wife and daughter are renting a 2-bedroom housing association flat with little prospect of getting on the housing ladder.
Sorry to hear that Alan.
As I say, shit happens, and sometimes governments do stuff that affect you negatively - that's all part of politics.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
The idea that paying “above the going rate” is indicative of being a charity or not is simply wrong.
Aside from “Charity Shops” which are commercial enterprises run on a “screw the workforce” basis, plenty of charity staff are well paid.
Incidentally, the idea that the pay scales for teachers are a “market rate” is an interesting one.
You have a near monopoly employer (the government) attempting to dictate pay by national negotiation with unions and then forbidding schools from deviating from the negotiated rate.
Acadamies can set their own pay, conditions and curriculum. Over 80% of Secondaries were academies in the 22/23 year. They are effectively publicly funded Independent schools.
In practice, vary few do. Partly because not having to think about pay is an attractive point in itself for many teachers. (I'd rather not have to negotiate than get 5% more by haggling.) But also because schools have no slack in their budgets to pay more. Central government sets the per pupil funding formula and pay scales basically follow from that.
The interesting one would be if competitive tendering were introduced for schools. I'm fairly confident that the market rate for teaching a child would settle somewhat higher than the current formula. In some cases, a lot higher.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
The thing is, in times of falling rolls, many state schools will close without much fanfare. My first three schools no longer exist, for instance. (Now, I think this is wrong and we should let staff/pupil ratios improve instead but Whitehall knows best.)
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
Yes, hard to see any winners from it , just pure dogma.
From an purely financial perspective, it makes little sense. You can easily raise the amounts being talked about via a range of different existing tax routes.
So Labour says no changes to IC and NI...so my guess would be new council tax bands, IHT threshold being cut, raid on pensions and capital gains cut to zero allowance / increase in tax rate, as a minimum to raise extra taxes.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
The thing is, in times of falling rolls, many state schools will close without much fanfare. My first three schools no longer exist, for instance. (Now, I think this is wrong and we should let staff/pupil ratios improve instead but Whitehall knows best.)
Large class sizes are cheaper. But I know what you mean about school closures - site closures and mergers are commonplace and are liable to continue in the coming years. The population is still growing but it's principally down to importation of students and workers - people are increasingly choosing to have one child or simply not to bother, partly down to career and lifestyle prioritisation, but also because children are ruinously expensive and both taxation and housing costs for working people are already punishingly high.
There's no likelihood of that changing, so schools will continue to become surplus to requirements - although this will affect some areas more than others. The progressive purging of children from much of inner London is well documented.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
The only pushback you’ve so far listed is that the private school which was likely to be closing soon is blaming Labour’s VAT change which won’t even be implemented to 2025/6/6
(Sighs theatrically).
If you were a parent, wanting the best for your kids. you might want to send them to a good private school. You might not be rich, and might have to scrimp and save to send them. Knowing that there might be a large increase in fees ahead might stop you sending them - after all, no-one wants to swap their kids' schools unnecessarily.
A 20% increase in fees might make the difference between sending a kid to the school or not - and it may only take a few parents not sending their kids to push the school to the edge.
So it may be the *fear* of the tax, both by the parents and the school, that has caused this.
At 18k per annum fees, 20% extra is £46,800 extra per child over the course of their education. Two children and that's not far shy of a hundred grand.
Once you're into that territory, it may make more sense to spend that cash on moving to a house in a better state school catchment area (thus depriving a student who might have gone to a good state school of a place). Plus, as an investment in capital, you can sell the house on. Win-win.
You could also send the kids to state school and pay for 2 years of private tuition between 16 and 18 to maximise their chances of doing well at A levels and getting into a good uni. Average cost of tuition = £23 per hour, so £460 per month for 20 hours of tuition. Cost over two years per child, £11040. Vs cost of 13 years of private education at £21600k per annum being £280k per child. As others have noted, it may now be better to stick 10k aside for them every year so they can afford a house in their 20s.
For parents currently on the margins of being able to afford private education, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, and future work uncertain (AI revolution and all that) I reckon a lot will be considering this route over and above private schools.
And the more parents that go this route, the more private schools will close. And the greater the cost / burden will be on the state.
