Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
On closures - they are looking at reintroducing trial by combat, to create some semblance of fairness and structure in the proceedings.
I doubt the changes in VAT, in the long run, will make much difference either way, However I agree with the minority of others that it seems unfair in principle that essentials like petrol have VAT charged but a luxury item that only the wealthiest in society can afford does not.
In terms of private education as a whole, I find it's where my principles collide. As a liberal I believe anyone should have the right to educate their children privately if they so wish. At the same time I don't believe it is fair for the wealthiest to entrench advantage on their children, in comparison to bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The only solution I can see is to render private education obsolete by improving state education to the same level. Unfortunately that would require an equivalent level of spending per pupil. More probably; if it is worth spending around £30k p.a. on a bright upper-middle class child at (say) Tonbridge, then a disadvantaged Special Needs child must need double that.
And the comments on this board show how skewed we are to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. I earn within the top 5% of incomes and I would have needed to double my salary to be able to educate my children privately. Ironically now it's too late I could probably afford to send one of them somewhere now but they are in their 20s!
Your solution doesnt work even with equivalent level of spending, as then the elite will just further bump up what they pay to give their kids an edge over everyone else.
Whoever it was at the FBI that rushed to say it wasn't a terrorist attack should be sacked immediately. They clearly aren't objective.
Who cares? What does terrorist attack even mean in the age of the lone wolf killer? A pound to a penny we are looking at self-radicalised attackers whose affiliation with ISIS was unknown in the Middle East until ISIS watched Al Jazeera's midday bulletin.
A fine Texas born ex-military citizen of the USA it appears - lots of elements of this for the usual suspects to gnash their teeth in frustration over. His military roles were in IT & HR, then on to run an unsuccessful estate agency therefore several signs of sociopathy already present. There seems a general movement in the West among the disaffected and deranged to take whatever means are at hand to take it out on the rest of us. Those societies with limited gun ownership definitely at an advantage in those circs.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
Milei doesn't have much in common with Trump, whatever he likes to claim. Trump is staggeringly corrupt by any standards, completely ignorant of economics or much else and utterly uninterested in policy or anything but his own interests. Trump is planning lower taxes and lighter regulations in some areas, but is going to raise spending rather than cut it - far more Truss than Milei. And his proposed tariffs are moronic.
Milei shows what can be done by a brave, economically literate person with the right instincts. I think he's the most outstanding politician in the democratic world since about November 1990. He's also lucky in a way because the previous regime was so obviously an utter catastrophe. And he's also not personally corrupt, which is vanishingly rare in Latin American politics.
Does he get everything right? Of course not, because nobody does. In particular, he should have swept away exchange controls much earlier.
But for the first time in about thirty years I'm optimistic about Argentina, and there's plenty for us to learn from.
Buena suerte.
Agreed - and you're on topic with this thread.
There are a lot of folk supporting Milei because they perceive him as right wing, rather than because he's implemented what are likely practical solutions, in a country which was on the verge of collapse.
Taking it as a validation of Trump, before he's even taken office, is a glaring example of mood affiliation over analysis.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
Point of order on the swimming pools, my old school built a 25 metre one with my Dad's fees not olympic size. And it's open evenings, (early) mornings and weekends to the public.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Double VAT on footwear costing over £300 (With a cpi escalator each year) would be a good idea
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
This is outrageous. Beagle packs* don't come cheap you know!
Fucking hellfire, I have just caught up with the Campbell betting syndicate story that has seen Alastair Campbell lose £300,000.
Only an idiot gets involved with Asian betting markets, we are talking shoe size levels of IQ here.
The fund had been set up in 2017 to bet on big football leagues by placing wagers with Asian bookmakers, which are lightly regulated but accept larger bets than European companies. It delivered average returns of just over 8 per cent, sources said, and up to 11 per cent in a strong season by betting on match results and the number of goals.
Hmmmm. So the Asian bookmakers took ever larger sums, until suddenly they stopped paying. One wonders about the escalation curve of the size of the money... "invested"
That was a 19th cent City urban legend - The chap who borrowed short term money, always paid it back. Over a few years, everyone got to know and trust him. Reliable as the hills. One Christmas he vanished. Having maxed out his borrowing from everyone. Investigation showed that there was no business.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Double VAT on footwear costing over £300 (With a cpi escalator each year) would be a good idea
The lawyers in the biggest firms are using partnerships to avoid paying lots of tax....
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance of a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance if a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Around here, there just aren't the places in state schools to accommodate the influx. People are going to end up at schools miles away because they can no longer get into their local school. The people whom it will most negatively impact are not the people it is trying to punish.
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
Regardless of that, do you think it is the right thing to do, especially in the way it has been done?
No, I do not support the way the policy has been done. I do think that private education is a major drag on social mobility in Britain that entrenched privileged, which is exactly why the privately educated support it.
But Labour implementing a manifesto commitment supported by the vast majority of Britons is not something I will get upset about.
What a lot of bollocks.
Your determination to become Roger's understudy, with a heavy seasoning of Scott's bitterness over Brexit, only damages what little credibility you have still further.
You're one of the most laughable commentators on here, and increasingly unpleasant.
Foxy's post was expressing his opinion on a government policy; yours was a personal attack on him. When it comes to unpleasantness, you are way in front of Foxy.
Foxy's post was, also, rather good whatever one thinks of the policy, because it was segmented, nuanced and logical.
Nah, it was pointless, partisan, populist and ill-considered.
You just liked it because it was tub-thumping for your side of the political spectrum.
I doubt the changes in VAT, in the long run, will make much difference either way, However I agree with the minority of others that it seems unfair in principle that essentials like petrol have VAT charged but a luxury item that only the wealthiest in society can afford does not.
In terms of private education as a whole, I find it's where my principles collide. As a liberal I believe anyone should have the right to educate their children privately if they so wish. At the same time I don't believe it is fair for the wealthiest to entrench advantage on their children, in comparison to bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The only solution I can see is to render private education obsolete by improving state education to the same level. Unfortunately that would require an equivalent level of spending per pupil. More probably; if it is worth spending around £30k p.a. on a bright upper-middle class child at (say) Tonbridge, then a disadvantaged Special Needs child must need double that.
And the comments on this board show how skewed we are to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. I earn within the top 5% of incomes and I would have needed to double my salary to be able to educate my children privately. Ironically now it's too late I could probably afford to send one of them somewhere now but they are in their 20s!
That's what [edit] (in the old days, anyway) rich unmarried uncles and aunts, and rich grandparents, are for (or so I learn from a friend whose maiden aunt (tdo use the expression of the time) subbed his private education).
Which, for the academically minded, raises interesting sociological questions about the transmission of social status across generations, and not merely parent to child. As well as being IHT-efficient, generally speaking.
