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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Small world, I went to Peter Symonds too.
I don't think we are contempories though. I finished in the early Eighties, but it still an excellent school.
I went to the same school as Freddie Laker, Robert Wyatt and Milo Yiannopoulos. The latter being invited back to give a talk causing a minor local scandal.
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.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
Only if they're full time.
A complicating factor in my case might be that rather a lot of my money is from abroad.
That helps you, since the 90k is for UK earnings only. Used to be for total EU earnings, of course, so a little Brexit win for you there.
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Peter Symonds is excellent; my sister went there. I went to Alton College, also good.
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
When I went, you just needed a B at O level in the subjects you wanted to do at A level. There was no other selection.
That is the same as the Comprehensive that my son went to, and a reasonable threshold. If someone cannot get a B at GCSE then they won't do well at A level in that subject.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
In fact it's about the same as the 75th percentile after tax in the last year for which figures are available (2021/22).
So it's beyond the reach of most people. But 1 in 4 people could stretch to it if they were partnered with someone else who could pay the mortgage etc.
What we have here is essentially a socialist argument: if anyone earns 'more' than the median wage or average wage then they are well-off and privileged and no level of taxation can be high enough for them.
If that's where the country is at, then I'd be best off emigrating.
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.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
This is such a myth. It's astonishing people believe this. I don't know anyone from my old school, outside of two people I'm still vaguely in touch with on Facebook, and nor has anyone ever helped me out.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
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.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
I’m just interested in the idea that tutors are paying tax on their earnings.
I still recall a music tutor to one of my daughters who was your classic Frenchy lefty - when I tried to pay by BACS, she accused me of trying to force her to pay tax.
Anyone know when the next poll or group of polls are due?
Very good question. Because it seems since the election was called all but Opinium and YouGov have decided to go en grève. Really not on. I was expecting a cascade of Saturday night polls and it never materialised.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
The price of nursery in West London is similar to the cheaper private schools.
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
If education can't even function with VAT, like any old retailer or professional services firm, then maybe it's a highly inefficient business that can't deliver value for money, and maybe the upper-middle class tax break pushed far too much resources into an inefficient sector.
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 went to a state sixth-form college.
No-one is saying it's the worst thing that can happen, or that it is second class.
The argument is that it's a destructive and counterproductive policy to the education sector.
BiB - see the very next post to yours, 8.27, for one of many examples.
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.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
Not factually accurate at all as you well know the closure was announced when the chances were Sunak was going to hang on into January next year.
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
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.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
I’m just interested in the idea that tutors are paying tax on their earnings.
I still recall a music tutor to one of my daughters who was your classic Frenchy lefty - when I tried to pay by BACS, she accused me of trying to force her to pay tax.
French gonna French
Sous la table has definitely declined. France is becoming a decidedly North European country. Maybe it’s losing some Noom in the process. But it’s definitely a thing.
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.
Those do describe the Conservative voting base, yes.
No, that's you and your lot.
I've been following your "likes" today, and they simply reinforce that.
I’m glad someone is paying attention to my “likes”. I wouldn’t want to think pressing that button was entirely pointless!
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.
After-school tuition, not home schooling with tutors.
And after-school tuition done in a converted shop, i.e. with other children.
One thing Labour do need to clarify is whether they intend to levy VAT on private tuition as well as independent schools.
Or at least, if they've said what their views are I haven't seen them yet.
Is it usual for tutors to go over the £90k VAT threshold?
Doesn't really seem worth worrying about if it only affects one or two in unusual circumstances, but if it's more widespread then I don't see why they shouldn't.
I know that driving instructors do, as do dance teachers - but both of those tend to do it full time so likely make more money than after-school tutors.
I’m just interested in the idea that tutors are paying tax on their earnings.
I still recall a music tutor to one of my daughters who was your classic Frenchy lefty - when I tried to pay by BACS, she accused me of trying to force her to pay tax.
*looks sadly at large payment just made to HMRC Cumbernauld for Acland-Hood to spend on boozing*
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.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
Not factually accurate at all as you well know the closure was announced when the chances were Sunak was going to hang on into January next year.
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.
Privilege is buying your child a ticket that gives them a ten-fold better chance of a top job.
This is such a myth. It's astonishing people believe this. I don't know anyone from my old school, outside of two people I'm still vaguely in touch with on Facebook, and nor has anyone ever helped me out.
Those who have helped have been those I've met through my working career as I've developed my professional network. And, that's through my employers and clients. And, no, secret handshakes and ties have never come into it.
This stuff is just silly.
I exaggerated, it's only a five-fold better chance of a top job:
Britain’s most influential people are over 5 times more likely to have been to a fee-paying school than the general population. Just 7% of British people are privately educated, compared to two-fifths (39%) of those in top positions.
Private schools will always be disproportionately represented in such jobs because they're not educating absolutely everybody, and very few of them will go on to work in Tesco, McDonalds, or not at all. So that will skew the averages significantly.
You'd need to control against a control group of good state schools in fairly middle class areas to measure the real effect.
