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.
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."
In the privacy of the polling group though I suspect most of the parents will vote for Hands and the fact the LDs were second in Chelsea and Fulham in 2019 will split the opposition vote. It is also one of the seats which will prefer Rishi to Boris
To me instinctively, it feels like Labour have the most impressive social media campaign they've ever had.
That probably doesn't mean an awful lot - but the Tories were very good in 2019 so I find it odd they seem to have left the field. Cummings to his credit, understood this. Something they did very intelligently, was to run lots of ads for most of the campaign, check their response and then run the best ones in the last week.
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.
And how would a business 'hike profitability' - would that be by reducing costs and/or raising prices?
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
I was referring to the idea that all the Tories need is to finally turn away from being so lefty. It's quite silly when you think of it, but in any case ignore the real reasons for present distress, which aren't policy related in my view.
Individual Tories can be as left wing as they like, I just don't see why they're in the Tory Party, which has a right wing membership, supporter base, and public policy platform. In the cause of public confidence in democracy, surely it would be better to be elected to Labour or the Lib Dems, rather than be elected as Tories and behave and vote as Lib Dems once elected. Or if they're instinctively left wing but don't like getting too close to actual working class people, why not form a social democracy party, and rally people to the cause of dull competence? It is the parasitical nature of this group within the Tory Party that's the root of it's problems - let the Tory Party succeed or fail because on its own policies, not because it was performatively right wing but a statist mess in practice.
As we all, I think, understand, there is an excellent argument for breaking both the Conservative and Labour parties into two or three pieces on ideological grounds, but it won't happen because of the electoral system - and if those parties attempt to become purer by purging the members from their own opposite wing, the risk is that they also shed the corresponding bloc of voters and find it impossible to win a Parliamentary majority.
Or, to put it more succinctly, parties that wander far from the centre of public opinion don't typically win elections. It happened to the Tories when they became self-indulgent post-1997, and it happened to Labour in 2019. So, you're either lumbered with the soft centre right or you turn into Ukip. Sorry.
Besides, there is almost no demand for a low tax, small state party left in this country. There's enormous demand for a cakeist, huge state paid for by everybody but me party - the Johnson voter coalition was built upon it - but I doubt that's what you're after.
The 'centre' is a complete fantasy though. Our political 'centre' demands that we spend £4.5 TRILLION (Civitas report) on Net Zero. In the full knowledge that it will just drive all emission-creating businesses to dirty coal burning India and China. There is no objective assessment whereby that can be seen as a moderate idea. It is a profoundly radical and unprecedented idea. The centrist agenda demands conformity simply because the ideas are weak and if a big party decides to go seriously off the reservation, it is likely to bring the whole thing down.
Is that the report than was full of errors and was withdrawn by Civitas after four days of it being shredded mercilessly in public? Is it that one you're referencing?
There you are in 'complaining about how many billions are on the bus' territory. It would be nuts if it were a quarter of that amount.
Depends on over what timescale, etc. I don't know any of the details, other than you started with a figure that has been withdrawn. It would be dishonest for that to be left hanging there in this forum without someone pointing out the, I'm sure unintentional, untruth.
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.
We charge fuel duty and VAT on petrol because we're trying to mimimize imports of something that is mostly produced by people who hate us, whether its crazies in the Middle East, Russians or Scotsmen.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
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.
Is "low-born" the kind of insult that gets traded around in fee-paying schools?
1st, am personally very sympathetic to CR's situation, however am NOT qualified to analyze it OR come to a political or electoral (let alone education) conclusion about it. Except to hope & wish the best for CR's family.
2nd, what I'm wonder about is the TIMING of the announcement from CR's school? Was it released before OR after Rishi Sunak set the date for GE 2024?
Reason I'm asking, is because IF the answer is after PM's announcement, then sound somewhat like the letters that many American mill owners & other businessmen sent to their employees on the eve of the 1896 presidential election:
- If (I paraphrase) you vote for William Jennings Bryan tomorrow instead of William McKinley, don't bother coming to work next week, because the mill (or whatever) will be closed.
How effective this was is debatable, but WMcK did win the industrial workingmen's vote that year over WJB.
3rd, which is NOT saying that that's what's happening re: CR's school, OR that he should care one way or another about that (for him anyway) tangential possibility.
I can answer all those questions.
Parents and staff were told on Monday (6 days ago). This followed the failed sale of the school to another education establishment, discussions upon which were ongoing until the previous Friday afternoon (17th May). This was necessary because projected pupil numbers for the next academic year had dropped below the level to support the school’s activities, infrastructure and the number of staff required to deliver the curriculum. It needed a rescue.
Unfortunately, the transaction was not able to be concluded. So, they were obliged to make the announcement the following Monday by the legal requirements of the collective consultations process with the staff.