The VAT on school fees policy is another class war filled disaster from this Labour government. It will likely force many smaller private schools to close, reducing parental choice and adding to pressure on state schools.
Business rates on private schools will also reduce the number of scholarships and bursaries they can provide also making them more exclusive
Do you think Britain in 2029 will be in the mood to support parties who prioritise tax cuts for private schools and tax cuts for farmers/landowners over other things?
There really shouldn't be any debate about condemning the attempted coup in S Korea - but the country looks very much life the US in its reaction (except that there's a small liberal majority).
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=389430 When former President Park Geun-hye was embroiled in a political crisis due to an influence-peddling scandal, which ultimately led to her impeachment by the National Assembly on Dec. 9, 2016, public opinion turned sharply against her leadership. Voters were widely unified in their disapproval, and her approval ratings plummeted to as low as 4 percent in some polls.
President Yoon Suk Yeol has not suffered the same levels of backlash despite his declaration of martial law, a far more serious violation of the law and the Constitution in the eyes of many. In major surveys, his approval rating never dropped below the 10 percent mark and it is now bouncing back to as high as over 30 percent after his impeachment by the National Assembly.
The Korea Times surveyed 1,000 people through Hankook Research and found that extreme political polarization may be one of the reasons.
When asked whether the Constitutional Court should uphold the impeachment motion against Yoon, 98 percent of supporters of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) said the court should remove the president by upholding the impeachment, while 85 percent of supporters of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) said the court should dismiss it. ..
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
Regardless of that, do you think it is the right thing to do, especially in the way it has been done?
No, I do not support the way the policy has been done. I do think that private education is a major drag on social mobility in Britain that entrenched privileged, which is exactly why the privately educated support it.
But Labour implementing a manifesto commitment supported by the vast majority of Britons is not something I will get upset about.
What a lot of bollocks.
Your determination to become Roger's understudy, with a heavy seasoning of Scott's bitterness over Brexit, only damages what little credibility you have still further.
You're one of the most laughable commentators on here, and increasingly unpleasant.
Foxy's post was expressing his opinion on a government policy; yours was a personal attack on him. When it comes to unpleasantness, you are way in front of Foxy.
You are one of the few people on here who exceeds him for pointlessness and nastiness, being, as you are, a dumb, partisan, stupid and tin-headed idiotic Lefty - who only ever recognises contributions of their own.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Agreed.
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance if a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Just as a matter if interest what is the Lib Dem policy on this, and for that matter the SNP. ?
I doubt the changes in VAT, in the long run, will make much difference either way, However I agree with the minority of others that it seems unfair in principle that essentials like petrol have VAT charged but a luxury item that only the wealthiest in society can afford does not.
In terms of private education as a whole, I find it's where my principles collide. As a liberal I believe anyone should have the right to educate their children privately if they so wish. At the same time I don't believe it is fair for the wealthiest to entrench advantage on their children, in comparison to bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The only solution I can see is to render private education obsolete by improving state education to the same level. Unfortunately that would require an equivalent level of spending per pupil. More probably; if it is worth spending around £30k p.a. on a bright upper-middle class child at (say) Tonbridge, then a disadvantaged Special Needs child must need double that.
And the comments on this board show how skewed we are to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. I earn within the top 5% of incomes and I would have needed to double my salary to be able to educate my children privately. Ironically now it's too late I could probably afford to send one of them somewhere now but they are in their 20s!
It's a real logic fail to say that because private school is too expensive for most then let's make it even more expensive so it becomes even more exclusive.
The answer is to broaden and expand choice and access, and this policy is the precise opposite.
What's blinding people to the logic here is good old-fashioned British prejudice against (what they think) is class.
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
Just raise the voucher to £8,400; keep the VAT on private schools and everyone's happy.
The VAT on school fees policy is another class war filled disaster from this Labour government. It will likely force many smaller private schools to close, reducing parental choice and adding to pressure on state schools.
Business rates on private schools will also reduce the number of scholarships and bursaries they can provide also making them more exclusive
Do you think Britain in 2029 will be in the mood to support parties who prioritise tax cuts for private schools and tax cuts for farmers/landowners over other things?
Such is the rawly political thinking of Labour.
But, if damage has been done to both the education and farming sectors as a consequence then, yes, absolutely.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Prices generally are rising anyway, so that would apply to most taxes. In the case of schools, prices have been rising to pay for more teachers and more facilities, which are what parents are forking out for. No more are scions of the aristocracy expected to rise at 4am to polish their elders' shoes, and break the ice to wash their faces; now it is all about single-figure class sizes, half-a-dozen foreign languages augmented by native speakers and even more sports coached by ex-professionals, and PE lessons use more machines than any high street gymnasium.
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
The damage to efficient planning and economies of scale wrought by making pupil flows unpredictable? The use of public funds to subsidise public schools? The further ghettoisation of the country into those who think finding £600 a month is a doddle and those who couldn’t find £60 if it was the difference between freezing and not?
Applying VAT to public schools is silly. This would be sillier.
The meritocratic arguments against private education are really weird and serve only to show what a dead-end meritocracy is as an ideology.
The logical endpoint of the argument would be that I should have declined to read to my daughter at bedtime, or teach her about numbers, because doing so have her an unfair advantage against the children whose parents who didn't do those things.
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
The damage to efficient planning and economies of scale wrought by making pupil flows unpredictable? The use of public funds to subsidise public schools? The further ghettoisation of the country into those who think finding £600 a month is a doddle and those who couldn’t find £60 if it was the difference between freezing and not?
Applying VAT to public schools is silly. This would be sillier.
£600 a month is less than nursery costs, it gets it back to the realm of affordable for the actual middle classes rather than the Telegraph's idea of them. At the same time the likes of Eton, Harrow and all the other top £££ schools would bring in plenty of VAT.
Denmark implements Casino's solution iirc and that's hardly seen as a high gini coefficient bastion of extreme wealth and poverty.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Double VAT on footwear costing over £300 (With a cpi escalator each year) would be a good idea
The lawyers in the biggest firms are using partnerships to avoid paying lots of tax....
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
The damage to efficient planning and economies of scale wrought by making pupil flows unpredictable? The use of public funds to subsidise public schools? The further ghettoisation of the country into those who think finding £600 a month is a doddle and those who couldn’t find £60 if it was the difference between freezing and not?
Applying VAT to public schools is silly. This would be sillier.
Also, it depends whether school fees are driven by "what it costs" or "what you can get away with". If it's the second, schools will say "thanks very much" and build another theatre.
And if you don't think schools would do that, remember that education is the sort of good where expensive = reassuring. Consider the huge increases in fees over the last couple of decades, the way the university fee market went, or the failure of the low-cost private school market to take off.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
They are not unconventional policies economically.
But they are staggeringly unusual politically in the democratic world today.
Since 2007, Brownite/Johnsonite populist tax and spend has been far more common.