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Peter Symonds is excellent; my sister went there. I went to Alton College, also good.
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
Alton College is about 10 minutes from where I grew up, how interesting.
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
It’s a VAT exemption for a service, in the same way financial services are exempt, but other educational services are not.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Peter Symonds is excellent; my sister went there. I went to Alton College, also good.
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
When I went, you just needed a B at O level in the subjects you wanted to do at A level. There was no other selection.
That is the same as the Comprehensive that my son went to, and a reasonable threshold. If someone cannot get a B at GCSE then they won't do well at A level in that subject.
That's a form of academic selection, and the school is therefore not comprehensive.
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
I fear adding 'and USA' on that puts you in a rather exclusive group!
Yes, I went to High School in the USA for a few years, a public school in the US sense.
I came back straight into O levels. It was quite a jolt in terms of school style and curriculum. I was ahead in Maths and English as they were very well taught but way behind in Sciences, language and geography. History was a bit different. I had done a lot of European history until the reformation, then the Mayflower sailed and Europe didn't matter!
So I had a lot of catching up to do, but did well at the Comprehensive Montgomery of Alamein* School in Winchester, then Peter Symonds College.
* It was weirdly militaristic, with many of the teachers having done military service in WW2, and had a boarding house and CCF, for boys who had parents in the army. Unusual for a Comprehensive but not unique.
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
Either way, it's a private benefit to you. And you'll pay 20% VAT on those things. Good!
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.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
Not factually accurate at all as you well know the closure was announced when the chances were Sunak was going to hang on into January next year.
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Peter Symonds is excellent; my sister went there. I went to Alton College, also good.
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
When I went, you just needed a B at O level in the subjects you wanted to do at A level. There was no other selection.
That is the same as the Comprehensive that my son went to, and a reasonable threshold. If someone cannot get a B at GCSE then they won't do well at A level in that subject.
That's a form of academic selection, and the school is therefore not comprehensive.
But, I don't have an issue with selection.
In that case no school is Comprehensive after 16 and many after 14 as schools have academic requirements for GCSE at these levels.
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
It’s a VAT exemption for a service, in the same way financial services are exempt, but other educational services are not.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
Much smaller? Aren't wages 75 percent or so of a school's costs?
(Carnforth's genius populist recommendation: 5% for UK students, 20% for furriners.)
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
I fear adding 'and USA' on that puts you in a rather exclusive group!
Yes, I went to High School in the USA for a few years, a public school in the US sense.
I came back straight into O levels. It was quite a jolt in terms of school style and curriculum. I was ahead in Maths and English as they were very well taught but way behind in Sciences, language and geography. History was a bit different. I had done a lot of European history until the reformation, then the Mayflower sailed and Europe didn't matter!
So I had a lot of catching up to do, but did well at the Comprehensive Montgomery of Alamein* School in Winchester, then Peter Symonds College.
* It was weirdly militaristic, with many of the teachers having done military service in WW2, and had a boarding house and CCF, for boys who had parents in the army. Unusual for a Comprehensive but not unique.
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.
You get pushback because it is patently absurd to be blaming a future Labour government for a school closing in 2024, whatever cartwheels you are doing in your brain to justify otherwise.
It's not absurd in the slightest, and is factually accurate - inconveniently for you.
Everyone knows Labour will win, and the policy that will be introduced next academic year. That's altering the behaviour of prospective future parents now, because many can't afford a 20%+ uplift in fees for years, which would be permanent, and leading to closures now of marginal schools.
This is simply a fact, it's just one you don't want to acknowledge prior to the election.
Not factually accurate at all as you well know the closure was announced when the chances were Sunak was going to hang on into January next year.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
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.
I don't think they'll cut the IHT threshold. IHT isn't popular and the basic threshold has already been frozen at £325k for 15 years. I think they'll probably leave IHT completely as it is.
But I suspect they will:
- Bring CGT rates in line with IT rates - which is a big increase
- Dramatically cut back ISAs. Firstly reduce the £20k annual investment limit to about £5k. Maybe also put a cap on the total amount you can have invested in ISAs - say £100k or £200k. If they do that, the question is what happens to people with ISAs already above the cap? But whatever the detail, it'll be a dramatic reduction in the scope for investing completely outside of tax.
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
Just that this sub thread started with you saying
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).
And it's simply not the case that a school which serves families with that much spare cash is normal. It may be a lot of good things, but it's not normal.
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It's not impossible that 20% go to a private school at some point and 7% at any one time.
On here there are a fair number went to both sectors.
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).
Yes, I heartily agree.
I was educated exclusively in state schools in England and USA, finishing at the excellent Peter Symonds sixth form college, not so far from CR in Hampshire. It is one of the two Comprehensive schools in the top ten schools sending students to Cambridge, I think it was 5th overall.
Obviously I did well academically there, as did my two sibs one getting an exhibition to Cambridge, the other to LSE. We also had great extracurricular activities and friends from all sorts of backgrounds. I don't recall anyone needing extra tuition.
It was certainly a good education.
