Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
My father failed his 11 plus, went to a secondary modern and then moved from there to a Grammar School at 13 based on his ongoing exam results.
My father, on the other hand, failed his 11 plus then gave up on school completely. He left his Secondary Modern at 15 with no qualifications to start work as a farm labourer. He did eventually go on to start his own business, but he always had a massive chip on his shoulder regarding education. He was actually disappointed when I went to uni - thought it was a waste of time.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Gay's out there now.
The match has gone. Bazball finishes with an absurdity. Seems about right.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Gay's out there now.
The match has gone. Bazball finishes with an absurdity. Seems about right.
It does slightly mock the whole of cricket. Not great.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
In Trafford they moderate for birthdays so there is an even spread throughout the year.
Even with that, every parent knows that kids have step functions of development rather than a nice gradual curve. Some precocious 11 year olds are idiots by the time of GCSEs, and others -like me- were in the remedial class, and yet pull it together later.
That's why I tend to veer later: either 13 or 16 are my preferences. Or we could be like the French, Japanese, Scanadaniavians and South Koreans and do it at 15.
At Ilford County, back in the early 90s, our Sixth Form was open to students from the surrounding Comps, and we rather disparagingly referred to our new-found chums as "immigrants"
Strange lack of salience here (and elsewhere) on the Venezuela earthquake, despite it being the top story on news sites.
Do we need 5000 people to die before it registers?
(I know the above sounds mawkish and trite, but I don't know how else to express it and I am, genuinely, just askin' questions...)
It's terrible, but is there much to say about it beyond that?
We tend to talk about things where people disagree, or where there is something new to add. Where's the bone of contention with an earthquake? What is there to say that hasn't been said before?
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
For example, extraordinarily high housing costs in London make it extremely difficult for young people without parental financial backing to live in London while working entry-level jobs in the arts. Doing something about high housing costs would do more to equalise opportunity than anything with education.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Gay's out there now.
The match has gone. Bazball finishes with an absurdity. Seems about right.
It does slightly mock the whole of cricket. Not great.
"Boring conversation sport anyway. Luke, we're gonna have company!"
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
For example, extraordinarily high housing costs in London make it extremely difficult for young people without parental financial backing to live in London while working entry-level jobs in the arts. Doing something about high housing costs would do more to equalise opportunity than anything with education.
As would not having quite so many of the entry-level jobs in various careers in one city. Or even two, if you count Manchester.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
Cmon that's nonsense. Of course there are plenty of things other than how much money your parents have that factor into a person's opportunities and outcomes. But it is undeniably a big factor, and to argue (as I do) that it's one we ought to seek to mitigate somewhat is not in any sense 'obsessional'. It's simply what I think.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Gay's out there now.
The match has gone. Bazball finishes with an absurdity. Seems about right.
It does slightly mock the whole of cricket. Not great.
"Boring conversation sport anyway. Luke, we're gonna have company!"
Well you're right. It is dreadfully dull very often. There are some good bits. As c3po said "We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.".
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
In Trafford they moderate for birthdays so there is an even spread throughout the year.
Even with that, every parent knows that kids have step functions of development rather than a nice gradual curve. Some precocious 11 year olds are idiots by the time of GCSEs, and others -like me- were in the remedial class, and yet pull it together later.
That's why I tend to veer later: either 13 or 16 are my preferences. Or we could be like the French, Japanese, Scanadaniavians and South Koreans and do it at 15.
If we are talking radical change then I would have children not start formal school until 7 years old. As they do in Finland. Start play based school at 5 or 6 and proper education at 7.
I would shift the whole education system by 2 years.
So you start education at 7. Move to senior school at 13. Sit GCSEs at 18 Sit A levels and start university or college at 20. Leave full time education at 23 unless you are doing a masters etc.
This seves a whole host of purposes.
It gives children more time as children before they start formal education It means they are not sitting important exams right in the middle of massive physical and emotional changes It also takes into account we are shifting retirement age towards 70
I think it would do a great deal to help educational and social development.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
The practical effect of the meritocracy argument as pursued in England since the 1970s has always been to educate to the lowest common denominator.
We abandoned the meritocracy argument when we turned against Grammar Schools.
The problem with Grammar Schools was never the Grammar School, it was the fact that Secondary Moderns were dreadful, and that if you found yourself in one, it was incredibly hard to get out.
My father failed his 11 plus, went to a secondary modern and then moved from there to a Grammar School at 13 based on his ongoing exam results.
My father, on the other hand, failed his 11 plus then gave up on school completely. He left his Secondary Modern at 15 with no qualifications to start work as a farm labourer. He did eventually go on to start his own business, but he always had a massive chip on his shoulder regarding education. He was actually disappointed when I went to uni - thought it was a waste of time.