That is why Milei is so extraodinary. Imposing economic literacy on a country whose main characteristic has been its total absence for a generation, and doing so incidentally without a Congressional majority, in the face of hugely powerful interest groups, and despite the cynicism and sneering of the Western centrist establishment.
Compare him to Rachel fucking Reeves, who with a giant majority behind her has devastated business confidence, ended what little economic growth Sunak had managed to give us, and given us the highest peacetime tax burden ever, or the loony Miliband, whose only economic thought is how to make our energy yet more unaffordable.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
One (Not at all loaded I promise) question.
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
The damage to efficient planning and economies of scale wrought by making pupil flows unpredictable? The use of public funds to subsidise public schools? The further ghettoisation of the country into those who think finding £600 a month is a doddle and those who couldn’t find £60 if it was the difference between freezing and not?
Applying VAT to public schools is silly. This would be sillier.
£600 a month is less than nursery costs, it gets it back to the realm of affordable for the actual middle classes rather than the Telegraph's idea of them. At the same time the likes of Eton, Harrow and all the other top £££ schools would bring in plenty of VAT.
Denmark implements Casino's solution iirc and that's hardly seen as a high gini coefficient bastion of extreme wealth and poverty.
It’s a bit more complicated than that. It’s a totally different education system from the ground up.
Fucking hellfire, I have just caught up with the Campbell betting syndicate story that has seen Alastair Campbell lose £300,000.
Only an idiot gets involved with Asian betting markets, we are talking shoe size levels of IQ here.
The fund had been set up in 2017 to bet on big football leagues by placing wagers with Asian bookmakers, which are lightly regulated but accept larger bets than European companies. It delivered average returns of just over 8 per cent, sources said, and up to 11 per cent in a strong season by betting on match results and the number of goals.
Hmmmm. So the Asian bookmakers took ever larger sums, until suddenly they stopped paying. One wonders about the escalation curve of the size of the money... "invested"
That was a 19th cent City urban legend - The chap who borrowed short term money, always paid it back. Over a few years, everyone got to know and trust him. Reliable as the hills. One Christmas he vanished. Having maxed out his borrowing from everyone. Investigation showed that there was no business.
That is precisely how a long firm fraud works. Establish a reputation for paying suppliers on time, then one day put in a massive order and vanish.
In my view this is very simple. If private school fees were already subject to VAT, would we be discussing a VAT exemption at this time?
The answer is obviously not.
Probably not. However there is a reasonable argument that tax policy can be used to help steer people away from bad stuff and towards good stuff. More money spent on education is a good thing, so whilst I couldn't imagine it being top of any politicians list, it certainly wouldn't be an unregarded idea.
I think this tax change is more about social engineering. I don't really approve.
Encouraging more children to go to private schools (the opposite policy) is also social engineering.
It is valid politics to discuss whether the state should limit the ability for the rich to give their kids a leg up simply by spending money. This is of course impossible but if you want a meritocracy…
I'd turn that around: why shouldn't the government give all parents a voucher for their children's education that they can spend it at a school of their choice?
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
I am not saying I disagree with that idea as a concept but it isn't really relevant to the VAT debate. Of course with a glut of demand the cost of private education may go up to make the £7k irrelevant. Same argument as universal income, etc.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
I think I’ve said on here before, but this policy was never about raising additional money. Its a cynical policy - stupidly implemented midway through an academic year - with most settings (and HMRC) failing to register for VAT or guidance being so unclear..
Coupled with issues we are having in my own LA (barely any state maintained places), it’s utter stupidity. I’m not even clear as to Bridget’s Phillipsons background that makes her remotely qualified to understand the impact (particularly on already cash strapped local authorities)
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
One (Not at all loaded I promise) question.
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
Yes, with the important difference that under the last government LEA schools who failed on safeguarding were force academised.*
This has nothing to do with inspection outcomes with LEA schools that are resisting academisation. Nothing. How could I even think that?
*The important exception to the law - and it was a law - being Caversham.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Just as a matter if interest what is the Lib Dem policy on this, and for that matter the SNP. ?
LibDems opposed the implementation of VAT on private schools.
Regardless of your thoughts on the VAT status of private education (and I don't feel particularly strongly either way, in the abstract), the policy is quite evidently not designed to solve a problem, or to genuinely improve education during this Parliament.
Rather, it's quite obviously a piece of political signalling, to keep a particular set of supporters happy.
That's hardly unusual in recent years, and certainly not unique to the UK. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum are far less interested in practical solutions to our various problems - if indeed they are even capable of recognising them at all - than they are in drawing ideological lines.
Little wonder that faith in democracy is waning.
Not everywhere.
It seems to have risen substantially in Argentina over the last year.
I wonder why ...?
Because the guy in charge did exactly what he said he was going to do, with large cuts in public spending and getting inflation under control.
I wonder if there’s another large country in that part of the world planning something similar in 2025?
I think you might be a little confused there. US inflation is under 3%, not 200%.
Or are you taking about Russia ?
The policies in Argentina are actually not actually unconventional (mostly). Just dramatic in being applied in a country that has had a weirdly fucked up economy for so long.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
They are not unconventional policies economically.
But they are staggeringly unusual politically in the democratic world today.
Since 2007, Brownite/Johnsonite populist tax and spend has been far more common.
That is why Milei is so extraodinary. Imposing economic literacy on a country whose main characteristic has been its total absence for a generation, and doing so incidentally without a Congressional majority, in the face of hugely powerful interest groups, and despite the cynicism and sneering of the Western centrist establishment...
There's still an element of gamble in whether or not the policy succeeds in going beyond getting inflation under control.
The overall economy has declined, and poverty levels increased significantly. He's getting away with it for now, as he was entirely open about the immediate pain his policies would cause.
Whether Argentina starts to grow again is still something of an open question. Deregulation (let alone its fruits) is not yet a done deal.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
Debts from who and borrowed against what?
Debts run up by the sponsors, borrowed against future income as far as I can see, although many models are so opaque it's hard to tell for sure.
The meritocratic arguments against private education are really weird and serve only to show what a dead-end meritocracy is as an ideology.
The logical endpoint of the argument would be that I should have declined to read to my daughter at bedtime, or teach her about numbers, because doing so have her an unfair advantage against the children whose parents who didn't do those things.
The equivalent would actually be more about whether the government should somehow subsidise parents reading to their kids. You could make a case for that, given it will improve future educational standards and a case against, as it ends up as the poor subsidising the rich.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
" It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway."
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
Double VAT on footwear costing over £300 (With a cpi escalator each year) would be a good idea
The lawyers in the biggest firms are using partnerships to avoid paying lots of tax....
The difference here is, in my understanding, that the bankers would get pension contributions and the lawyers would not. Not that I personally care either way of course.