Peter Symonds is excellent; my sister went there. I went to Alton College, also good.
It's not a comprehensive school, though; it's a sixth form college and you have to apply for it for post-GCSEs.
When I went, you just needed a B at O level in the subjects you wanted to do at A level. There was no other selection.
That is the same as the Comprehensive that my son went to, and a reasonable threshold. If someone cannot get a B at GCSE then they won't do well at A level in that subject.
That's a form of academic selection, and the school is therefore not comprehensive.
But, I don't have an issue with selection.
In that case no school is Comprehensive after 16 and many after 14 as schools have academic requirements for GCSE at these levels.
It seems a strange quibble to me.
Not for English.
Maths or Science to an extent because of the paper tiers.
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It implies that most of those 18-24 year olds who attended private school at some point, did so for only one or two years each. Is that really likely? What would be driving that sort of behaviour?
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
It’s a VAT exemption for a service, in the same way financial services are exempt, but other educational services are not.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
Much smaller? Aren't wages 75 percent or so of a school's costs?
(Carnforth's genius populist recommendation: 5% for UK students, 20% for furriners.)
Depends on the school. A lot of them spend more than that on other goods and services. Certainly ours does - looks like the hike will be 10% or less, some coming out of profits.
State schools have faced far worse austerity than that for years. It’s fair that they’re all in it together.
So the Indy 500 is going ahead after all. I'd make a joke about how boring oval tracks are, but we've just had the Monaco Grand Prix so it would be a tad hypocritical.
If education can't even function with VAT, like any old retailer or professional services firm, then maybe it's a highly inefficient business that can't deliver value for money, and maybe the upper-middle class tax break pushed far too much resources into an inefficient sector.
It's not a business at all. And it's not recovering much in the way of inputs to match it's outputs like retailers do
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
Either way, it's a private benefit to you. And you'll pay 20% VAT on those things. Good!
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.
I don't think they'll cut the IHT threshold. IHT isn't popular and the basic threshold has already been frozen at £325k for 15 years. I think they'll probably leave IHT completely as it is.
But I suspect they will:
- Bring CGT rates in line with IT rates - which is a big increase
- Dramatically cut back ISAs. Firstly reduce the £20k annual investment limit to about £5k. Maybe also put a cap on the total amount you can have invested in ISAs - say £100k or £200k. If they do that, the question is what happens to people with ISAs already above the cap? But whatever the detail, it'll be a dramatic reduction in the scope for investing completely outside of tax.
Cutting the IHT threshold just means more people put their property in trust etc.
Cutting the ISA limits seems clever - it’s well known that excessive savings are the weak point of the British economy.
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
It’s a VAT exemption for a service, in the same way financial services are exempt, but other educational services are not.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
Much smaller? Aren't wages 75 percent or so of a school's costs?
(Carnforth's genius populist recommendation: 5% for UK students, 20% for furriners.)
Depends on the school. A lot of them spend more than that on other goods and services. Certainly ours does - looks like the hike will be 10% or less, some coming out of profits.
State schools have faced far worse austerity than that for years. It’s fair that they’re all in it together.
Or, we could adopt policies that grow and improve the whole education sector rather than damage it.
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It implies that most of those 18-24 year olds who attended private school at some point, did so for only one or two years each. Is that really likely? What would be driving that sort of behaviour?
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
Just that this sub thread started with you saying
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).
And it's simply not the case that a school which serves families with that much spare cash is normal. It may be a lot of good things, but it's not normal.
It depends if you define the word normal in a statistical sense or as a euphemism for strangeness.
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.
I don't think they'll cut the IHT threshold. IHT isn't popular and the basic threshold has already been frozen at £325k for 15 years. I think they'll probably leave IHT completely as it is.
But I suspect they will:
- Bring CGT rates in line with IT rates - which is a big increase
- Dramatically cut back ISAs. Firstly reduce the £20k annual investment limit to about £5k. Maybe also put a cap on the total amount you can have invested in ISAs - say £100k or £200k. If they do that, the question is what happens to people with ISAs already above the cap? But whatever the detail, it'll be a dramatic reduction in the scope for investing completely outside of tax.
Cutting the IHT threshold just means more people put their property in trust etc.
Cutting the ISA limits seems clever - it’s well known that excessive savings are the weak point of the British economy.
Have you been taking lessons in subtlety from Our New Genial Host?
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It's not impossible that 20% go to a private school at some point and 7% at any one time.
On here there are a fair number went to both sectors.
I went to both. Public primary, state primary, state middle, then private from 13+
Oddly enough, the only 'famous' person I was at school with (a film director) was at the state middle school. I can't remember him though, but can remember his situation.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It's not impossible that 20% go to a private school at some point and 7% at any one time.
On here there are a fair number went to both sectors.
I went to both. Public primary, state primary, state middle, then private from 13+
Oddly enough, the only 'famous' person I was at school with (a film director) was at the state middle school. I can't remember him though, but can remember his situation.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
It’s a VAT exemption for a service, in the same way financial services are exempt, but other educational services are not.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
I'm pleased for you.