This was before Rishi Sunak announced his intention to hold an election on Wednesday, which came as a surprise to everyone - not least myself - and the two were entirely unconnected.
The weekend papers then picked the story up.
Thank you for your reply, and again all the best to you personally in dealing with this.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
So, you favour charging VAT on charity shops then?
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.
Not that we can easily look, but I would suspect that the elite end of private schools is much more mixed between right and left types. Lots and lots of successful creatives, journalists, even some Labour (ex)politicians are exceedingly wealthy and send their kids to these schools (often because they went there).
My thought would that the pushy parents that send their kids to the lesser private schools are probably more traditional conservative leaning e.g. the small business owner. The sharp edge elbowed types desperately wanting to give their kids a better future and also keeping up with / bettering the Jones.
@andreajenkyns Not all change is good change! Starmer's ideology is just like the SNP. He will push identity politics & amnesty on illegal migrants. This ideology will be perpetuated by 16 year olds having the vote as he confirmed today. We will never have another Conservative government again https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1794410557896114242
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
So, you favour charging VAT on charity shops then?
Yes.
They should be charged NNDR the same as other businesses too.
If taxes are too high for them to cope, then cut everyone's taxes equitably.
And so it finally lands.. "On the eve of next week’s EU election, Marine Le Pen is inviting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to team up and form a right-wing super-grouping that would be the second-biggest party block in the European Parliament."
Meloni: “My main objective is to build an alternative majority to the one that has governed in recent years. A centre-right majority — in other words — which will send the left into opposition in Europe... For everything else, we’ll see.”
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.
So is private medicine, but that isn't VATable (apart from cosmetic and medicolegal work).
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.
Internal flights would be a better place to start if we wanted to expand VAT.
Train ticket prices are so highly regulated that adding VAT would be largely pointless - it'd be easier to just raise prices by 20% directly, and avoid having to filter the money through HMRC.
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.
And how would a business 'hike profitability' - would that be by reducing costs and/or raising prices?
Those things are usually tightly constrained by market forces. Expand or diversify would probably be a more realistic plan, and borrow the money to do it with. Loans are serviced and paid off out of profits.
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."
In the privacy of the polling group though I suspect most of the parents will vote for Hands and the fact the LDs were second in Chelsea and Fulham in 2019 will split the opposition vote. It is also one of the seats which will prefer Rishi to Boris
It's not a question of whether a Starmer Govt might become unpopular v quickly.. that's exactly what is going to happen. Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
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.
And how would a business 'hike profitability' - would that be by reducing costs and/or raising prices?
Those things are usually tightly constrained by market forces. Expand or diversify would probably be a more realistic plan, and borrow the money to do it with. Loans are serviced and paid off out of profits.
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.
VAT exemptions and lower rates generally are too prevalent. Businesses just bag the profit.
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.
Is "low-born" the kind of insult that gets traded around in fee-paying schools?
It's just never those things you come up with when you caste around for a handy phrase.
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.
Is "low-born" the kind of insult that gets traded around in fee-paying schools?
As a speaker of both Punjabi and Urdu the snobbery about lower orders is quite something.
But I am happy to educate PBers on these insults/swearing
It's not a question of whether a Starner Govt might become unpopular v quickly.. that's exactly whst is going to happen. Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
I don't think the media do, New Labour type approaches seems very much the sweet spot for the media groupthink. BBC to the Times to the Mail struggle to get super outraged with centrist Dad policies. Hence Blair and Cameron got fairly easy rides for a long time and why Corbyn got terrible press (even the Guardian didn't like him).
That is unless Labour crack down on freelancing, putting up NI on solo services businesses or other things that directly effect them...see how they went mental en-masse when Brown hit 100k+ earners and when Hammond announced increased NI on solo businesses.
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.
It'd be a pretty rotten thing to do to people with modest savings if they tried. Would be a less bitter pill to swallow if the wealthy were also given a good whack though. We could really do with much heavier property taxes, but failing that the abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would raise a lot of money - somewhere in the ballpark of £15bn, That'd be sufficient to raise defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% (£4bn), abolish the two child benefit cap (£2bn), double the rate of Carer's Allowance (£3.5bn), double subsidies for bus travel in England (£2.5bn, allowing for Barnett consequentials), and still leave £3bn to spend on other goodies.
The idea that there's no money left for anything is bollocks. The main hope for meaningful change post-election is that Labour will stick to its excessively meek and cautious plans for only so long as it takes to persuade the Tory core to switch sides or sit on their hands come July 4th - and then grab them by the ankles and give them a bloody good shake as soon as the election is out of the way.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
So, you favour charging VAT on charity shops then?
They do have to pay VAT for goods they buy in. They pay no VAT for donated goods because those are treated like donations for the aims of the charity but are not subject to Gift Aid. In principle, I would have no problem with VAT on donated goods if Gift Aid were then permitted.