I suspect Sir Keir has played a blinder with this policy. Let's face it - the British private-school sector has hardly covered itself in glory in recent years. It's given us either the likes of Boris on the one hand or, on the other, silly posh kids gluing themselves to motorways. That's not a societal subset to get the Great British public thinking 'Let's have more from where they came from'.
the story so far does not really add up so has something naughty been going on.
The risk is that whatever happened, it will be used to justify further restrictions on genuine and informed punters like the pb massive.
A fund pays out regular returns for a while until suddenly it is bankrupt...
A number of 'schemes' have followed that pattern over the years
Schemes shaped like old buildings in Egypt by any chance?
Even without "Asian Bookmakers", they bet too big. Article says 80 evens bets/week of 20K each = 80M wagered, making 400K. So edge of around 0.5%. With a bank of 5M they were betting pretty much the full Kelly criterion.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
Debts from who and borrowed against what?
Debts run up by the sponsors, borrowed against future income as far as I can see, although many models are so opaque it's hard to tell for sure.
Now there is a market that needs someone to have a sniff around it. I can see… possibilities. But I am sure everyone involved in the sector is pure as the driven snow and no one is in it for the cash.
Whoever it was at the FBI that rushed to say it wasn't a terrorist attack should be sacked immediately. They clearly aren't objective.
Who cares? What does terrorist attack even mean in the age of the lone wolf killer? A pound to a penny we are looking at self-radicalised attackers whose affiliation with ISIS was unknown in the Middle East until ISIS watched Al Jazeera's midday bulletin.
A fine Texas born ex-military citizen of the USA it appears - lots of elements of this for the usual suspects to gnash their teeth in frustration over. His military roles were in IT & HR, then on to run an unsuccessful estate agency therefore several signs of sociopathy already present. There seems a general movement in the West among the disaffected and deranged to take whatever means are at hand to take it out on the rest of us. Those societies with limited gun ownership definitely at an advantage in those circs.
Not much of an advantage, not since that guy in France killed almost 100 people by driving into a holiday crowd. That's more than any American spree-killer or school shooter has despatched, and without needing to make explosives.
In Britain, kitchen knives are more popular but a determined terrorist could kill dozens by swerving into a bus stop around school chucking-out time. No expertise or training required. Heck, not even any planning: just a snap decision while driving home.
The reason this does not happen here might be that for Islamist terrorists, the reward is instant admission to paradise when shot by police, but our police are unarmed and life in Belmarsh holds less appeal.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
One (Not at all loaded I promise) question.
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
Yes, with the important difference that under the last government LEA schools who failed on safeguarding were force academised.*
This has nothing to do with inspection outcomes with LEA schools that are resisting academisation. Nothing. How could I even think that?
*The important exception to the law - and it was a law - being Caversham.
What is the reason, BTW, why private schools don't come under OFSTED, please? Someone mentioned it the other day on here and it struck me as odd if one wants to maintain standards all round (yes, I do know what you think of OFSTED, but there must be some rationale).
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
The Rest is Politics: Rory and a newly impoverished Al discuss what various politicians and parties should do differently in 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwBO8nrzCt8
A few may have got their money out. Hell mend them anyway, the whole things shouts ponzi and 100% risk guaranteed.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Just as a matter if interest what is the Lib Dem policy on this, and for that matter the SNP. ?
LibDems opposed the implementation of VAT on private schools.
Not sure that answers my question
Do they oppose Labour's policy coming into force yesterday?
I'm still with Gamaliel on this one - time will tell, and will tell whether it has been a benefit for society or not. I think we can be clearer about some things.
On point one, the vast majority of schools in the UK (State Schools) do pay business rates, so I can't honestly see much of a problem with that; that could credibly be called closing a loopholes.
The numbers I recall from the proposals were that expectations were of a 10% increase in fees, which compares to the number so far claimed by Private Schools of 14%. That is close to 10% plus 2.6% current inflation. And that pupils leaving so far are in the low thousands, which is not a real capacity threat to the State Sector, or a lot out of 600k in the independent sector.
So I think the campaign may be overplaying their hand. But we'll see.
The Govt will hang tough, and I hope be generous with application to SEN, which arguably *is* where there is a capacity issue in the State Sector.
Whoever it was at the FBI that rushed to say it wasn't a terrorist attack should be sacked immediately. They clearly aren't objective.
Who cares? What does terrorist attack even mean in the age of the lone wolf killer? A pound to a penny we are looking at self-radicalised attackers whose affiliation with ISIS was unknown in the Middle East until ISIS watched Al Jazeera's midday bulletin.
A fine Texas born ex-military citizen of the USA it appears - lots of elements of this for the usual suspects to gnash their teeth in frustration over. His military roles were in IT & HR, then on to run an unsuccessful estate agency therefore several signs of sociopathy already present. There seems a general movement in the West among the disaffected and deranged to take whatever means are at hand to take it out on the rest of us. Those societies with limited gun ownership definitely at an advantage in those circs.
Not much of an advantage, not since that guy in France killed almost 100 people by driving into a holiday crowd. That's more than any American spree-killer or school shooter has despatched, and without needing to make explosives.
In Britain, kitchen knives are more popular but a determined terrorist could kill dozens by swerving into a bus stop around school chucking-out time. No expertise or training required. Heck, not even any planning: just a snap decision while driving home.
The reason this does not happen here might be that for Islamist terrorists, the reward is instant admission to paradise when shot by police, but our police are unarmed and life in Belmarsh holds less appeal.
You mean that a life stretch in Belmarsh isn’t paradise?
One good thing about the British police being mostly unarmed, is that ‘suicide by cop’ happens a lot less frequently.
The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.
Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots.
2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.
Kemi is a day behind erstwhile leadership rival Bobby J, and possibly Elon Musk or whatever he calls himself this week.
Should there be a national inquiry rather than a series of local inquiries? It is not obvious that the details of each situation were the same. And the currently-running inquiries into Covid and the Post Office that can be watched over the web seem mainly concerned with establishing the minister is a cock, which probably most of us half-suspected anyway.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
It's a straightforward attack on those who try to do the best for their children rather than let them rot in the state sector
PB's bias towards the private school sector is showing. Labour's policy on this was clear and widely discussed in their manifesto, but more importantly is widely popular. Far more so than any other thing they have done:
It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
Just as a matter if interest what is the Lib Dem policy on this, and for that matter the SNP. ?
LibDems opposed the implementation of VAT on private schools.
Not sure that answers my question
Do they oppose Labour's policy coming into force yesterday?
Isn't the more relevant question "are opposition parties going to pledge to reverse this in their 2028/9 manifestoes?"
To which I suspect the answer is "probably not, with some waffle about having so many things to fix from Labour's disastrous rule."
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
One (Not at all loaded I promise) question.