Mine closed, and my son will lose his teachers and his friends and the former their jobs too.
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.
None.
On a) By definition if you are among the small percentage of the population for whom sending your kids to private school is an option you are among the most privileged people in the country. You are in the 7% who receive an education that if it's worth the money you are paying for it, places you in a position of privilege above the 93%.
The fact there are an even smaller group of people who are more privileged still and can send their children to an even more expensive, elitist one doesn't change that fact.
b) Is debatable. Labour's rationale is that it would be revenue raising. You can see how there will be some private schools closing whose kids go into the state sector, but it would have to be an awful lot to wipe out the gains. I'd tend to go with Labour over the private school lobby. Especially as over time, you'll get more of an equilibrium as schools' business models adjust.
On c) It's not an eye for an eye, it's making a simple point. All tax and spend policies have winners and losers. There will always be people on the hard edge.
In this case it's a small number of relatively well off people who are losing a tax break they previously enjoyed. It's sad for them. But it's difficult to have sympathy when they are much better able to cope with the end of a previously enjoyed tax break than far poorer children were when the Tories took away educational and childcare services they relied on. The same commentators (though by no means the parents) squealing now that it's all so unfair were cheering that.
So it's difficult to see it as people not used to be being told "no" and that yes, a government may end tax breaks you benefit from but which it doesn't see as beneficial to the nation. It's tantrum throwing because for once in their lives it's them on the wrong end of a decision rather than those at the bottom of society.
For the umpteenth time, it's not a tax break. The tax break is precisely the other way round: the parents who send their kids to private schools are giving you the tax break. Take it away and it's a tax take. Yours.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
It’s a VAT exemption for a service, in the same way financial services are exempt, but other educational services are not.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
Much smaller? Aren't wages 75 percent or so of a school's costs?
(Carnforth's genius populist recommendation: 5% for UK students, 20% for furriners.)
Depends on the school. A lot of them spend more than that on other goods and services. Certainly ours does - looks like the hike will be 10% or less, some coming out of profits.
State schools have faced far worse austerity than that for years. It’s fair that they’re all in it together.
Or, we could adopt policies that grow and improve the whole education sector rather than damage it.
Really, CR. Tear up 80 years of dedicated work, just to benefit the nation's children? You're just being silly.
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
Either way, it's a private benefit to you. And you'll pay 20% VAT on those things. Good!
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It implies that most of those 18-24 year olds who attended private school at some point, did so for only one or two years each. Is that really likely? What would be driving that sort of behaviour?
Example: My niece was sent to a wanky private school for a year before she started infant school. Presumably that would be included in the stats.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
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.
But when did you attend private school? I attended private school in the 70s and 80s. Private school fees have risen by much more than inflation since then. They have become more selective, more limited to the richest. They’re not the same social mix as when we attended.
So, that’s a considerably bigger increase than the addition of VAT now would be. I don’t know why that is. Are the schools profiteering? Are they offering a different kind of service? Do schooling costs just rise much more quickly than general inflation? But we have a sector that has been hiking fees for years that’s not talking about why they hiked fees but is keen on talking about how Labour’s policy will make them unaffordable.
I went to both state and private schools at various times, between the late 1970s to the early 1990s.
And yes, I know costs have increased. And many prospective parents have been priced out as a result - and some schools have closed. But that's not an excuse to add an artificial cost on top of it. In the case of my old school, the facilities have apparently improved massively. Have they improved enough to compensate for the extra costs? I don't know - in the case of boarders, perhaps.
It’s not an excuse to add VAT, no. That is a political decision by a party I’m not voting for. But it does suggest to me that (a) our experience of who went to private school when we were kids doesn’t tell us all that much about who goes now, (b) consumers are more willing to tolerate price rises than some people here suggest, and (c) the schools crying “woe is me” may, in some cases (not Casino’s), be doing very nicely for themselves.
a) So what better data do you have? b) That elasticity will have a limit. To use an engineering term, it will reach a plastic point where something will give. Besides, some private schools have closed - one in Abbots Bromley, as an example. c) That's an assumption on your part that might cover a very real fear on their part.
I have offered data. I gave you a link to an article earlier.
I am slightly puzzled why you are having a go at me on supplying data when you have responded with speculation rather than data yourself. What’s up? I’m not trying to have an argument with you. I’m happy to discuss the issue, explore the data. I found something and shared it. I hope it was interesting. Feel free to share what you’ve got.
I'm not trying to 'have a go' at you, or anyone. If you mean the link to the Indy article above, then it's not relevant as far as I can see - it's about the increase in fees. If it's another link, then I've missed it.
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).
That's it.
Are you aware that £1.4k a month for two kids equates to more than the median salary in this country?
That's a considerable sum of money.
The median salary in this country is £35k so, no, I'm not aware of it because it's not true.
Are you aware that's what a full-time nursery place costs now in the South, which a plurality of two-working parents now have to pay?
Lots of families where both parents work full-time with one child exercise this choice, provided their housing is modest and they don't go on expensive holidays.