To me instinctively, it feels like Labour have the most impressive social media campaign they've ever had.
That probably doesn't mean an awful lot - but the Tories were very good in 2019 so I find it odd they seem to have left the field. Cummings to his credit, understood this. Something they did very intelligently, was to run lots of ads for most of the campaign, check their response and then run the best ones in the last week.
I think the other parties had prepped for a May election as a precaution so had stuff ready to go.
I think this is further evidence that the Tory campaign is not ready, ant Sunak caught his own party on the hop.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
Charity shops are of course for profit: they get stock for free, sell it for money, pay the rent and utilities and wages for non volunteers, and bank the difference. What is non profit about that?
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.
Someone I was at school with was in the second episode of Dr Who.
It's not a question of whether a Starmer Govt might become unpopular v quickly.. that's exactly what is going to happen. Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
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.
It'd be a pretty rotten thing to do to people with modest savings if they tried. Would be a less bitter pill to swallow if the wealthy were also given a good whack though. We could really do with much heavier property taxes, but failing that the abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would raise a lot of money - somewhere in the ballpark of £15bn, That'd be sufficient to raise defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% (£4bn), abolish the two child benefit cap (£2bn), double the rate of Carer's Allowance (£3.5bn), double subsidies for bus travel in England (£2.5bn, allowing for Barnett consequentials), and still leave £3bn to spend on other goodies.
The idea that there's no money left for anything is bollocks. The main hope for meaningful change post-election is that Labour will stick to its excessively meek and cautious plans for only so long as it takes to persuade the Tory core to switch sides or sit on their hands come July 4th - and then grab them by the ankles and give them a bloody good shake as soon as the election is out of the way.
Don't forget reducing the deficit, paying down the debt. We pay £116bn a year just to service borrowing.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
Charity shops are of course for profit: they get stock for free, sell it for money, pay the rent and utilities and wages for non volunteers, and bank the difference. What is non profit about that?
The technical detail that a profit does not exist, in the sense that ultimately there is no shareholder (except, in some technical sense, the corporate entity of the charity which itself doesn't distribute profits to shareholders).
Fight an election on protecting private schools and you will lose.
Nothing to do with arguments or morality it is simply a case of numbers.
I know that. But morality should play a part. I am no fan of private schools either in concept or execution but they are merely an expression of the urge of the wealthy to give their children the best education they can pay for, and for the life of me I don't feel the need to stop them. Wealth redistribution should be done via redistributive taxation, not thru actions like this.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Rabelais, no slouch at swearing in french, has a whole chapter in Gargantua about what makes the best torche-cul and concludes that it is the neck of a live goose.
It's not a question of whether a Starmer Govt might become unpopular v quickly.. that's exactly what is going to happen. Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
I agree that unhappiness will develop quickly with Labour for the austerity that will come.
A craving for more spending is not likely to benefit the Tories though, they will be blamed for getting us into the mess.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Somewhere a little down"river" of TSE's house, there's a sewage worker constantly having to unplug monstrous fatbergs from the system, caused by very expensive and completely non biodegradable hygiene products.
To me instinctively, it feels like Labour have the most impressive social media campaign they've ever had.
That probably doesn't mean an awful lot - but the Tories were very good in 2019 so I find it odd they seem to have left the field. Cummings to his credit, understood this. Something they did very intelligently, was to run lots of ads for most of the campaign, check their response and then run the best ones in the last week.
"Labour spent nearly double the amount on Meta ads compared to the Tories in the first 36 hours of the campaign"
That was the supposed the secret behind Tory win in 2015 all the targeted Facebook adverts they were quietly running.
Fight an election on protecting private schools and you will lose.
Nothing to do with arguments or morality it is simply a case of numbers.
I know that. But morality should play a part. I am no fan of private schools either in concept or execution but they are merely an expression of the urge of the wealthy to give their children the best education they can pay for, and for the life of me I don't feel the need to stop them. Wealth redistribution should be done via redistributive taxation, not thru actions like this.
Remembered earlier about the Assisted Places Scheme, which New Labour also canned:
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.
And how would a business 'hike profitability' - would that be by reducing costs and/or raising prices?
Those things are usually tightly constrained by market forces. Expand or diversify would probably be a more realistic plan, and borrow the money to do it with. Loans are serviced and paid off out of profits.
All of which are open to private schools to try.
Except without the borrowing money bit which rather underpins all the rest.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Somewhere a little down"river" of TSE's house, there's a sewage worker constantly having to unplug monstrous fatbergs from the system, caused by very expensive and completely non biodegradable hygiene products.
TBF silk is biodegradable - but not, I believe, quickly enough for the unfortunate scaffie in question.