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
Yes, with the important difference that under the last government LEA schools who failed on safeguarding were force academised.*
This has nothing to do with inspection outcomes with LEA schools that are resisting academisation. Nothing. How could I even think that?
*The important exception to the law - and it was a law - being Caversham.
What is the reason, BTW, why private schools don't come under OFSTED, please? Someone mentioned it the other day on here and it struck me as odd if one wants to maintain standards all round (yes, I do know what you think of OFSTED, but there must be some rationale).
Private schools who are members of the Headmasters' and Headmistress' Conference have their own inspection system called the Independent Schools' Inspectorate and this is specifically accredited by the DfE as an alternative inspection system.
There are several reasons for this but none of them are terribly convincing, if I'm honest. One is that independent schools in the HMC are a different beast from the state sector, having more boarding schools, through schools etc, and are therefore more complex to inspect. Another is that the result of a bad inspection is more serious than in the state sector so there is validity in a different framework.
I suspect the real reason is that members of the HMC have powerful contacts who allow themselves to run their nice little club.
It has good and bad points. Their current framework is better than OFSTED's for example, and they only use serving teachers as inspectors. Against that, it has been known for them to overlook very serious breaches of law/safeguarding. On being told female staff wouldn't be alone with the (now former) head of a school near here their first reaction was to ask him why this was...
The Rest is Politics: Rory and a newly impoverished Al discuss what various politicians and parties should do differently in 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwBO8nrzCt8
A few may have got their money out. Hell mend them anyway, the whole things shouts ponzi and 100% risk guaranteed.
I had about 10 grand "invested" in lendy.com before it went pop, did actually make 12% interest and learnt a valuable lesson. If a ship is going down - get to the exit first.
Whoever it was at the FBI that rushed to say it wasn't a terrorist attack should be sacked immediately. They clearly aren't objective.
Who cares? What does terrorist attack even mean in the age of the lone wolf killer? A pound to a penny we are looking at self-radicalised attackers whose affiliation with ISIS was unknown in the Middle East until ISIS watched Al Jazeera's midday bulletin.
A fine Texas born ex-military citizen of the USA it appears - lots of elements of this for the usual suspects to gnash their teeth in frustration over. His military roles were in IT & HR, then on to run an unsuccessful estate agency therefore several signs of sociopathy already present. There seems a general movement in the West among the disaffected and deranged to take whatever means are at hand to take it out on the rest of us. Those societies with limited gun ownership definitely at an advantage in those circs.
Not much of an advantage, not since that guy in France killed almost 100 people by driving into a holiday crowd. That's more than any American spree-killer or school shooter has despatched, and without needing to make explosives.
In Britain, kitchen knives are more popular but a determined terrorist could kill dozens by swerving into a bus stop around school chucking-out time. No expertise or training required. Heck, not even any planning: just a snap decision while driving home.
The reason this does not happen here might be that for Islamist terrorists, the reward is instant admission to paradise when shot by police, but our police are unarmed and life in Belmarsh holds less appeal.
Wear a padded gilet with a bit of gaffer tape spread about it and an armed response unit will soon be on hand to expedite your departure from the world (see London Bridge knife attack).
My point really was that I don’t see why the numerous mass shootings in the states aren’t in the same category as the Louisiana killer (who was also a shooter) or the German Christmas market attacker. Terrorism related must be one of the laziest and under-examined definitions of violence going.
I'm still with Gamaliel on this one - time will tell, and will tell whether it has been a benefit for society or not. I think we can be clearer about some things.
On point one, the vast majority of schools in the UK (State Schools) do pay business rates, so I can't honestly see much of a problem with that; that could credibly be called closing a loopholes.
The numbers I recall from the proposals were that expectations were of a 10% increase in fees, which compares to the number so far claimed by Private Schools of 14%. That is close to 10% plus 2.6% current inflation. And that pupils leaving so far are in the low thousands, which is not a real capacity threat to the State Sector, or a lot out of 600k in the independent sector.
So I think the campaign may be overplaying their hand. But we'll see.
The Govt will hang tough, and I hope be generous with application to SEN, which arguably *is* where there is a capacity issue in the State Sector.
There is no doubt the campaign against are overplaying their hand. Whoever thought a legal challenge was a good idea needs to be sacked.
But that is the point of the policy anyway, so I suppose that's a success.
Whether it does any real good is a different question.
It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
I gather there a few regretful Lab voters on PB. Perhaps they as high information voters could clarify what they thought they were voting for, aside from anyone apart from the mob that fcked up the country for the last 14 years.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
One (Not at all loaded I promise) question.
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
Yes, with the important difference that under the last government LEA schools who failed on safeguarding were force academised.*
This has nothing to do with inspection outcomes with LEA schools that are resisting academisation. Nothing. How could I even think that?
*The important exception to the law - and it was a law - being Caversham.
What is the reason, BTW, why private schools don't come under OFSTED, please? Someone mentioned it the other day on here and it struck me as odd if one wants to maintain standards all round (yes, I do know what you think of OFSTED, but there must be some rationale).
Private schools who are members of the Headmasters' and Headmistress' Conference have their own inspection system called the Independent Schools' Inspectorate and this is specifically accredited by the DfE as an alternative inspection system.
There are several reasons for this but none of them are terribly convincing, if I'm honest. One is that independent schools in the HMC are a different beast from the state sector, having more boarding schools, through schools etc, and are therefore more complex to inspect. Another is that the result of a bad inspection is more serious than in the state sector so there is validity in a different framework.
I suspect the real reason is that members of the HMC have powerful contacts who allow themselves to run their nice little club.
It has good and bad points. Their current framework is better than OFSTED's for example, and they only use serving teachers as inspectors. Against that, it has been known for them to overlook very serious breaches of law/safeguarding. On being told female staff wouldn't be alone with the (now former) head of a school near here their first reaction was to ask him why this was...
Thank you!
So indy schools not in the HHC are under OFSTED? Which makes ISI an even more, erm, specific arrangement.
Most private schools are not what the general public think of as being charities. Admission is mostly dependent on ability to pay. They would be charities in the normal sense if their admission policies were completely outwith ability to pay.
People on tiny incomes pay VAT on boiler repairs and other essentials. It is hard to justify the anomaly - the one which we are told isn't an exemption.
The putative numbers leaving the private system to go to the state is tiny. I have seen the figure of 37,000. There are 10,000,000 school pupils. It is not more than normal annual fluctuation.
Personally I am neutral on this. I doubt very much if it will make much difference (Like the IHT changes).
Again, we don’t know those figures are correct. They’re projections. Speaking as somebody who works in the education sector I think they’re extremely optimistic. But again, they may be right and I may be wrong.
The big figure everyone should be pondering is demographic decline among our school age population. But I’ve seen little evidence that anyone in the government is (believe me, schools have seen it and it’s one source of nerves).