The real issue comes when one considers a second child.
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).
That's it.
But that's the heart of the matter.
Families with £1400 a month per child to spare are extremely abnormal. And an educational ethos that costs 2-3 times as much as the government chooses to spend more on most children is a luxury ethos.
Independent schools decided to price themselves out of the middle class market, largely because they could.
I hope it works out for your family, but the sector has been mismanaging itself for ages. Even if Labour's proposals hadn't delivered the coup de grace, something else would have.
Not really. Most families pay that for a full-time nursery place. And that's a strong plurality of parents. It's simply extending it from the age of 5 to 18, rather than ending it at that stage.
Do you have kids?
Yes I do, two of them actually. Both thriving in the state sector.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
So what if they're not? It's no secret they cost money.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
Either way, it's a private benefit to you. And you'll pay 20% VAT on those things. Good!
You're an idiot, and a fuckwit.
What’s the difference?
The idiot for the argument; the fuckwit for saying it's good when the policy has just closed my son's school.
If Labour are in favour of removing VAT exemptions, I trust they'll be removing the exemption on train tickets too?
I pay VAT on my fuel to get to work, while others don't pay VAT on their train tickets. This loophole should be closed too, I'm sure Labour will be queueing up to do this, right?
EXCL: Greg Hands triggers backlash after spamming Whatsapp group of parents of boys at elite St Paul's School - alma mater of George Osborne, etc. - about Labour's private school plans.
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
EXCL: Greg Hands triggers backlash after spamming Whatsapp group of parents of boys at elite St Paul's School - alma mater of George Osborne, etc. - about Labour's private school plans.
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
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?
Something like that. Maybe David Beckham gets interested in politics but I don’t see it.
An early Starmer retirement leading to Reeves (b. Feb 1979) is probably your best bet. Maybe an outside chance of Jonathan Ashworth (b. Oct 1978) if the party took a more Brownite turn?
Not that uncommon to only have a single PM from a whole decade - Home (1900s), Thatcher (1920s), and Major (1940s) are all in that category. And it could be worse - there were no PMs at all from either the 1820s or 1930s!
Home, Thatcher and Major as representatives for their birth decades are infinitely preferable to the 49 day disaster. She was (as I bang on about) in my year at Oxford, which is an absolute embarrassment
The private school group Greg Hands posted in, has this amazing reply.
"Can we stop assuming everyone is a Tory in this group. A return to more morality, less corruption and more social conscience in British politics is not something to oppose necessarily. I appreciate this will be widely derided as a comment but I do think this group needs some balance."
EXCL: Greg Hands triggers backlash after spamming Whatsapp group of parents of boys at elite St Paul's School - alma mater of George Osborne, etc. - about Labour's private school plans.
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
Is Sunak so worried about how he is perceived that he'll only talk to Tory staffers? Or does he not understand, or not care?
I suppose it probably doesn't matter much politically, just seems a bit odd.
Very little benefit to actually talking to the public I'd guess, and a lot of risk they make you look a tit (Sunak has some form for this, but a risk for all politicians).
Lots of inside baseball bad stories about softball questions nowhere near as bad as say a Gordon Brown bigot woman moment.
I took your advice (not that you directly advised it) and bailed out of the spreads.
I remembered that it's quite hard to trade on SPIN and they take the market down whenever anything vaguely price related happens, and the downside risk on my bet is significantly worse than the potential upside. Last time they pursued me immediately and quite firmly after the result to plug the loss straight away.
So I blew £60 on that but, yes, will sleep better and use my cash for better bets.
EXCL: Greg Hands triggers backlash after spamming Whatsapp group of parents of boys at elite St Paul's School - alma mater of George Osborne, etc. - about Labour's private school plans.
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
Do you agree the VAT exemption on your train tickets should be removed too?
Or is it just some exemptions you object to?
Actually Bart, I've already posted on VAT exemptions. They should in my view really only exist for vital services. Private education is not vital, I would argue transport is.
But actually I don't really care much for the VAT on school fees, I'd rather Labour made state education better first.
1. No parent should feel that they need to go private, because their local state school isn't good enough 2. The government should not, as much as possible, be in the business of artificially restricting peoples' choices
3. (And this is a slightly different point, but is an important one): Most private schools are "not for profit" entities, in that they are not setup to make and distribute profits to shareholders. Now we can argue about whether they are charities in the same way that - say - the NSPCC is, but they are definitely not setup with a board of director's whose legal and moral obligation is to maximize the returns to owners. (There are, of course, for profit private schools, who are setup for exactly that purpose.)
Where does this get us?
Well, VAT has historically not been charged on educational products. Books, for example, are zero rated from a VAT perspective. I struggle with the idea that VAT should not be charged on a Jilly Cooper novel, but should be charged on someone doing teaching. I struggle to see a case for putting VAT on school fees.