We are never going to get the perfect school system, because the optimal solution is depends on the person and the geography.
If you fall just below the mark for the 11+ when you take the test, then you would probably have been better off in an area with Comprehensives. If, on the other hand, you come in well above it, then that calculus is shifted.
Likewise, I think it's a lot easier to have a sensible Grammar school split if you are in a city or a large town. If you're in a rural area, by contrast, then getting to your local Grammar school might be next to impossible.
The goal needs to be to allow everyone to succeed to the best of their abilities, and to make sure that as many people as possible leave formal education with the skills they need to survive.
My gut is that we're having the wrong conversation here, because the real problem in the UK is not that the top 5% in the Comprehensive education system ended up poorly educated, but that the bottom 50% leave schools with very few marketable skills.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
He's employed by a university, and depends on it for his livelihood- during the two hours each day when he actually does some work.
So he has an interest.
By what leap of logic can anyone argue that because different entities are regulated in different ways when offering the same service ithey should be taxed differently ?
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
For example, extraordinarily high housing costs in London make it extremely difficult for young people without parental financial backing to live in London while working entry-level jobs in the arts. Doing something about high housing costs would do more to equalise opportunity than anything with education.
As would not having quite so many of the entry-level jobs in various careers in one city. Or even two, if you count Manchester.
Over to you, Mr Burnham.
Well, but that's just network effects. It's why it is big cities that are internationally economically competitive.
I think that's genuinely a law of economics we have to work with, that we can't fight against.
The best we can do is to link up the northern cities with better transport, so that they can function as one economic region, that has the scale to compete.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
For example, extraordinarily high housing costs in London make it extremely difficult for young people without parental financial backing to live in London while working entry-level jobs in the arts. Doing something about high housing costs would do more to equalise opportunity than anything with education.
Arguably so. But the benefit of doing Good Thing A isn't an argument against doing Good Thing B unless they are in competition.
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Not true. It isn't by much but the studies show a small increase in the results of Grammar school pupils with no corresponding drop in the results of the associated Comptehensives. So overall there is a slight increase in overall standards
Clearly there should be stratification by ability level: to me the real question is whether the right age is 11 (grammar schools), 13 (traditional private schools with Common Entrance), 16 (A Levels and Sixth Form Colleges) or 18 (university).
My gut -and I'm completely biased by being an August baby here- is that 11 is too young. More than twice as many September babies went to grammar schools as August babies, which seems hella unfair on us youngsters.
Although it doesn't fit my personal politics, I could see a good argument for elite academic sixth forms (I am constantly badgered by one that wants to nick all our decent mathematicians for A level).
By 16, the academic die is mostly set. And I'd be able to prep the best mathematicians much better for university maths courses if it was only the top 1 or 2% by ability.
They definitely shouldn't be fee paying, though, that would be like trying to win the world cup just after stapling 10 of the team's feet to the pitch.
To some extent they already exist in the better large 6th form colleges. Which have the added benefit of being largely non selective.
They're large enough to have subject specialists, and to set by ability, if you want to go that route.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Speaking as a midly interested fellow traveler (I have got gently pissed at a couple of cricket matches, nothing more), how can a style of play be 'at its end'?
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Yes let's evolve not regress. Take its (many) good points and just replace with a bit more nous and discipline where the no fear aggression veered into indulgence.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Gay's out there now.
The match has gone. Bazball finishes with an absurdity. Seems about right.
It does slightly mock the whole of cricket. Not great.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
He's employed by a university, and depends on it for his livelihood- during the two hours each day when he actually does some work.
So he has an interest.
By what leap of logic can anyone argue that because different entities are regulated in different ways when offering the same service ithey should be taxed differently ?
That happens all the time, no?
Off the top of my head, access to a park could be regulated and charged by a for profit company, a charity (like English Heritage), or a governmental entity. In each case, tax treatment will be different.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Speaking as a midly interested fellow traveler (I have got gently pissed at a couple of cricket matches, nothing more), how can a style of play be 'at its end'?
Bazball was always about the personalities of Stokes and McCullum as much as anything. Whatever comes next, whether more or less aggressive, will be something else.
Apart from anything else, Bazball was also about making the most of a group of players who had failed when trying to play Test cricket in a more measured fashion. There's a new group of players now.
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Yes let's evolve not regress. Take its (many) good points and just replace with a bit more nous and discipline where the no fear aggression veered into indulgence.
You are Jonathan Agnew and I claim my five pounds.