My guess is we will see a lot of private schools close over the next decade. Which means this policy a) won't bring in nearly as much as is expected (and may be negative for the taxpayer), b) will crowd out areas with 'good' schools and distort the housing market further, and c) won't have the desired effect on reducing inequality, as the proper poshos will still send their kids to the more famous public schools, creating an even smaller elite cadre and reducing access to an important avenue of middle class social mobility.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
So Labour says no changes to IC and NI...so my guess would be new council tax bands, IHT threshold being cut, raid on pensions and capital gains cut to zero allowance / increase in tax rate, as a minimum to raise extra taxes.
Did she say no changes or no increases [in the rates]? The latter would not necessarily rule out extending NI to unearned income.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
Can I just say, at the end of the last thread is what I think is quite a cute picture of my new dog with my old dog. In case anyone needs to chill a bit.
So Labour says no changes to IC and NI...so my guess would be new council tax bands, IHT threshold being cut, raid on pensions and capital gains cut to zero allowance / increase in tax rate, as a minimum to raise extra taxes.
Did she say no changes or no increases [in the rates]? The latter would not necessarily rule out extending NI to unearned income.
No increases. So yes I guess that is also a possibility.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
A TikTok video in which your opening gambit is being forced to deny you are sending people to join the army is something else.
We're not going to force you to join the army - most of you are going to be used as forced labour instead. Aren't you lucky?
Not exactly appetising, but then again, as we've been discussing ever since the scheme was announced, nobody cares about the actual victims of this scheme. It's all about trying to shore up support amongst the over-70s and peel a chunk off the RefUK vote.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
Incorrect. Most private schools pay less on average than the state sector. They also mostly do not have TPS now.
Unless we're talking Eton, Clifton, Roedean etc who won't be noticeably affected by this policy despite being the ones we should be targeting.
Pensions are another reason why trying to run a school commercially is a mug's game.
Have to push back on the 'can't put up prices by 20%' thing though. For a start, entering the VAT system will let schools claim back VAT on some of their costs. And more importantly, the schools serving ninetysomething percent of the population have had to get very good at cutting costs while mostly keeping quality up.
It's never a happy occasion when an institution closes, or when people's lives are shook about. But it happens to ordinaries all the time, and sometimes the only conclusion is to note that we're at the Find Out stage of FAFO.
Yup. My suspicion is that the better off (financially) schools will use restructuring optimise their VAT.
Queue Private Eye story about Eton claiming more back in VAT than they pay, probably.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
They don’t contradict do they? Though quite frankly, in my view if you do this you do it properly like the Scandinavians.
No, they don’t, but the story here is not the policy but the shambolic way it has been rolled out. Briefed as “mandatory” but, it appears, not mandatory at all, it has managed to piss off two diametrically opposed sections of the electorate in 24 hours. Depending on who you read it’s either back to square bashing national service basics or DoE Awards on uppers.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh*, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average. So you can't even argue there aren't people with the understanding / background in the culture to make that ethic food.
* Most Indian restaurants are actually staffed by Bangladeshis.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
"Sunak is right: National Service is just what Generation Z is crying out for In this atomised social media age, societal cohesion needs to be rebuilt. The Prime Minister’s initiative is a great first step Ken Costa"
"Sunak is right: National Service is just what Generation Z is crying out for In this atomised social media age, societal cohesion needs to be rebuilt. The Prime Minister’s initiative is a great first step Ken Costa"
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
Incorrect. Most private schools pay less on average than the state sector. They also mostly do not have TPS now.
Unless we're talking Eton, Clifton, Roedean etc who won't be noticeably affected by this policy despite being the ones we should be targeting.
Pensions are another reason why trying to run a school commercially is a mug's game.
Have to push back on the 'can't put up prices by 20%' thing though. For a start, entering the VAT system will let schools claim back VAT on some of their costs. And more importantly, the schools serving ninetysomething percent of the population have had to get very good at cutting costs while mostly keeping quality up.
It's never a happy occasion when an institution closes, or when people's lives are shook about. But it happens to ordinaries all the time, and sometimes the only conclusion is to note that we're at the Find Out stage of FAFO.
Yup. My suspicion is that the better off (financially) schools will use restructuring optimise their VAT.
Queue Private Eye story about Eton claiming more back in VAT than they pay, probably.
I am sure Labour have thought about this.....rather than throwing the red meat to the left who are ideologically opposed to private schools with a policy to give them a bit of a beating.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
Incorrect. Most private schools pay less on average than the state sector. They also mostly do not have TPS now.
Unless we're talking Eton, Clifton, Roedean etc who won't be noticeably affected by this policy despite being the ones we should be targeting.