@andreajenkyns Not all change is good change! Starmer's ideology is just like the SNP. He will push identity politics & amnesty on illegal migrants. This ideology will be perpetuated by 16 year olds having the vote as he confirmed today. We will never have another Conservative government again https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1794410557896114242
She's a bit pessimistic - there aren't that many 16-17 year olds, and Tories have been the most popular nationwide political party every election since 2010 so I doubt if they'd been included that would have changed.
Fight an election on protecting private schools and you will lose.
Nothing to do with arguments or morality it is simply a case of numbers.
I know that. But morality should play a part. I am no fan of private schools either in concept or execution but they are merely an expression of the urge of the wealthy to give their children the best education they can pay for, and for the life of me I don't feel the need to stop them. Wealth redistribution should be done via redistributive taxation, not thru actions like this.
I don't want to stop them, I am happy for them to operate like other elitist clubs which do pay VAT.
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.
It'd be a pretty rotten thing to do to people with modest savings if they tried. Would be a less bitter pill to swallow if the wealthy were also given a good whack though. We could really do with much heavier property taxes, but failing that the abolition of higher rate tax relief on pension contributions would raise a lot of money - somewhere in the ballpark of £15bn, That'd be sufficient to raise defence spending from 2.3% to 2.5% (£4bn), abolish the two child benefit cap (£2bn), double the rate of Carer's Allowance (£3.5bn), double subsidies for bus travel in England (£2.5bn, allowing for Barnett consequentials), and still leave £3bn to spend on other goodies.
The idea that there's no money left for anything is bollocks. The main hope for meaningful change post-election is that Labour will stick to its excessively meek and cautious plans for only so long as it takes to persuade the Tory core to switch sides or sit on their hands come July 4th - and then grab them by the ankles and give them a bloody good shake as soon as the election is out of the way.
Don't forget reducing the deficit, paying down the debt. We pay £116bn a year just to service borrowing.
I'll grant you that's a large and still growing problem, and therefore a good use of the remaining £3bn. Cover existing spending with that instead of borrowing - nice things and a dash of boring fiscal responsibility thrown in. Result.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
So, you favour charging VAT on charity shops then?
They do have to pay VAT for goods they buy in. They pay no VAT for donated goods because those are treated like donations for the aims of the charity but are not subject to Gift Aid. In principle, I would have no problem with VAT on donated goods if Gift Aid were then permitted.
Eh, Gift Aid *is* permitted on donated goods, the value being determined by the actual sale. However, this needs a recording system with sticky labels and numbers and all, so not all charities are organised enough for that.
PS Obviously this depends if the donor is a taxpayer with enough tax, and so on. I get a periodic return from one such charity for my records.
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.
We charge fuel duty and VAT on petrol because we're trying to mimimize imports of something that is mostly produced by people who hate us, whether its crazies in the Middle East, Russians or Scotsmen.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Rabelais, no slouch at swearing in french, has a whole chapter in Gargantua about what makes the best torche-cul and concludes that it is the neck of a live goose.
The logistics of this baffle me. Are you meant to sit and.. produce.. with an actual goose standing there staring at you while it awaits an experience that its tiny mind cannot begin to predict. Or does someone fetch one to you when you're good and ready? How does it work, mechanically? Is there a risk of it pecking you in places you don't want pecked? What happens afterwards? Do you have a panicked goose running around hitting the walls, leaving unpleasant streaks at approximately neck height? Does any of this seem remotely worth the trouble? Oh, who am I kidding, I want still want to try 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'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.
Someone I was at school with was in the second episode of Dr Who.
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?
Sixth form attendance?
It deoends. Some English friends sent their daughter to a private school for secondary education but shifted to 6FC for later, cos of the relative merits of the local options.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
I was referring to the idea that all the Tories need is to finally turn away from being so lefty. It's quite silly when you think of it, but in any case ignore the real reasons for present distress, which aren't policy related in my view.
Individual Tories can be as left wing as they like, I just don't see why they're in the Tory Party, which has a right wing membership, supporter base, and public policy platform. In the cause of public confidence in democracy, surely it would be better to be elected to Labour or the Lib Dems, rather than be elected as Tories and behave and vote as Lib Dems once elected. Or if they're instinctively left wing but don't like getting too close to actual working class people, why not form a social democracy party, and rally people to the cause of dull competence? It is the parasitical nature of this group within the Tory Party that's the root of it's problems - let the Tory Party succeed or fail because on its own policies, not because it was performatively right wing but a statist mess in practice.
As we all, I think, understand, there is an excellent argument for breaking both the Conservative and Labour parties into two or three pieces on ideological grounds, but it won't happen because of the electoral system - and if those parties attempt to become purer by purging the members from their own opposite wing, the risk is that they also shed the corresponding bloc of voters and find it impossible to win a Parliamentary majority.