The whole point of Bazball was its audacity. The team has lost recently by its opponents scoring more quickly than England have managed.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Speaking as a midly interested fellow traveler (I have got gently pissed at a couple of cricket matches, nothing more), how can a style of play be 'at its end'?
It depends heavily on the strength of will of a few individuals- most notably the coach and captain. There has always been a huge amount of opposition to Bazball in the cricketing establishment and I fear that once Stokes and McCullum are gone they will bury it. I think we may be in for an extended period of failure in English cricket.
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Small correction - "brood of vipers" not "nest of vipers".
Raw numbers are meaningless anyway. The relevant metric is the teacher/pupil ratio, and that might be being maintained given the dwindling numbers.
However, she’s hardly putting anything into teacher training. In fact, her plans are to restrict it further (although she may not realise it).
Edit - it is worth pointing out (much though I hate to defend Phillipson) that she is talking about teachers in secondary schools whereas the community note is for teachers in all settings, which would include a contraction in the primary sector.
So she could have massively improved the pupil/teacher ratio, but instead decided to bring 100,000 pupils from the private sector into the public sector in a disorganised manner, as so many private schools closed due to the VAT charge on fees.
Don't know where you've got 100,000 from, do you? Even the Independent Schools Council put it at around 30,000, while the DfE put it at 22,000. And, of course, we can't be at all sure that all of those are because of VAT.
So far, I don't think any private schools have closed solely because of VAT. It gave the final push to some already on very shaky ground - Malvern St James, for example, seems to have suffered from it. As did that one up in Bangor.
But it wasn't, for example, responsible for the collapse of Abbotsholme, where I understand investigations are now beginning (rather belatedly and far too late to save the school or the teachers' jobs, although it's conceivable they might get the money they're owed). And there are some very funny rumours circulating about the reasons for the implosion of Rendcomb.
The true litmus test will be about two years from now as changes in key stage start feeding through the system. If we start to see a big contraction in numbers then, we'll have reason to think that VAT on school fees is having a negative effect.
But I agree with @DecrepiterJohnL about keeping smaller schools open and cutting class sizes, although as funding is per head it wouldn't be quite as simple as 'we're spending the same to educate fewer children.'
Trouble is, that would mean unpicking the whole "open admission until the school is physically full" model we've had for decades. It might be sensible government, but the politics are impossible.
But on th substantive point, yes. Shlonky private schools go under every year. VAT is a convenient excuse, but that doesn't make it true.
This is silly. It delivers a 20% price shock, at least, to parents paying the fees and pushes a minority out as a consequence which, given most independent schools operate at close to break even, is more than enough to send the smaller ones into crisis. It also depresses future rolls. And on top of that you have all these schools now liable for business rates.
Expect many more closures over the years to come and more pressure on the State sector.
The cognitive dissonance here is purely down to the defenders of the policy who don't want to admit it has any negative effects, which it very much does.
I see no problem with VAT being levied on discretionary purchases, which includes private schools, as well as cars, televisions, computers and holidays. It should not be levied on essentials such as food or rent.
VAT is not levied on books, which are a discretionary purchase, but governments have taken the view that encouraging reading is a public good.
I have some sympathy with the idea that encouraging education is a public good, and therefore VAT should not be levied on private education, but I'm open to persuasion either way.
Education is a public good, but it is provided free to all children by the state, paid for from taxes.
Private education is manifestly not a public good; it perpetuates privilege and gives a small proportion of children an unfair advantage.
If the Conservative Party were serious about wanting equality of opportunity and a meritocracy they would ban private education.
I'm not comfortable with this idea that having a good education is an unfair advantage. The better educated the country as a whole is, the better able the country as a whole can compete internationally.
Instead of worrying about ensuring that a meritocratic struggle to the death is completely fair, with no inherited advantage, we would do better to ensure that everyone can live with dignity even if they're seen to have "failed" meritocratically, as long as they're contributing as much as they can.
The meritocracy argument isn't to educate to the lowest common denominator.
The argument is surely that privately educated, and in many cases well-connected, people find it easier to access good jobs at the start of their careers. Statistically more of the "best" people to do the roles with more power/influence would come from the much larger, state educated sector, and therefore the country would do better if it were a true meritocracy.
Obviously plenty of privately educated individuals will be exceptionally talented, including many on this site, but the likelihood that private education leads to all the best people getting all the best jobs is very small.
Well VAT on school fees as I said makes private schools even less meritocratic by reducing the fees income for scholarships for those whose parents could not otherwise afford the fees and would mostly have got good and often elite jobs after
I suspect the effect is pretty minimal, when you look at how many students from very low income families get significant help, and the numbers affected by this policy.