Pensions are another reason why trying to run a school commercially is a mug's game.
Have to push back on the 'can't put up prices by 20%' thing though. For a start, entering the VAT system will let schools claim back VAT on some of their costs. And more importantly, the schools serving ninetysomething percent of the population have had to get very good at cutting costs while mostly keeping quality up.
It's never a happy occasion when an institution closes, or when people's lives are shook about. But it happens to ordinaries all the time, and sometimes the only conclusion is to note that we're at the Find Out stage of FAFO.
Yup. My suspicion is that the better off (financially) schools will use restructuring optimise their VAT.
Queue Private Eye story about Eton claiming more back in VAT than they pay, probably.
I can definitely hear the cash tills starting to ring in the big tax consultancies.
“Eton School? Oh that’s a tiny management company inspector, we buy our services in from Eton schooling limited which in turn blah blah blah”.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
The pushback I'm getting is because absolutely no-one wants to hear anything negative about Keir Starmer and our prospective new Labour government.
Isn't the pushback more about not seeing the bigger picture? I'm sure it's sad that this school has financial problems. But we're talking about a change to tax policy that affects a group of the most privileged people in the country, one that many other private schools and parents will negotiate, and which will allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% of kids who don't have the privilege of private schooling.
It's always possible to pick sad stories of those on the wrong end of a policy. And it's not like Tories have given a jot about the misery they've inflicted on far less privileged people over the past 14 years. But I guess the kids Tory policies pushed into poverty deserved it, unlike Tarquin and Jocasta - who might now have to mix with the hoi polloi. For shame.
Except, (a) it doesn't affect the most privileged in the country - that's just the rhetoric - because they won't be affected; it's hard-working professionals and the small independent schools that will be, (b), it will not allow more money to be spent on the education of the 93% and will actually cost the taxpayer, and, (c) your last point seems to be an eye for an eye, which isn't invalidates what little merit your first two points have.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
that's what always happens when you come up with half-baked policies to curry favour with the voters.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
that's what always happens when you come up with half-baked policies to curry favour with the voters.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
To be honest with you, I am not against private schools existing, I just do not think they should be VAT exempt.
My preference in terms of policy would be to make state schools better and not do the VAT bit at all - but I can see the logic of the policy and a way for it to pay for other things, which Labour is always accused of not doing.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
Sunak's original tweet says: Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service. Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering. https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
They don’t contradict do they? Though quite frankly, in my view if you do this you do it properly like the Scandinavians.
No, they don’t, but the story here is not the policy but the shambolic way it has been rolled out. Briefed as “mandatory” but, it appears, not mandatory at all, it has managed to piss off two diametrically opposed sections of the electorate in 24 hours. Depending on who you read it’s either back to square bashing national service basics or DoE Awards on uppers.
No, the story here is, primarily, the policy itself. It's stupid and nasty and designed as a dog whistle for reactionary hard right elderly supporters, rather than as anything that might offer net benefit to the country, let alone the targets for this sort of treatment.
The fact that Cleverly has oh-so-generously conceded that eighteen year olds won't be cast into prisons to be brutalised for refusing to acquiesce to a period of indentured servitude doesn't mean that the Government wouldn't try to punish them if it ever got the chance to do it, either. You can see dissent being used as an excuse to withhold social security, impose fines or confiscate earnings through PAYE. It's disgusting.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
Incorrect. Most private schools pay less on average than the state sector. They also mostly do not have TPS now.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
that's what always happens when you come up with half-baked policies to curry favour with the voters.
I haven’t really paid attention to Schoolgate on here and I’m not going to start now, particularly as it seems to be getting very personal which isn’t good.
But generally I don’t see why private schools should be VAT exempt or benefit from charitable status as many (most) do.
They are businesses and if you wish to use their services you are fully entitled to do so. And pay VAT.
No, they are not businesses: they are charities and make no profit for anyone.
But then, you've admitted you haven't paid it any attention. As you see it it's a Labour policy and that means it must be defended.
In the ordinary understanding people have of 'charity' a school could only be one if its admissions policy was unrelated to ability to pay. I have no problem with independent schools at all, but many of them (not all) are no more charities than Harrods.
Another bit of a giveaway is that they tend to pay teachers above rather than below the market rate.
They have to charge a fee to cover their costs - otherwise they'd close. They can't live in a bubble free of economics.