Or, to put it more succinctly, parties that wander far from the centre of public opinion don't typically win elections. It happened to the Tories when they became self-indulgent post-1997, and it happened to Labour in 2019. So, you're either lumbered with the soft centre right or you turn into Ukip. Sorry.
Besides, there is almost no demand for a low tax, small state party left in this country. There's enormous demand for a cakeist, huge state paid for by everybody but me party - the Johnson voter coalition was built upon it - but I doubt that's what you're after.
The 'centre' is a complete fantasy though. Our political 'centre' demands that we spend £4.5 TRILLION (Civitas report) on Net Zero. In the full knowledge that it will just drive all emission-creating businesses to dirty coal burning India and China. There is no objective assessment whereby that can be seen as a moderate idea. It is a profoundly radical and unprecedented idea. The centrist agenda demands conformity simply because the ideas are weak and if a big party decides to go seriously off the reservation, it is likely to bring the whole thing down.
You know that Civitas report was retracted because their numbers were incredibly way off (eg accidentally multiplying costs for wind power by a factor of 10,000)?
Although a moments use of arithmetic would indicate that if, say, we were targeting net zero in 20 years, we’d be spending 4,500 bn / 20 per year on average. And we’d probably notice expenditure on the order of £225 billion per year.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Somewhere a little down"river" of TSE's house, there's a sewage worker constantly having to unplug monstrous fatbergs from the system, caused by very expensive and completely non biodegradable hygiene products.
TBF silk is biodegradable - but not, I believe, quickly enough for the unfortunate scaffie in question.
I stand corrected. I actually google it before my post and misread "untreated silk is completely biodegradable" as "silk is completely unbiodegradable". My point, though, like TSE's silk-bound extrusions, remains.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
Charity shops are of course for profit: they get stock for free, sell it for money, pay the rent and utilities and wages for non volunteers, and bank the difference. What is non profit about that?
The technical detail that a profit does not exist, in the sense that ultimately there is no shareholder (except, in some technical sense, the corporate entity of the charity which itself doesn't distribute profits to shareholders).
There's no technicality about it. Profit is buying for x, selling for x plus y and spending the y on the cost of living or cocaine and hookers or curing cancer. Charity shops are doing that. Schools are not.
Here's a compromise suggestion. State school places obviously cost money just as private ones do. Let's quantify the cost, add 20% vat to it and request the parents of the state educated to pay the vat. In cash. What could be fairer and more equitable than that?
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.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
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.
A lot of "public schools" started off as private companies, especially in the post-Arnoldian flush of foundations in the 1860s on, as I found recently when reading up some history. Cheltenham and so on. You bought a share - you could nominate your brat, or some other young relative. Not everyone had a convenien brat to hand all the time, so if you didn't pick one, the governors or the head or whoever would find someone else. Fees had to be paid as well.
It's not a question of whether a Starmer Govt might become unpopular v quickly.. that's exactly what is going to happen. Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
I agree that unhappiness will develop quickly with Labour for the austerity that will come.
A craving for more spending is not likely to benefit the Tories though, they will be blamed for getting us into the mess.
The danger for Labour isn’t that, to my mind. The danger is a left wing block splitting over what is fiscally sensible, making precious Tory voters think “we better get the pros in” just at the moment Labour also leaks votes on its left.
That all assumes a likeable, half competent Tory leader of course.
@andreajenkyns Not all change is good change! Starmer's ideology is just like the SNP. He will push identity politics & amnesty on illegal migrants. This ideology will be perpetuated by 16 year olds having the vote as he confirmed today. We will never have another Conservative government again https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1794410557896114242
It's not a question of whether a Starmer Govt might become unpopular v quickly.. that's exactly what is going to happen. Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
I agree that unhappiness will develop quickly with Labour for the austerity that will come.
A craving for more spending is not likely to benefit the Tories though, they will be blamed for getting us into the mess.
The danger for Labour isn’t that, to my mind. The danger is a left wing block splitting over what is fiscally sensible, making precious Tory voters think “we better get the pros in” just at the moment Labour also leaks votes on its left.
That all assumes a likeable, half competent Tory leader of course.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Izal was like wiping your arse with greaseproof paper.
I remember being I'm York and being so desperate for a shit that I knocked on a random house door and asking if I could use there toilet.
What we're the odds of them having f***ing Izal!
5 hrs earlier I had proposed to Mrs BJ in a romantic gesture in an Italian Restaurant.
She wasn't impressed that 5 hrs later after 2 closed public toilets I was shuffling up to houses clenched cheek style and asking random strangers for use of their facilities.
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.
He gets pushback because he's a hell-crazed loon who's "willing to wade through blood" to stop Starmer destroying his children.
He's upset about a child's school closing - as I hope you would be too, if it happened to one of your kids' schools (*). It's an upsetting thing to have happen, and the reaction on here has been tantamount to "You're lying!!!"