I'm also not sure that there should be corporation tax payable on the "surpluses" that are generated by private schools. The whole point about those surpluses is that they are there to pay for things when a big charge comes along (like a new roof) and knocks the school into deficit for a year or two. Obviously, for profit educational establishments do pay corporation tax on their profits.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be upset if demand for private schools dried up completely and they were all forced to close due to lack of demand. But the way that should be achieved is to properly manage and fund the state education sector. I realize that that is a much harder ask than simply slapping 20% on private school fees.
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.
I don't think they'll cut the IHT threshold. IHT isn't popular and the basic threshold has already been frozen at £325k for 15 years. I think they'll probably leave IHT completely as it is.
But I suspect they will:
- Bring CGT rates in line with IT rates - which is a big increase
- Dramatically cut back ISAs. Firstly reduce the £20k annual investment limit to about £5k. Maybe also put a cap on the total amount you can have invested in ISAs - say £100k or £200k. If they do that, the question is what happens to people with ISAs already above the cap? But whatever the detail, it'll be a dramatic reduction in the scope for investing completely outside of tax.
Cutting the IHT threshold just means more people put their property in trust etc.
Cutting the ISA limits seems clever - it’s well known that excessive savings are the weak point of the British economy.
The tighter the iht limit the less scope for trusts because, ignoring the smoke and mirrors, you are effectively giving away stuff you don't need when you set them up. And they cost professional fees to establish
In Canada the TFSA (ISA equivalent) has a life time contribution limit of $95000 or about 55000 earth pounds. That does seem reasonable: it's perfectly possible to be taking an income over the national average wage out of an ISA tax free, at the same time as having lots of other assets. Nice feeling but the social justice of the situation is, ahem, nuanced.
If education can't even function with VAT, like any old retailer or professional services firm, then maybe it's a highly inefficient business that can't deliver value for money, and maybe the upper-middle class tax break pushed far too much resources into an inefficient sector.
It's not a business at all. And it's not recovering much in the way of inputs to match it's outputs like retailers do
The private school group Greg Hands posted in, has this amazing reply.
"Can we stop assuming everyone is a Tory in this group. A return to more morality, less corruption and more social conscience in British politics is not something to oppose necessarily. I appreciate this will be widely derided as a comment but I do think this group needs some balance."
Doesn't really surprise. When you look loads of leftie journalists, creatives, etc went to St Pauls and came from similar well known lefty parents. Guardian journalists used to get very funny when people used to troll the comments with list of where all the leading lights went to leading private school like St Pauls.
EXCL: Greg Hands triggers backlash after spamming Whatsapp group of parents of boys at elite St Paul's School - alma mater of George Osborne, etc. - about Labour's private school plans.
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
Do you agree the VAT exemption on your train tickets should be removed too?
Or is it just some exemptions you object to?
Actually Bart, I've already posted on VAT exemptions. They should in my view really only exist for vital services. Private education is not vital, I would argue transport is.
But actually I don't really care much for the VAT on school fees, I'd rather Labour made state education better first.
By that logic we should abolish VAT on fuel.
That we charge VAT on top of fuel duty is absurd.
I agree that making state education better first would be a better policy and I've suggested how earlier.
If Labour are in favour of removing VAT exemptions, I trust they'll be removing the exemption on train tickets too?
I pay VAT on my fuel to get to work, while others don't pay VAT on their train tickets. This loophole should be closed too, I'm sure Labour will be queueing up to do this, right?
I actually think that would be sensible.
Build new train infrastructure and receive 20% of revenue raised as a result.
Apply the tax base widely and subsidise for those who need it should be the principle. There's lots of people commuting into London on well paid jobs paying thousands a year in train tickets. I don't think that should be VAT exempt either.
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.
None.
People who can afford today’s private school fees are certainly at the top end of “hard-working professionals”. 7% of kids go to private schools and that’s very closely correlated with income, i.e. the top 7% earners.
1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child (20%) and it's actually higher amongst younger age groups:
It's much more common than you think.
I went to the source and not much background data on, for instance, the questions used to get these figures. But I'm going to call bullshit on the output number.
It implies that most of those 18-24 year olds who attended private school at some point, did so for only one or two years each. Is that really likely? What would be driving that sort of behaviour?
Example: My niece was sent to a wanky private school for a year before she started infant school. Presumably that would be included in the stats.
Mrs Foxy went to private school for a year when she came from Africa, but hated it as all of the other kids were much posher and had ponies and such. She transferred to the local Comp and was much happier there.
If education can't even function with VAT, like any old retailer or professional services firm, then maybe it's a highly inefficient business that can't deliver value for money, and maybe the upper-middle class tax break pushed far too much resources into an inefficient sector.
It's not a business at all. And it's not recovering much in the way of inputs to match it's outputs like retailers do
Private schools are businesses.
They are not, on average. Nothing stopping them being, but the ones I went to and sent my children to (5 in all) were in all cases not for profit trusts. So unlike a business you can't hike profitability to deal with VAT shocks.
EXCL: Greg Hands triggers backlash after spamming Whatsapp group of parents of boys at elite St Paul's School - alma mater of George Osborne, etc. - about Labour's private school plans.