Most do try and keep them as low as possible and many do subsidise those fees with grants, legacies and bequests, and offer bursaries and scholarships on top. And their facilities to the local community whenever they can. All of that is charitable work and educating children is such an activity as well.
I'm not sure where you've got the above the market rate pay bit from.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
"Sunak is right: National Service is just what Generation Z is crying out for In this atomised social media age, societal cohesion needs to be rebuilt. The Prime Minister’s initiative is a great first step Ken Costa"
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
If I believed that for a second I’d go mad. You’re all AI models here for my amusement.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
To me that's analogous with eg personal action on climate change. On an individual level your choice to avoid the poor school and go private makes perfect sense.
Just as the flight I've just booked to go skydiving in Spain in October makes sense.
Both could be poor societal choices (mine worse than yours, I'd argue) but sensible personal ones.
This, for me, is where the government has an important role. If the choice is not there (say you have a quota on flights that are not for business purposes, say private schools are banned) individuals then make the best alternative choice available to them.
I'm not arguing either for banning private schools or for quotas on flights. But I am arguing against policy being made based on the choices individuals make to benefit themselves or their families.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
To be honest with you, I am not against private schools existing, I just do not think they should be VAT exempt.
My preference in terms of policy would be to make state schools better and not do the VAT bit at all - but I can see the logic of the policy and a way for it to pay for other things, which Labour is always accused of not doing.
The catch is that it's unlikely to raise much money while entrenching privilege in the elite (damaging) schools and cratering provision elsewhere putting more pressure on the state sector.
There are other changes to the tax system that could be made. For example, a tax on any surplus including investment income for any charity that charges fees for its main services. Or ruling that any charity with over £10 million in endowments is not allowed to charge fees for its services. Or, as I've suggested before to the great disgust of one former SPAD who misguidedly thought of himself as an expert on both education and charity management while revealing with brutal clarity he was neither, disendowment of any educational institute that wished to remain a charity.
But VAT on school fees is not going to work. Even if VAT were not (a) far too high and (b) a bloody fool tax anyway, it hits the wrong targets in the wrong way.
I'm trying to decide whether Starmer knows this and doesn't care because he needs to throw red meat to the Jezaster's admirers while he carries out a moderate programme, or he doesn't know because he's incompetent.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The body of your post is why I wouldn’t send mine there (don’t want them to be Tarquin). But your last paragraph I why I don’t want to attack them - let Tarquin’s parents do what they think’s best for him.
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
It just shows how little idea people have of what private schools are actually like, which they assume are all like Eton or something out of an Enid Blyton story.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
It's the same principle: i.e. fiscal stimulation of the economy.
When left wingers do it, it's principally via increasing spending. When right wingers do it, it's principally via tax cuts.
The Barber boom was under a Conservative administration.
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh*, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average. So you can't even argue there aren't people with the understanding / background in the culture to make that ethic food.
* Most Indian restaurants are actually staffed by Bangladeshis.
I believe the scam is to hire someone on the allowable wage for a visa, and then work them 80 hours a week not 40, and strongly suggest, wink wink, that they rent a vastly overpriced room from your "cousin" and don't try to go elsewhere.
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
Ah, we're into the anyone who opposes Starmer must be mad or bad phase, I see.
Nope, it's just your apoplectic rage that makes you appear insane. Starmer will be no great shakes, but he'll be a thousand times better than the current clown show.
I want to avoid getting drawn into the personal issues but there have been some good posts about the pain which must be felt if this is your own children who are going to suffer.
But what I do feel duty bound to point out is that @Casino_Royale has been utterly vile towards me, regularly and repeatedly. A really, really, nasty campaign of ongoing hatred, bullying, and attempted vilification. This very morning, even though I had not once mentioned his school situation, he declared that I was the subject of derision and basically that I’m ignored by everyone on this site. Neither of which is correct, so far as I can be sure, but it’s a pretty shitty thing to post.
From what I’ve seen I do feel sorry for his children in this school situation. But I’m afraid that doesn’t mean CR is a nice person. Or, to be much more charitable, that he’s behaving like a nice person.
I’ll leave it right there. Have a good evening everyone. Some more opinion polls perhaps?
It's not as though this is the first time he's lashed out by any means.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
You do realise the rest of the class hates tarquin, regards him as a joke rather than a class leader and will probably kick seven bells of shit out of him at every opportunity at least at the comp I went to
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
A lot of private schools are not even schools. There are several converted shops round here offering after-school tuition.