CR goes over the top at times - as well all do. But the reaction to him over this has been over the top as well.
Have a little compassion for someone who's upset.
(*) Assuming you have some.
I don't really want to comment on Casino's position individually (other than to express sympathy for what must be a right pain for his family).
I'm with @malcolmg - this is a place where disagreements are sometimes rambunctious and that's good.
But (speaking as someone who spends their weekdays with teenagers) compassion for someone who has upset is very different from excusing someone who lashes out at others when they're upset. The latter perpetuates a problem, the former can end it.
I agree. However: IMV the lashing out occurred *after* people essentially accused CR of being untruthful.
As it happens, I have an anecdote. My son was recently quite ill. When he was released from hospital, I wrote a post stating how good the NHS had been. For the next few days, I was tired, concerned and emotional. A while later, I felt a certain poster was being deliberately cruel to me. I decided not to respond.
A few days later, with my son improving, I read back the thread and realised my reaction had been out of order, and I was glad I ignored the post and had not responded.
So there are perhaps three lessons: 1) Remember that getting angry might be *your* problem, not the person you are getting angry towards; 2) If you are tired, emotional or upset, perhaps don't post - and especially don't argue. It won't help. 3) You may not know what someone on t'Internet has going on in their personal lives. Try to be kind, and detect the signs that someone is genuinely stressed or upset.
(And yes, I fail at these at times as well. Too often, sadly...)
Sympathies for your son. Glad to hear he's improving. I'm a minnow in here and don't always read comments, I missed your post at the time.
I two-thirds agree with your substantive point. Points (1) and (2) are bang on imv. But I think (3) creates sanitised, dull discussions where brusque frankness, pushing into rudeness/attacking, allows for a much healthier debate. I think it fits in with a commitment to free speech.
At a basic level, if you're any of what you list in (2), posting on an anonymous internet forum is your call. I don't think others should self-censor in order to protect you.
It's sort of anonymous and it sort of isn't.
I've made good friends through this site, and it's worth remembering that there's always a real human at the other end of the keyboard.
You'll agree if you agree, but Patrick Flynn in the Speccie sums up Sunak's national service policy very eloquently:
His resort to the old right-wing rallying cry of ‘bring back national service’ echoes the final move of his disastrous cabinet reshuffle last autumn – making the GB News presenter Esther McVey his ‘minister for common sense’. It is a gimmick from a posh liberal who thinks the plebs can be won over with eye-catching superficiality because they are too dim to notice that the important decisions are all going in the other direction.
Summoning up the spirit of Sir John Junor and Alf Garnett is hardly an effective counterweight to telling police to stop arresting so many criminals because the jails are overflowing or presiding over yet another year of recklessly excessive immigration that trashes social cohesion. Or indeed taking people for fools when it comes to the prospects of his flagship Rwanda removals plan.
That's why it won't work in a nutshell. Sunak is an insider of Britain's broken system of a social democratic consensus to his core, as is Starmer. That leaves zero room for manoeuvre, because as Truss found, genuinely breaking the consensus is going to be fought tooth and nail. So we're left with common sense tsars, flights to Rwanda that will never happen, and increasing restrictions on civil liberties gussied up as patriotic interventions on behalf of our beleaguered bobbies. The consensus will let you have any policy, as long as it's what they sort of wanted anyway.
And people are getting wise to it. That's why they don't like particularly like Starmer, and why they won't trust Sunak.
Doctor LuckyGuy is in
Background: 14 years of Conservative rule Symptoms: (too many to list here: see attached Appendices I to XXVI) Diagnosis: TOO MUCH SOCIAL DEMOCRACY Prescription: More leeches! Another lurch to the right
Hang on.
That wasn't Truss's remedy. Truss's remedy was - genuinely - a return to the 1970s. I always thought that people like Corbyn should have been overjoyed at her prospectus. More spending, less taxes, growth will pay for itself!
I was referring to the idea that all the Tories need is to finally turn away from being so lefty. It's quite silly when you think of it, but in any case ignore the real reasons for present distress, which aren't policy related in my view.
Individual Tories can be as left wing as they like, I just don't see why they're in the Tory Party, which has a right wing membership, supporter base, and public policy platform. In the cause of public confidence in democracy, surely it would be better to be elected to Labour or the Lib Dems, rather than be elected as Tories and behave and vote as Lib Dems once elected. Or if they're instinctively left wing but don't like getting too close to actual working class people, why not form a social democracy party, and rally people to the cause of dull competence? It is the parasitical nature of this group within the Tory Party that's the root of it's problems - let the Tory Party succeed or fail because on its own policies, not because it was performatively right wing but a statist mess in practice.