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
Do you agree the VAT exemption on your train tickets should be removed too?
Or is it just some exemptions you object to?
Actually Bart, I've already posted on VAT exemptions. They should in my view really only exist for vital services. Private education is not vital, I would argue transport is.
But actually I don't really care much for the VAT on school fees, I'd rather Labour made state education better first.
By that logic we should abolish VAT on fuel.
That we charge VAT on top of fuel duty is absurd.
I agree that making state education better first would be a better policy and I've suggested how earlier.
Wasn't it the Tories who put VAT on fuel originally?
Arguably I think VAT could be used as a way to disincentivise using cars - something which I strongly support - but again that's more of an aspiration as opposed to a policy I want to see implemented.
I am not opposed to Labour's plan in principle - but I think they've got it the wrong way round and should have done the state education bit first.
We're not all drones, I know you think all Labour voters are. But I've voted Tory in the past.
The private school group Greg Hands posted in, has this amazing reply.
"Can we stop assuming everyone is a Tory in this group. A return to more morality, less corruption and more social conscience in British politics is not something to oppose necessarily. I appreciate this will be widely derided as a comment but I do think this group needs some balance."
Doesn't really surprise. When you look loads of leftie journalists, creatives, etc went to St Pauls and came from similar well known lefty parents. Guardian journalists used to get very funny when people used to troll the comments with list of where all the leading lights went to leading private school like St Pauls.
I'd like to get the thoughts of other school parents. I'll ask some friends who have friends or siblings at Marlborough and Wellington.
For some reason my wife is watching some Indian drama on Netflix roughly set around the time of the Mutiny. It's in (accented) English, with subtitles.
I just heard a terrific insult: low-born spawn of a pervert.
Comments
That is the same as the Comprehensive that my son went to, and a reasonable threshold. If someone cannot get a B at GCSE then they won't do well at A level in that subject.
If that's where the country is at, then I'd be best off emigrating.
This is why Labour governments over the last 100 years haven't touched it, even when they've been in office and had the opportunity to do so.
And yes, nursery fees are a mare, but there are two important differences. One is that they're for a fairly short period of time and we only had to pay for one set of fees at a time. The other is the hefty government contributions through free hours and salary sacrifice.
I am very very comfortable. Two public sector professional salaries, no mortgage, fairly frugal habits. With no mortgage to pay, I might, just about, be able to squeeze out £2800 a month, but it would be tight. With a mortgage to pay, forget it.
People paying school fees out of earnings are, by definition, not normal.
You'd need to control against a control group of good state schools in fairly middle class areas to measure the real effect.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg665grg7plo
I thought I was past being shocked.
One of the downsides of exemption is inability to recover VAT. That’s one of the reasons the actual cost of taxability will be much smaller than the headlines.
Most private schools will be fine, they’ll adapt. My son goes to one which has already let us know what their plans are. Fees have gone up by a ridiculous degree in the last few years so this will just be yet another hike, but much less than 20%.
But, I don't have an issue with selection.
Surely it must be time for Sunak to drop another banger of a policy. Bringing back corporal punishment?
I came back straight into O levels. It was quite a jolt in terms of school style and curriculum. I was ahead in Maths and English as they were very well taught but way behind in Sciences, language and geography. History was a bit different. I had done a lot of European history until the reformation, then the Mayflower sailed and Europe didn't matter!
So I had a lot of catching up to do, but did well at the Comprehensive Montgomery of Alamein* School in Winchester, then Peter Symonds College.
* It was weirdly militaristic, with many of the teachers having done military service in WW2, and had a boarding house and CCF, for boys who had parents in the army. Unusual for a Comprehensive but not unique.
It seems lots of people on here would prefer they spent that money on bigger houses in good catchment, expensive holidays, nicer cars and made the taxpayer pick up the bill.
Excuse me if I struggle to see how that's the selfless choice.
It seems a strange quibble to me.
(Carnforth's genius populist recommendation: 5% for UK students, 20% for furriners.)
Thank God HYUFD isn't around to get us started on grammar schools.
Oh dear. Fake Rishi strikes again.
So @RishiSunak was in my manor of Stanmore in Harrow East today to support the Tory candidate.
It’s claimed he ‘surprised local diners’ but everyone in these photos is a Tory councillor or staffer, without exception.
Don’t be fooled by Rishi.
https://x.com/PrimeshPatel/status/1794779254330405003
But I suspect they will:
- Bring CGT rates in line with IT rates - which is a big increase
- Dramatically cut back ISAs. Firstly reduce the £20k annual investment limit to about £5k. Maybe also put a cap on the total amount you can have invested in ISAs - say £100k or £200k. If they do that, the question is what happens to people with ISAs already above the cap? But whatever the detail, it'll be a dramatic reduction in the scope for investing completely outside of tax.
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).
And it's simply not the case that a school which serves families with that much spare cash is normal. It may be a lot of good things, but it's not normal.
On here there are a fair number went to both sectors.
Maths or Science to an extent because of the paper tiers.