Demographic decline is interesting. For schools this involves issues of restructuring, reducing incomes and closures.
I am no longer involved in schools at all, so I am out of date. In the olden days closures were matters which government left to councils and councils left to local schools/communities to sort by trial by combat. It was a classic area for blame shifting.
In these enlightened times of academies, free schools, diminished local authorities and whatever, how are closures sorted?
Badly.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Is it a crude “per head” payment from Gvt and when are the “heads” calculated? I.e. Is this a potential surprise cash flow problem that can crystallise quickly in year?
Yes and no. There are differential funds for PPC and EHCP children and if they leave or are expelled problems can ensue. But more usually, the issue comes with sudden unexpected extra costs e.g. repair bills (or, a couple of years ago, the DfE memorably getting their sums wrong and cutting budgets mid year).
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
One (Not at all loaded I promise) question.
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
Yes, with the important difference that under the last government LEA schools who failed on safeguarding were force academised.*
This has nothing to do with inspection outcomes with LEA schools that are resisting academisation. Nothing. How could I even think that?
*The important exception to the law - and it was a law - being Caversham.
What is the reason, BTW, why private schools don't come under OFSTED, please? Someone mentioned it the other day on here and it struck me as odd if one wants to maintain standards all round (yes, I do know what you think of OFSTED, but there must be some rationale).
Private schools who are members of the Headmasters' and Headmistress' Conference have their own inspection system called the Independent Schools' Inspectorate and this is specifically accredited by the DfE as an alternative inspection system.
There are several reasons for this but none of them are terribly convincing, if I'm honest. One is that independent schools in the HMC are a different beast from the state sector, having more boarding schools, through schools etc, and are therefore more complex to inspect. Another is that the result of a bad inspection is more serious than in the state sector so there is validity in a different framework.
I suspect the real reason is that members of the HMC have powerful contacts who allow themselves to run their nice little club.
It has good and bad points. Their current framework is better than OFSTED's for example, and they only use serving teachers as inspectors. Against that, it has been known for them to overlook very serious breaches of law/safeguarding. On being told female staff wouldn't be alone with the (now former) head of a school near here their first reaction was to ask him why this was...
Thank you!
So indy schools not in the HHC are under OFSTED? Which makes ISI an even more, erm, specific arrangement.
So having lost two helicopters and crews to Ukranian drone boats a couple of days ago, the Russians are now going one better and shooting down their own helicopters instead!
In more good news, a large batch of 200 Ukranian pilots have completed basic jet training and language courses in the UK. Well done to everyone involved, the new pilots will now go to various countries for F-16 type ratings.
It’s interesting that the F-16s are all being given to newly-trained pilots, rather than more experienced flight officers, as the whole doctrine and methodology for flying them is totally different to how the old Soviet aircraft are operated. It’s both easier and safer to train new pilots from scratch than to try and teach old dogs new tricks.
I doubt the changes in VAT, in the long run, will make much difference either way, However I agree with the minority of others that it seems unfair in principle that essentials like petrol have VAT charged but a luxury item that only the wealthiest in society can afford does not.
In terms of private education as a whole, I find it's where my principles collide. As a liberal I believe anyone should have the right to educate their children privately if they so wish. At the same time I don't believe it is fair for the wealthiest to entrench advantage on their children, in comparison to bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The only solution I can see is to render private education obsolete by improving state education to the same level. Unfortunately that would require an equivalent level of spending per pupil. More probably; if it is worth spending around £30k p.a. on a bright upper-middle class child at (say) Tonbridge, then a disadvantaged Special Needs child must need double that.
And the comments on this board show how skewed we are to the very wealthiest end of the spectrum. I earn within the top 5% of incomes and I would have needed to double my salary to be able to educate my children privately. Ironically now it's too late I could probably afford to send one of them somewhere now but they are in their 20s!
Your solution doesnt work even with equivalent level of spending, as then the elite will just further bump up what they pay to give their kids an edge over everyone else.
I suspect half of it is also for the networking, and that there is no chance that your children will be led astray by the ne'er do well kids from the council estate. I confess that my motivation would be similar - I doubt my daughter would have done any better academically if I had sent her to the most expensive school.
It's equally possible that most of the fearmongering will come to nothing, and between the ability of schools to absorb the cost and the ability of many parents to pay extra, the tax revenues will come in and the number of pupils moving schools will be small.
I think that the case. Certainly so for my colleagues with kids at Private schools, not one is moving them.
I would be surprised if there’s a major immediate impact, actually. Moving schools is not a decision most parents take lightly even with sudden hikes. From that point of view Phillipson may be correct.
I think the problems may arise in the next 2-3 years as those who are currently in private schools look at the next stage.
One reason why this may be a foolish policy is that’s just in time for the next election…
Equally, with some schools losing even 2% of fee payers may be a very serious matter for them in terms of survival, particularly with fuel bills as they are.
We just don’t know. I’d be less annoyed with Phillipson’s posturing if she was more honest about that.
Both sides are using the usual sorts of language distortions and exaggerations.
You can bet that all it will achieve is some disruption for children, little or no extra money and those that would have gone to private schools will get places at the best schools and the poorer children will all drop a notch and get a worse education in larger class sizes. Doing things purely for ideology is never a good thing. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
I’ve always thought the reason why ThePrince got so widely reviled is because Machiavelli held up a mirror to people, who did not like the truth revealed to them. He understood that human nature is pretty heinous, on the whole.
When it comes to 80% being potential shoplifters, (and a smaller, but still substantial proportion being potential rapists), it is “the dread of punishment”, that keeps people in check, far more than any appeal to their better nature.
Some years after leaving school I saw one of my ex dormitory mates on TV walking with Prince Charles and being described as 'the second richest man in the world' Had I known at the time it would have made no difference because in those days pretending to be working class and poor in those surroundings was much more attractive than appearing to be rich.
Our values are so out of kilter these days that anything that leads to a rebalance has to be supported. VAT on school fees sounds good. Privilege has to be eliminated and old school ties have to count for nothing and if a Labour government with four years left to do it doesn't make a start who will?
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
It's a straightforward attack on those who try to do the best for their children rather than let them rot in the state sector
A very revealing but appalling attitude towards the 93% of kids and parents who use the state sector.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
It's an absolute disgrace that Labour should announce a clear policy in its manifesto, win an election, and then implement the policy straight away. What is the world coming to?
I gather there a few regretful Lab voters on PB. Perhaps they as high information voters could clarify what they thought they were voting for, aside from anyone apart from the mob that fcked up the country for the last 14 years.
Like many who voted Labour this year having voted Conservative from 2010-2019 they thought with Starmer they were getting Blair 1997 2, instead they got Brown 2009 2
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
It's a straightforward attack on those who try to do the best for their children rather than let them rot in the state sector
Most state schools are actually quite good and deliver great outcomes if combined with student effort and parental involvement. My eldest daughter was educated entirely in the state sector - local primary, local secondary then a sixth form college, zero private tutoring - and is now at Oxford. No rotting involved, and I have no doubt that we were doing our best for her throughout.