As we all, I think, understand, there is an excellent argument for breaking both the Conservative and Labour parties into two or three pieces on ideological grounds, but it won't happen because of the electoral system - and if those parties attempt to become purer by purging the members from their own opposite wing, the risk is that they also shed the corresponding bloc of voters and find it impossible to win a Parliamentary majority.
Or, to put it more succinctly, parties that wander far from the centre of public opinion don't typically win elections. It happened to the Tories when they became self-indulgent post-1997, and it happened to Labour in 2019. So, you're either lumbered with the soft centre right or you turn into Ukip. Sorry.
Besides, there is almost no demand for a low tax, small state party left in this country. There's enormous demand for a cakeist, huge state paid for by everybody but me party - the Johnson voter coalition was built upon it - but I doubt that's what you're after.
The 'centre' is a complete fantasy though. Our political 'centre' demands that we spend £4.5 TRILLION (Civitas report) on Net Zero. In the full knowledge that it will just drive all emission-creating businesses to dirty coal burning India and China. There is no objective assessment whereby that can be seen as a moderate idea. It is a profoundly radical and unprecedented idea. The centrist agenda demands conformity simply because the ideas are weak and if a big party decides to go seriously off the reservation, it is likely to bring the whole thing down.
You know that Civitas report was retracted because their numbers were incredibly way off (eg accidentally multiplying costs for wind power by a factor of 10,000)?
Although a moments use of arithmetic would indicate that if, say, we were targeting net zero in 20 years, we’d be spending 4,500 bn / 20 per year on average. And we’d probably notice expenditure on the order of £225 billion per year.
Here in Saône et Loire they’ve responded to the central government edict on renewable energy mix by electing to focus on PV solar and hydro, with no “aeolian”. They consulted local communities and got a consensus view.
First step is a 16mw solar plant in the Saône valley but within 5 years they plan a further 180nw of solar, with batteries. Quite ambitious considering most electricity around here is already nuclear.
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.
Lots of businesses are not for profit. A charity shop's a business. If you charge service users a fee for your offer, you are a business.
Charity shops are of course for profit: they get stock for free, sell it for money, pay the rent and utilities and wages for non volunteers, and bank the difference. What is non profit about that?
The technical detail that a profit does not exist, in the sense that ultimately there is no shareholder (except, in some technical sense, the corporate entity of the charity which itself doesn't distribute profits to shareholders).
There's no technicality about it. Profit is buying for x, selling for x plus y and spending the y on the cost of living or cocaine and hookers or curing cancer. Charity shops are doing that. Schools are not.
Here's a compromise suggestion. State school places obviously cost money just as private ones do. Let's quantify the cost, add 20% vat to it and request the parents of the state educated to pay the vat. In cash. What could be fairer and more equitable than that?
Indeed. State school parents are receiving a benefit in kind, without paying tax on 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'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.
Someone I was at school with was in the second episode of Dr Who.
@andreajenkyns Not all change is good change! Starmer's ideology is just like the SNP. He will push identity politics & amnesty on illegal migrants. This ideology will be perpetuated by 16 year olds having the vote as he confirmed today. We will never have another Conservative government again https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1794410557896114242
She's a bit pessimistic - there aren't that many 16-17 year olds, and Tories have been the most popular nationwide political party every election since 2010 so I doubt if they'd been included that would have changed.
And irrespective of the scale of the impending defeat, the Tories could be back surprisingly quickly. I can't remember who said it, but the current mindset of the UK electorate was recently described succinctly as "volatile and pissed off." Labour needs to make a good job of the next five years, or chances are they'll be thrown straight back out.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Izal was like wiping your arse with greaseproof paper.
I remember being I'm York and being so desperate for a shit that I knocked on a random house door and asking if I could use there toilet.
What we're the odds of them having f***ing Izal!
*Disinfectant-scented* greaseproof paper.
Never been an effective toilet paper.
I remember only too well. Especially if one had the runs. My school had it ...
PS Just to maintain the relevance to earlier discussion of national service - the Army compo rations given to us cadets in the 1970s also issued niggardly amounts of shiny toilet paper (unscented) in the tins with sweets and matches etc. As a friend said, one sheet up, one down, and one to polish. No fun at all in the rain in the hills.
Latin and French are the best languages to swear in, it is like wiping your arse with silk.
Somewhere a little down"river" of TSE's house, there's a sewage worker constantly having to unplug monstrous fatbergs from the system, caused by very expensive and completely non biodegradable hygiene products.
TBF silk is biodegradable - but not, I believe, quickly enough for the unfortunate scaffie in question.
I stand corrected. I actually google it before my post and misread "untreated silk is completely biodegradable" as "silk is completely unbiodegradable". My point, though, like TSE's silk-bound extrusions, remains.
Comments
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.
That probably doesn't mean an awful lot - but the Tories were very good in 2019 so I find it odd they seem to have left the field. Cummings to his credit, understood this. Something they did very intelligently, was to run lots of ads for most of the campaign, check their response and then run the best ones in the last week.