@LukeTryl
Our first
@Moreincommon_
poll of Scottish voters since the campaign was announced. Labour lead by 5.
Labour 35% (+16)
SNP 30% (-15)
Cons 17% (-8)
Lib Dem 10% (-)
Reform 4%
Green 3% (+2)
Changes with 2019 n= 1016 22-24 May
State schools have faced far worse austerity than that for years. It’s fair that they’re all in it together.
They all deserve medals for such selfless sacrifice.
And the kids have to suffer the sad consequences. Improved life chances. The horror.
Cutting the ISA limits seems clever - it’s well known that excessive savings are the weak point of the British economy.
Oddly enough, the only 'famous' person I was at school with (a film director) was at the state middle school. I can't remember him though, but can remember his situation.
Glad we got that straight.
2x £1400 = £2,800
£2800 is more than £2381
Mine closed, and my son will lose his teachers and his friends and the former their jobs too.
I would not have predicted Labour taking back most of Scotland under SKS - but it may well happen.
Fucking LOL.
I suppose it probably doesn't matter much politically, just seems a bit odd.
I pay VAT on my fuel to get to work, while others don't pay VAT on their train tickets. This loophole should be closed too, I'm sure Labour will be queueing up to do this, right?
Trade minister told "stop assuming everyone's a Tory" and that some feel it is "hard to justify" VAT exemption
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1794787580212391981
I am sorry but this is brilliantly funny.
Or is it just some exemptions you object to?
Below I stated that good health as a child is a privilege. It is, and one I did not have at times.
On the other hand, having two loving parents is also somewhat of a privilege, and one I most certainly had. Likewise, having loving siblings.
It's easy to reject such privileges that you have as unimportant - but to those who did not have them, they can appear very important.
If you use the definition such as: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."
"Can we stop assuming everyone is a Tory in this group. A return to more morality, less corruption and more social conscience in British politics is not something to oppose necessarily. I appreciate this will be widely derided as a comment but I do think this group needs some balance."
https://x.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1794787580212391981/photo/3
Lots of inside baseball bad stories about softball questions nowhere near as bad as say a Gordon Brown bigot woman moment.
I remembered that it's quite hard to trade on SPIN and they take the market down whenever anything vaguely price related happens, and the downside risk on my bet is significantly worse than the potential upside. Last time they pursued me immediately and quite firmly after the result to plug the loss straight away.
So I blew £60 on that but, yes, will sleep better and use my cash for better bets.
But actually I don't really care much for the VAT on school fees, I'd rather Labour made state education better first.
2. The government should not, as much as possible, be in the business of artificially restricting peoples' choices
3. (And this is a slightly different point, but is an important one): Most private schools are "not for profit" entities, in that they are not setup to make and distribute profits to shareholders. Now we can argue about whether they are charities in the same way that - say - the NSPCC is, but they are definitely not setup with a board of director's whose legal and moral obligation is to maximize the returns to owners. (There are, of course, for profit private schools, who are setup for exactly that purpose.)
Where does this get us?
Well, VAT has historically not been charged on educational products. Books, for example, are zero rated from a VAT perspective. I struggle with the idea that VAT should not be charged on a Jilly Cooper novel, but should be charged on someone doing teaching. I struggle to see a case for putting VAT on school fees.
I'm also not sure that there should be corporation tax payable on the "surpluses" that are generated by private schools. The whole point about those surpluses is that they are there to pay for things when a big charge comes along (like a new roof) and knocks the school into deficit for a year or two. Obviously, for profit educational establishments do pay corporation tax on their profits.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be upset if demand for private schools dried up completely and they were all forced to close due to lack of demand. But the way that should be achieved is to properly manage and fund the state education sector. I realize that that is a much harder ask than simply slapping 20% on private school fees.
In Canada the TFSA (ISA equivalent) has a life time contribution limit of $95000 or about 55000 earth pounds. That does seem reasonable: it's perfectly possible to be taking an income over the national average wage out of an ISA tax free, at the same time as having lots of other assets. Nice feeling but the social justice of the situation is, ahem, nuanced.
That we charge VAT on top of fuel duty is absurd.
I agree that making state education better first would be a better policy and I've suggested how earlier.
Build new train infrastructure and receive 20% of revenue raised as a result.
Apply the tax base widely and subsidise for those who need it should be the principle. There's lots of people commuting into London on well paid jobs paying thousands a year in train tickets. I don't think that should be VAT exempt either.
Tories slightly lower than I'd thought (at about 20%) but not massively so.
Edit to clarify 5 schools, not 5 children
Arguably I think VAT could be used as a way to disincentivise using cars - something which I strongly support - but again that's more of an aspiration as opposed to a policy I want to see implemented.
I am not opposed to Labour's plan in principle - but I think they've got it the wrong way round and should have done the state education bit first.
We're not all drones, I know you think all Labour voters are. But I've voted Tory in the past.
Labour seems to already be buying search ads against the keywords "Tory Manifesto" to direct searches to this site:
https://torymanifesto.org.uk
I just heard a terrific insult: low-born spawn of a pervert.