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
Why should those MOST ABLE be able to get a VAT exemption that others can't get. To build Polo pitches, to maintain Golf Courses, to have Olympic quality Swimming Pools that 99% of the population cannot access. The majority of those Private Schools claiming to be losing pupils (although they never provide evidence of it) claim to be in debt. If they are it's because they have poor management and unsustainable gluttony for spending money they don't have. Well done Labour...A MANIFESTO COMMITMENT acted upon.
I have no problem with Labour imposing VAT on this service provided. My query is the pop at business rate avoidance. If the school is a charity they don't pay business rates. You can question if a school - which now provides a vatable service - should be a charity or a business. Valid question. But AIUI the minister is providing a simplistic attack which doesn't stand up to a moment's rational thought. So simplistic you'd almost think she was a Tory minister.
This is kind of what I was getting at earlier when suggesting that VAT was a minimum-effort policy that falls far short of what many, including perhaps the minister if one reads between the lines, would like. It does not abolish public schools. It does not deny public school leavers access to public universities or civil service jobs. It simply puts up prices that were rising anyway.
VAT is a no-brainer really. The upset is that their nice exemption has been removed. I get the upset, but we can't afford it any more. As for the "more kids will end up in your pleb schools so there" argument, great! I support comprehensive education.
I also think too that the more sharp-elbowed middle class parents there are in the state system, not prepared to accept mediocre, the better for everyone all round. This might be a small benefit.
There is an old saying that if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.
Comments
There seems a general movement in the West among the disaffected and deranged to take whatever means are at hand to take it out on the rest of us. Those societies with limited gun ownership definitely at an advantage in those circs.
There are a lot of folk supporting Milei because they perceive him as right wing, rather than because he's implemented what are likely practical solutions, in a country which was on the verge of collapse.
Taking it as a validation of Trump, before he's even taken office, is a glaring example of mood affiliation over analysis.
Floating exchange rates, cutting spending to vaguely match receipts, deregulating.
Note that Milei specifically rejected tariffs as a generally good thing. Even gave a rather good explanation as to why, in a number of interviews.
Cool. I look forward to you lauding the government for increasing VAT on (say) clothing at a time when prices are rising anyway. Or, as perhaps a better analogy, putting VAT on kids clothes when prices are rising.
The fact prices are 'rising anyway' makes the addition of VAT worse, not better.
* Ampleforth. (at least until 2015).
That was a 19th cent City urban legend - The chap who borrowed short term money, always paid it back. Over a few years, everyone got to know and trust him. Reliable as the hills. One Christmas he vanished. Having maxed out his borrowing from everyone. Investigation showed that there was no business.
https://taxpolicy.org.uk/2022/11/16/taxthelawyers/
The point isn't that they're right wing - it's that he's grasped the nettle (which is going to sting quite a large proportion of the population in the short term) to prevent a complete collapse, and provide half a chance of a decent future.
Efforts to compare Argentina with the US are pretty nonsensical.
You just liked it because it was tub-thumping for your side of the political spectrum.
Which, for the academically minded, raises interesting sociological questions about the transmission of social status across generations, and not merely parent to child. As well as being IHT-efficient, generally speaking.
There really shouldn't be any debate about condemning the attempted coup in S Korea - but the country looks very much life the US in its reaction (except that there's a small liberal majority).
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=389430
When former President Park Geun-hye was embroiled in a political crisis due to an influence-peddling scandal, which ultimately led to her impeachment by the National Assembly on Dec. 9, 2016, public opinion turned sharply against her leadership. Voters were widely unified in their disapproval, and her approval ratings plummeted to as low as 4 percent in some polls.
President Yoon Suk Yeol has not suffered the same levels of backlash despite his declaration of martial law, a far more serious violation of the law and the Constitution in the eyes of many. In major surveys, his approval rating never dropped below the 10 percent mark and it is now bouncing back to as high as over 30 percent after his impeachment by the National Assembly.
The Korea Times surveyed 1,000 people through Hankook Research and found that extreme political polarization may be one of the reasons.
When asked whether the Constitutional Court should uphold the impeachment motion against Yoon, 98 percent of supporters of the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) said the court should remove the president by upholding the impeachment, while 85 percent of supporters of the ruling People Power Party (PPP) said the court should dismiss it. ..
So there is that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/ce90729r30po
Canal embankment seemingly damming a shallow valley, too.
VAT is supported by those with no brain.
You'd have near £7k a year. That would halve the cost of a full private school education for most (£600 a month would be all that's required to do it at any good day school) and you'd get more schools opening up, more choice, more inclusion and more and better education overall. State schools would, of course, remain completely free.
What's not to like?
The answer is to broaden and expand choice and access, and this policy is the precise opposite.
What's blinding people to the logic here is good old-fashioned British prejudice against (what they think) is class.
But, if damage has been done to both the education and farming sectors as a consequence then, yes, absolutely.
It does require the Tories to grow a pair though.
Usually by everyone fighting like ferrets in a sack to say everyone else should go (so much as before).
I suspect in the coming years it will be done more crudely by those which run out of money first, but I worry that several might collapse in disorderly fashion mid year. And with LEAs in such a state there isn't much fallback.
Applying VAT to public schools is silly. This would be sillier.
The logical endpoint of the argument would be that I should have declined to read to my daughter at bedtime, or teach her about numbers, because doing so have her an unfair advantage against the children whose parents who didn't do those things.
Denmark implements Casino's solution iirc and that's hardly seen as a high gini coefficient bastion of extreme wealth and poverty.
EDit- also a lot of academy chains are running up huge debts and living on credit.
And if you don't think schools would do that, remember that education is the sort of good where expensive = reassuring. Consider the huge increases in fees over the last couple of decades, the way the university fee market went, or the failure of the low-cost private school market to take off.
But they are staggeringly unusual politically in the democratic world today.
Since 2007, Brownite/Johnsonite populist tax and spend has been far more common.
That is why Milei is so extraodinary. Imposing economic literacy on a country whose main characteristic has been its total absence for a generation, and doing so incidentally without a Congressional majority, in the face of hugely powerful interest groups, and despite the cynicism and sneering of the Western centrist establishment.
Compare him to Rachel fucking Reeves, who with a giant majority behind her has devastated business confidence, ended what little economic growth Sunak had managed to give us, and given us the highest peacetime tax burden ever, or the loony Miliband, whose only economic thought is how to make our energy yet more unaffordable.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/651d2587bef21800156ded01/National_funding_formula_for__schools_and_high_needs_2024_to_2025.pdf
Are academy schools and local authority schools judged to the same standard by OFSTED ?
https://x.com/kemibadenoch/status/1874749990842814606
The time is long overdue for a full national inquiry into the rape gangs scandal.