I don't know any of the details, other than you started with a figure that has been withdrawn. It would be dishonest for that to be left hanging there in this forum without someone pointing out the, I'm sure unintentional, untruth.
My thought would that the pushy parents that send their kids to the lesser private schools are probably more traditional conservative leaning e.g. the small business owner. The sharp edge elbowed types desperately wanting to give their kids a better future and also keeping up with / bettering the Jones.
@andreajenkyns
Not all change is good change! Starmer's ideology is just like the SNP. He will push identity politics & amnesty on illegal migrants. This ideology will be perpetuated by 16 year olds having the vote as he confirmed today. We will never have another Conservative government again
https://x.com/andreajenkyns/status/1794410557896114242
They should be charged NNDR the same as other businesses too.
If taxes are too high for them to cope, then cut everyone's taxes equitably.
I blame social media and smartphones for accelerating this, but it started with the soundbites for the news stuff under Blair.
And so it finally lands.. "On the eve of next week’s EU election, Marine Le Pen is inviting Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni to team up and form a right-wing super-grouping that would be the second-biggest party block in the European Parliament."
Meloni: “My main objective is to build an alternative majority to the one that has governed in recent years. A centre-right majority — in other words — which will send the left into opposition in Europe... For everything else, we’ll see.”
Night all.
Train ticket prices are so highly regulated that adding VAT would be largely pointless - it'd be easier to just raise prices by 20% directly, and avoid having to filter the money through HMRC.
I think we may well have GBR running most of the network by the end of 2024.
So, what does that mean in practice?
Whitevanman better remember about the devil you know.... but I will enjoy the media falling out of love with Starmer and Co v quickly..... by Xmas 2024 ?
But I am happy to educate PBers on these insults/swearing
Mah-chowd
Behn-chowd
Pyoh-chowd
Pra-chowd
Mah = Mother
Behn = Sister
Pyoh = Father
Pra = Brother
Chowd = Fucker
That is unless Labour crack down on freelancing, putting up NI on solo services businesses or other things that directly effect them...see how they went mental en-masse when Brown hit 100k+ earners and when Hammond announced increased NI on solo businesses.
The idea that there's no money left for anything is bollocks. The main hope for meaningful change post-election is that Labour will stick to its excessively meek and cautious plans for only so long as it takes to persuade the Tory core to switch sides or sit on their hands come July 4th - and then grab them by the ankles and give them a bloody good shake as soon as the election is out of the way.
I think this is further evidence that the Tory campaign is not ready, ant Sunak caught his own party on the hop.
A craving for more spending is not likely to benefit the Tories though, they will be blamed for getting us into the mess.
"Refusing mandatory National Service won't lead to prison, home secretary says after Tory policy launch"
https://news.sky.com/story/refusing-mandatory-national-service-wont-lead-to-prison-home-secretary-says-after-tory-policy-launch-13143272
That was the supposed the secret behind Tory win in 2015 all the targeted Facebook adverts they were quietly running.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_Places_Scheme
Too many working class people getting ideas above their station, no doubt.
SKS Party Best price 7/4
PS Obviously this depends if the donor is a taxpayer with enough tax, and so on. I get a periodic return from one such charity for my records.
Oh, who am I kidding, I want still want to try it.
Service guarantees citizenship! Would you like to know more?
Although a moments use of arithmetic would indicate that if, say, we were targeting net zero in 20 years, we’d be spending 4,500 bn / 20 per year on average. And we’d probably notice expenditure on the order of £225 billion per year.
I remember being I'm York and being so desperate for a shit that I knocked on a random house door and asking if I could use there toilet.
What we're the odds of them having f***ing Izal!
My point, though, like TSE's silk-bound extrusions, remains.
Here's a compromise suggestion. State school places obviously cost money just as private ones do. Let's quantify the cost, add 20% vat to it and request the parents of the state educated to pay the vat. In cash. What could be fairer and more equitable than that?
That all assumes a likeable, half competent Tory leader of course.
She wasn't impressed that 5 hrs later after 2 closed public toilets I was shuffling up to houses clenched cheek style and asking random strangers for use of their facilities.
She said I deserved Izal!
First step is a 16mw solar plant in the Saône valley but within 5 years they plan a further 180nw of solar, with batteries. Quite ambitious considering most electricity around here is already nuclear.
The evil tax dodgers, eh?
Second episode of this season.
PS Just to maintain the relevance to earlier discussion of national service - the Army compo rations given to us cadets in the 1970s also issued niggardly amounts of shiny toilet paper (unscented) in the tins with sweets and matches etc. As a friend said, one sheet up, one down, and one to polish. No fun at all in the rain in the hills.
It give me more impact when I do swear.