I'm not quite sure what that has to do with my situation, but home schooling with tutors is another potential course we could take if he gets allocated the school we don't want him at. But the biggest problem with that is that he's an only child, and I see socialisation as vital for kids. Besides, an acquaintance was home-schooled, and even though he loves his parents, he hated the experience.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
Agreed, and it can be a tricky balance to strike. I'm not arguing for ad hominem attacks. I'm arguing against politeness or protecting hurt feelings on substantive political discussions. To take just one example, I value being on a site that has you, @MarqueeMark, @HYUFD and other campaigners for the Tories on it. Most of the other groups I interact with as a leftie and a teacher tend not to have many Tories in them.
I have most respect for those who realise they have got it wrong on here and apologise. That's a particularly human thing to do in my opinion.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
You do realise the rest of the class hates tarquin, regards him as a joke rather than a class leader and will probably kick seven bells of shit out of him at every opportunity at least at the comp I went to
I don’t think the Tarquins of this discussion went to your school.
"Sunak is right: National Service is just what Generation Z is crying out for In this atomised social media age, societal cohesion needs to be rebuilt. The Prime Minister’s initiative is a great first step Ken Costa"
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
Were you alive in the 70s RCS? I don't remember cutting the top rate of tax to 40% being high on the agenda. Truss's shambles owes nothing to the 70s, it was a neolib wankfest gone mad.
I think RCS, myself and Truss were all born in the mid-seventies. And Truss has ensured that she will be the only PM born in that decade. Thanks Liz.
Interesting point: Starmer (b. 1962) hands over to Rayner (b. 1980) in c. 2032?
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
1st, am personally very sympathetic to CR's situation, however am NOT qualified to analyze it OR come to a political or electoral (let alone education) conclusion about it. Except to hope & wish the best for CR's family.
2nd, what I'm wonder about is the TIMING of the announcement from CR's school? Was it released before OR after Rishi Sunak set the date for GE 2024?
Reason I'm asking, is because IF the answer is after PM's announcement, then sound somewhat like the letters that many American mill owners & other businessmen sent to their employees on the eve of the 1896 presidential election:
- If (I paraphrase) you vote for William Jennings Bryan tomorrow instead of William McKinley, don't bother coming to work next week, because the mill (or whatever) will be closed.
How effective this was is debatable, but WMcK did win the industrial workingmen's vote that year over WJB.
3rd, which is NOT saying that that's what's happening re: CR's school, OR that he should care one way or another about that (for him anyway) tangential possibility.
I can answer all those questions.
Parents and staff were told on Monday (6 days ago). This followed the failed sale of the school to another education establishment, discussions upon which were ongoing until the previous Friday afternoon (17th May). This was necessary because projected pupil numbers for the next academic year had dropped below the level to support the school’s activities, infrastructure and the number of staff required to deliver the curriculum. It needed a rescue.
Unfortunately, the transaction was not able to be concluded. So, they were obliged to make the announcement the following Monday by the legal requirements of the collective consultations process with the staff.
This was before Rishi Sunak announced his intention to hold an election on Wednesday, which came as a surprise to everyone - not least myself - and the two were entirely unconnected.
For the Conservatives to lose to him... that means the public must really hate the Tories.
And they do. And a lot of it is utterly self-inflicted.
To return to Casino's school problem for a moment (sorry), if we accept the premise that the school is closing "because Labour are going to win", then the blame for that falls squarely on
BoZo Truss Richi
Casino should be focusing his righteous anger on those cretins for screwing the pooch so completely
I think this is one you're struggling with as the reality of a Labour government comes into focus somewhere deep in the annals of your mind, so instead you're trying to fingerpoint to what you're comfortable fingerpointing toward instead.
The school operated on just a 2% gross margin last year. A 20% demand shock (everyone knows Labour is going to win) has led to a significant drop in the pupil roll for next year and that's been enough to put it into administration.
That wouldn't have happened were it not for Labour's VAT on private schools policy. It's killed it off.
If it helps, I think the scenario you present is all too plausible. I'm sorry that it's happened, and for the parents, pupils and teachers affected.
The pushback you're getting on this is interesting.
Will be even more interesting when it goes tits up and Labour need to fund all the pupils that cannot go to private schools and no extra VAT coming in.
And the state schools that used to get offered time on playing fields or use of arts facilities suddenly see that chance gone.