Trials have taken place all over the country in recent years but no one in authority has joined the dots.
2025 must be the year that the victims start to get justice.
Coupled with issues we are having in my own LA (barely any state maintained places), it’s utter stupidity. I’m not even clear as to Bridget’s Phillipsons background that makes her remotely qualified to understand the impact (particularly on already cash strapped local authorities)
This has nothing to do with inspection outcomes with LEA schools that are resisting academisation. Nothing. How could I even think that?
*The important exception to the law - and it was a law - being Caversham.
The overall economy has declined, and poverty levels increased significantly.
He's getting away with it for now, as he was entirely open about the immediate pain his policies would cause.
Whether Argentina starts to grow again is still something of an open question.
Deregulation (let alone its fruits) is not yet a done deal.
They should hire world-leading private tutors at very reasonable hourly rates to do it for them.
(Seriously, yes, they should.)
In Britain, kitchen knives are more popular but a determined terrorist could kill dozens by swerving into a bus stop around school chucking-out time. No expertise or training required. Heck, not even any planning: just a snap decision while driving home.
The reason this does not happen here might be that for Islamist terrorists, the reward is instant admission to paradise when shot by police, but our police are unarmed and life in Belmarsh holds less appeal.
I believe it's the single most beneficial thing you can do for your children. After feeding them.
I don't really like private education, but I still think Labour might be about to really cock things up with these VAT and rates changes.
Do they oppose Labour's policy coming into force yesterday?
I'm still with Gamaliel on this one - time will tell, and will tell whether it has been a benefit for society or not. I think we can be clearer about some things.
On point one, the vast majority of schools in the UK (State Schools) do pay business rates, so I can't honestly see much of a problem with that; that could credibly be called closing a loopholes.
The numbers I recall from the proposals were that expectations were of a 10% increase in fees, which compares to the number so far claimed by Private Schools of 14%. That is close to 10% plus 2.6% current inflation. And that pupils leaving so far are in the low thousands, which is not a real capacity threat to the State Sector, or a lot out of 600k in the independent sector.
So I think the campaign may be overplaying their hand. But we'll see.
The Govt will hang tough, and I hope be generous with application to SEN, which arguably *is* where there is a capacity issue in the State Sector.
One good thing about the British police being mostly unarmed, is that ‘suicide by cop’ happens a lot less frequently.
Should there be a national inquiry rather than a series of local inquiries? It is not obvious that the details of each situation were the same. And the currently-running inquiries into Covid and the Post Office that can be watched over the web seem mainly concerned with establishing the minister is a cock, which probably most of us half-suspected anyway.
What is the world coming to?
To which I suspect the answer is "probably not, with some waffle about having so many things to fix from Labour's disastrous rule."
See also: winter fuel and IHT on farmland.
There are several reasons for this but none of them are terribly convincing, if I'm honest. One is that independent schools in the HMC are a different beast from the state sector, having more boarding schools, through schools etc, and are therefore more complex to inspect. Another is that the result of a bad inspection is more serious than in the state sector so there is validity in a different framework.
I suspect the real reason is that members of the HMC have powerful contacts who allow themselves to run their nice little club.
It has good and bad points. Their current framework is better than OFSTED's for example, and they only use serving teachers as inspectors. Against that, it has been known for them to overlook very serious breaches of law/safeguarding. On being told female staff wouldn't be alone with the (now former) head of a school near here their first reaction was to ask him why this was...
Older middle class: no, that is nanny's job.
Working class: no, it is the school's job to teach children to read.
My point really was that I don’t see why the numerous mass shootings in the states aren’t in the same category as the Louisiana killer (who was also a shooter) or the German Christmas market attacker. Terrorism related must be one of the laziest and under-examined definitions of violence going.
But that is the point of the policy anyway, so I suppose that's a success.
Whether it does any real good is a different question.
So indy schools not in the HHC are under OFSTED? Which makes ISI an even more, erm, specific arrangement.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1874535141877719415
In more good news, a large batch of 200 Ukranian pilots have completed basic jet training and language courses in the UK.
Well done to everyone involved, the new pilots will now go to various countries for F-16 type ratings.
https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/1874508156401049872
It’s interesting that the F-16s are all being given to newly-trained pilots, rather than more experienced flight officers, as the whole doctrine and methodology for flying them is totally different to how the old Soviet aircraft are operated. It’s both easier and safer to train new pilots from scratch than to try and teach old dogs new tricks.
Doing things purely for ideology is never a good thing. A pig with lipstick is still a pig.
I’ve always thought the reason why The Prince got so widely reviled is because Machiavelli held up a mirror to people, who did not like the truth revealed to them. He understood that human nature is pretty heinous, on the whole.
When it comes to 80% being potential shoplifters, (and a smaller, but still substantial proportion being potential rapists), it is “the dread of punishment”, that keeps people in check, far more than any appeal to their better nature.
Our values are so out of kilter these days that anything that leads to a rebalance has to be supported. VAT on school fees sounds good. Privilege has to be eliminated and old school ties have to count for nothing and if a Labour government with four years left to do it doesn't make a start who will?
I'd regard it as bordering on neglect, not to do so.
Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
And that saying reflects the fact that education is, in 1066 terms, a good thing. We need more of it. Will this policy help produce that? In theory, the answer is "yes" because those 6,500 additional teachers would benefit more students than the select few who go to private schools, whether on a fee paying or bursary basis.
But there are so many problems with that theory. As @ydoethur points out in most subjects there is a shortage of teachers so there are no more to be had. It is possible that wage increases might increase supply somewhat but this government has already gone too far in trying to solve problems by spending all the available cash on wages.
Secondly, if the result is that some kids come out of the private sector then the full cost of their education has to come out of the pot. Educating a child costs the local authority roughly £5k a year, a lot more for SEND children. So, if the consequence of the policy is that it would take 340k kids to transfer to exhaust the money. Given that 556k children currently go to private schools this seems wildly pessimistic but it is not as simple as that. Firstly, the distribution of those children will be extremely lumpy, depending on where schools close. Secondly, if even 100k transfer then something like 20% of the £1,7bn will be lost.
Thirdly, lets look at the reverse. If 100k of those children end up in state schools that is going to cost local authorities something like £500m.
Finally, the sad truth is that too many of our state schools are simply dysfunctional. Having more children attending those schools instead of (generally) better private educational establishments, particularly children who need a lot of help, is going to result in a less well educated workforce going forward.
This is a stupid policy based on jealousy and prejudice. The number of people adversely affected by it are not likely to be politically significant but it will diminish our total spend on education, it will reduce the average quality of that education and it will hurt many vulnerable kids. Stupid.