The school that my youngest daughter goes to offers use of its sports facilities to local schools. The basic access was required as a condition of planning permission, but they provide school staff, for free, to teach.
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
Yes I think you’d struggle to find state schools near a public school that want it shut. I didn’t go to public school and I would personally think twice about sending my kids there, but I don’t want them gone. But then I’ve never understood the politics of jealousy. Other people can have nice things without me having to have them too.
I dunno about your first line. I think state schools thrive when they are truly comprehensive; in each class there are a few Tarquins as well as plenty that Tarquin might otherwise never see or spend time with.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
You do realise the rest of the class hates tarquin, regards him as a joke rather than a class leader and will probably kick seven bells of shit out of him at every opportunity at least at the comp I went to
I don’t think the Tarquins of this discussion went to your school.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Chefs overtake software developers for UK skilled worker visas ... Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed. https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
It is being abused e.g. If I remember rightly big proportion of those used to be from places like Bangladesh, but of those in the UK of Bangladeshi origin, unemployment is above national average.
I suspect the government is just cooking the books.
Not booking the cooks?
Well, if the skilled worker visas are anything to go by..
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
Jess Phillips MP @jessphillips · 1h Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
At 00:29 does Sunak really say that the volunteers could be doing search and rescue or has my brain exploded?
Yep. For 12 weekends, with no training, equipment, or supervision. That's going to go well, isn'it?
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
What Rishi meant was that volunteers could be requiring search and rescue at any time during their training. Keeps the real guys on their toes.
George Parker @GeorgeWParker · 1h Key election pitches to young so far: Labour: votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Conservatives: compulsory national service at 18. YouGov voting intention poll for 18-24 age group: Lab 57%, Con 8%.
My personal take on the private school debate, which I've kept out of so far. The 7% who send their kids to private education are obviously over-represented, if not dominant, on here, so I thought it might be useful to give a perspective from somebody who went to, and spent all of his career in and around, state education. Obviously it's tough if the school one's kids are currently at is due to close, and I sympathise. And I don't particularly want to dwell on Labour's VAT policy (though I support it, for transparency).
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
To give an alternative view I was sent to a state school and other pupils prevented me from learning anything because that was not the thing to do....hell I still remember being in an english class as they burnt all my notes because I was trying to learn....the teachers response...was sigh put it out to which their response was fuck off and do it yourself
I'd argue that the parents of the kids at the private schools I attended were not particularly privileged. In fact there were very few 'posh' people. In the case of those kids on bursaries or scholarships, the parents were certainly not rich.
[Snip]
What proportion of the country would you say are 'privileged'? 1%? 5%? 10%?
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
Define 'privilege'.
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
Privileged means someone else has something I haven't got, and would like.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.
Comments
So instead of just a swimming pool* the kids get swimming lessons by trained sports coaches.
*The geniuses who drew up the condition of use ignored the issue of minimum staff for safety. So, the school could just say “here’s the swimming pool. Find a life guard”. But they don’t.
If they are going to be treated as businesses, they will act like that, and large amounts of that will go. There will also an even bigger push to recruit foreign students. China is already a big buyer of UK private school places, that will just continue to increase further.
Have to push back on the 'can't put up prices by 20%' thing though. For a start, entering the VAT system will let schools claim back VAT on some of their costs. And more importantly, the schools serving ninetysomething percent of the population have had to get very good at cutting costs while mostly keeping quality up.
It's never a happy occasion when an institution closes, or when people's lives are shook about. But it happens to ordinaries all the time, and sometimes the only conclusion is to note that we're at the Find Out stage of FAFO.
Most of our problems can be traced directly back to the housing crisis, and that originated with Mrs T. Rent seeking, low productivity, lack of investment, sky high taxes on incomes, labour immobility, social immobility and the growing dominance of inherited wealth, the plunging birth rate, all of it.
An interesting aspect is that Labour's VAT policy would at face value seem to cut itself off from c. 7% of the electorate. Probably a good proportion of the 7% would be unlikely to vote Labour any way but still it's a big chunk of the electorate not to be fighting for.
The interesting one would be if competitive tendering were introduced for schools. I'm fairly confident that the market rate for teaching a child would settle somewhat higher than the current formula. In some cases, a lot higher.
Rishi Sunak just joined TikTok to post about his new national service plan.
Judging by the comments, it's not going down well...
There's no likelihood of that changing, so schools will continue to become surplus to requirements - although this will affect some areas more than others. The progressive purging of children from much of inner London is well documented.
Every 18-year-old will get the choice of how they do their National Service.
Deciding to either serve their country in the Armed Forces or serve their community by volunteering.
https://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1794693714721522045
But the BBC says there will be 30,000 “selective” military placements reserved for teenagers deemed the “brightest and the best”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c988jdxl02vo
Which is it?
I hope your son has fully recovered.
Tarquin is useful as a teacher as he tends to do his homework, answer questions and generally want to do well. He's useful as a school leader because his parents often organise eg PTAs.
I also don't think there is enough social mixing amongst young people at present, and I think private schools make that worse at the margins.
OTOH I can see why rich parents would baulk at Tarquin being a pawn in a game of social engineering, especially if they themselves have not had much experience outside their social bubble.
The only point of the proposal was the press release.
Who would want to write the manifesto for a governing party set to lose? At least the Liberals get to dream their dreams.
Edit - 'I just got drenched in an expensive suit giving a briefing in the rain. That's just one of a hundred memories I don't want.'
What j would continue to do is ensure public schooling is moderated against at Uni and for selection for a first job.
...
Some 6,203 chefs were granted skilled worker visas in the year to March 2024, a rise of 54 per cent on the previous year, figures published by the Home Office last week showed.
https://www.ft.com/content/0e276992-89a3-4046-b005-e66b4b9147c0 (£££)
Tech slowdown but why can we not train chefs here? These are not Michelin-starred pot-rattlers for the most part. Butchers too are high up on the list.
Not exactly appetising, but then again, as we've been discussing ever since the scheme was announced, nobody cares about the actual victims of this scheme. It's all about trying to shore up support amongst the over-70s and peel a chunk off the RefUK vote.
Queue Private Eye story about Eton claiming more back in VAT than they pay, probably.
* Most Indian restaurants are actually staffed by Bangladeshis.
In this atomised social media age, societal cohesion needs to be rebuilt. The Prime Minister’s initiative is a great first step
Ken Costa"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/26/national-service-is-just-what-generation-z-crying-out-for/
I think this is a mistake some make: they assume that all private schools are Eton or Harrow. Many are local schools, serving local people (shades of Royston Vasey...), and the parents struggle and make sacrifices to send their kids to the school. Mine certainly did.
So, another anecdote. We live less than ten minutes' walk from an 'outstanding' secondary school, and one my son wants to go to. We moved here before the school was built, so we can hardly be accused of moving to be near it!
We (currently...) are in the fortunate situation where we could afford to send our son to a private school. Since we're tight, and the local secondary is good and so near, we don't want to go private. He also wants to go there.
However, a fair few kids in the village have been allocated to a school half an hour's drive away, which has a terrible reputation locally, and does not have stellar results. *If* the council choose to send him there, in their infinite wisdom, we would be faced with a choice. Do I want to drive my son to and from a poor school every day, or have him go on a complex bus journey, or do we send him to a local private school? I'd still have to drive him, or he would have to go on a bus, but it would at least be to a decent school.
I'd laugh in the face of anyone who told me that I was doing the 'wrong' thing in sending him to a private school in that situation.
“Eton School? Oh that’s a tiny management company inspector, we buy our services in from Eton schooling limited which in turn blah blah blah”.
None.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
My preference in terms of policy would be to make state schools better and not do the VAT bit at all - but I can see the logic of the policy and a way for it to pay for other things, which Labour is always accused of not doing.
The fact that Cleverly has oh-so-generously conceded that eighteen year olds won't be cast into prisons to be brutalised for refusing to acquiesce to a period of indentured servitude doesn't mean that the Government wouldn't try to punish them if it ever got the chance to do it, either. You can see dissent being used as an excuse to withhold social security, impose fines or confiscate earnings through PAYE. It's disgusting.
They are sold by the punnet.
Most do try and keep them as low as possible and many do subsidise those fees with grants, legacies and bequests, and offer bursaries and scholarships on top. And their facilities to the local community whenever they can. All of that is charitable work and educating children is such an activity as well.
I'm not sure where you've got the above the market rate pay bit from.
90% of the population wouldn't be able to afford to send their kids to a private school no matter what sacrifices they made. To those people the parents sending their kids to private schools are definitely privileged.
@jessphillips
·
1h
Well that was a rainy day! Hundreds of doors knocked in Yardley under our trusty umbrellas. I can recommend one to the PM
https://x.com/jessphillips/status/1794783649629642769
In other news, Sun to rise in East tomorrow and bears often use forested areas for toiletary activities.
Just as the flight I've just booked to go skydiving in Spain in October makes sense.
Both could be poor societal choices (mine worse than yours, I'd argue) but sensible personal ones.
This, for me, is where the government has an important role. If the choice is not there (say you have a quota on flights that are not for business purposes, say private schools are banned) individuals then make the best alternative choice available to them.
I'm not arguing either for banning private schools or for quotas on flights. But I am arguing against policy being made based on the choices individuals make to benefit themselves or their families.
There are other changes to the tax system that could be made. For example, a tax on any surplus including investment income for any charity that charges fees for its main services. Or ruling that any charity with over £10 million in endowments is not allowed to charge fees for its services. Or, as I've suggested before to the great disgust of one former SPAD who misguidedly thought of himself as an expert on both education and charity management while revealing with brutal clarity he was neither, disendowment of any educational institute that wished to remain a charity.
But VAT on school fees is not going to work. Even if VAT were not (a) far too high and (b) a bloody fool tax anyway, it hits the wrong targets in the wrong way.
I'm trying to decide whether Starmer knows this and doesn't care because he needs to throw red meat to the Jezaster's admirers while he carries out a moderate programme, or he doesn't know because he's incompetent.
These are just myths.
The kids at my local school are perfectly normal and aren't even developing cut-glass accents. It's just an independent school with its own educational ethos, that requires parents to afford £5k a term, or £1.4k a month spread over 12 months (with the extras and interest).
That's it.
When left wingers do it, it's principally via increasing spending. When right wingers do it, it's principally via tax cuts.
The Barber boom was under a Conservative administration.
The other example role, "delivering prescriptions and food to elderly people", does at least sound a bit more realistic... but isn't that just a public sector knock-off of Deliveroo, only with even dodgier employment practices?
Nothing to do with arguments or morality it is simply a case of numbers.
But Osborne's inheritance tax pledge worked on similar ratios.
People don't always act rationally.
I have most respect for those who realise they have got it wrong on here and apologise. That's a particularly human thing to do in my opinion.
74 years old? A perfect spokesperson for what Gen Z want!
I am in favour of equality of educational opportunity. So I'd shut them all down.
Parents and staff were told on Monday (6 days ago). This followed the failed sale of the school to another education establishment, discussions upon which were ongoing until the previous Friday afternoon (17th May). This was necessary because projected pupil numbers for the next academic year had dropped below the level to support the school’s activities, infrastructure and the number of staff required to deliver the curriculum. It needed a rescue.
Unfortunately, the transaction was not able to be concluded. So, they were obliged to make the announcement the following Monday by the legal requirements of the collective consultations process with the staff.
This was before Rishi Sunak announced his intention to hold an election on Wednesday, which came as a surprise to everyone - not least myself - and the two were entirely unconnected.
The weekend papers then picked the story up.
But what I really do find pretty offensive is the notion held by many that the worst thing that can happen is that one's kids are forced to go to a state school. Me, my kids, and my entire extended family and friends all went to state comprehensive schools, of varying quality, and we've all done pretty well in life. I rarely come across anybody outside here who was privately educated. And you know what? We are proud of our schools. We think they gave us a great education, both academically and socially. Most of us got into good universities. We're not ashamed. We don't envy our private school counterparts in the slightest - each to their own.
But we are insulted by many of you who regard a state education as somehow second class. Yes, there are rubbish comprehensive schools, but far fewer than there used to be. But there are quite a lot of rubbish private schools as well, as I discovered in my career, and they are held much less accountable than poor state schools, because it's easier for them to pull the wool over their stakeholders' eyes.
Apologies for the length of this rant - not my usual. But I feel just as strongly about this as do those who feel their interests are, or may be threatened, by the proposed change in policy (which in my view is pretty minor in the big scheme of things, if not for some individuals).
I never had a foreign holiday as a kid. Many of my state school friends did - perhaps because their parents were not spending the money on school fees. Were they 'privileged' ?
@GeorgeWParker
·
1h
Key election pitches to young so far: Labour: votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Conservatives: compulsory national service at 18. YouGov voting intention poll for 18-24 age group: Lab 57%, Con 8%.
We're not an aspirational society anymore, sadly; we're one riven with bitterness, jealousy and resentment.