The effect is still there though, the policy will make private schools and their students even more elitist
Might make the argument to get rid completely more compelling
Or alternatively and more sensibly bring back more grammar schools, with ballots to open new grammars not just close them. So we have genuine elite education in state schools again, not just private schools.
The rich who can still afford top public schools like Eton and Winchester would send their children to boarding schools abroad if UK private schools were banned, they wouldn't touch British state comps and academies with a bargepole even those rate outstanding
Then again, grammar schools selecting at 11 are a long way from being meritocratic - with a huge bias towards family circumstances.
There's also plenty of research suggesting that having more grammar schools doesn't increase the overall level of education.
Oh and trying to eliminate family circumstances from a meritocratic system is ludicrous. By far the largest influence on a child's success is family circumstance. Always has been, always will. Unless you are advocating taking all children into care at birth so you destroy everyone's opportunities equally, you will never make any impact on equalising family circumstances.
But that doesn't mean it isn't a good and viable objective to reduce the impact (relative to other factors) of parental wealth on life prospects.
You are obsessed with one factor when there are so many more that have an equal or greater impact.
For example, extraordinarily high housing costs in London make it extremely difficult for young people without parental financial backing to live in London while working entry-level jobs in the arts. Doing something about high housing costs would do more to equalise opportunity than anything with education.
That’s true, but it’s also true that only doing something about the biggest factor is rarely the right approach to take.
I have watched England try to bat out for a draw on so many occasions in game situations like this...and lose. I'm not saying this is the only alternative but they have tried to be different and in a game where the kiwis are likely two bowlers down, getting off to a flyer could have worked. It's not as if previous sided haven't slumped in these situations, but rather than 40-4 we are 100-4. Stokes has been a fantastic player but I sense he knows he is struggling to deliver runs in the team and is hanging on as 5 th bowler and inspirational captain. Time for a new era. I will never forget 2019.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
He's employed by a university, and depends on it for his livelihood- during the two hours each day when he actually does some work.
So he has an interest.
I assume you believe academics get three months off over summer when the students go home too.
Stokes opening was interesting. It caused NZ to go defensive with the new ball. But what was Brook doing? And Bethell? Disappointing. Why has Gay not been out there? This is test cricket and its not being taken seriously.
Strange lack of salience here (and elsewhere) on the Venezuela earthquake, despite it being the top story on news sites.
Do we need 5000 people to die before it registers?
(I know the above sounds mawkish and trite, but I don't know how else to express it and I am, genuinely, just askin' questions...)
The world is big, full of billions of people, and lots of terrible things are happening all the time. But earthquakes are very dramatic events, so it is perhaps a little surprising it hasn't has had quite as much attention.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Speaking as a midly interested fellow traveler (I have got gently pissed at a couple of cricket matches, nothing more), how can a style of play be 'at its end'?
It depends heavily on the strength of will of a few individuals- most notably the coach and captain. There has always been a huge amount of opposition to Bazball in the cricketing establishment and I fear that once Stokes and McCullum are gone they will bury it. I think we may be in for an extended period of failure in English cricket.
It didn't always work, but it led them to many wins they would not otherwise have managed, but it's already the case that people focus more on when it didn't work than when it worked.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Yes let's evolve not regress. Take its (many) good points and just replace with a bit more nous and discipline where the no fear aggression veered into indulgence.
You are Jonathan Agnew and I claim my five pounds.
The whole point of Bazball was its audacity. The team has lost recently by its opponents scoring more quickly than England have managed.
God no. I'm on your page with this. It's been exhilarating. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's just use slightly less bubbles on a weekday.
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Maybe I am being over critical, but watching the test when Ben Stokes retirement was announced and his immediate take off a wicket was extraordinary
However what followed made me feel a bit uneasy as he milked all the applause (fair enough) but his opening batting performance seemed more about a couldn't careless attitude to the result, just bazball
Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't seem the way his distinguished career should have ended
Maybe I am being over critical, but watching the test when Ben Stokes retirement was announced and his immediate take off a wicket was extraordinary
However what followed made me feel a bit uneasy as he milked all the applause (fair enough) but his opening batting performance seemed more about a couldn't careless attitude to the result, just bazball
Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't seem the way his distinguished career should have ended
I think he has been very badly treated by the ECB and especially recently. This was a final f#ck you.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Maybe I am being over critical, but watching the test when Ben Stokes retirement was announced and his immediate take off a wicket was extraordinary
However what followed made me feel a bit uneasy as he milked all the applause (fair enough) but his opening batting performance seemed more about a couldn't careless attitude to the result, just bazball
Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't seem the way his distinguished career should have ended
I think he has been very badly treated by the ECB and especially recently. This was a final f#ck you.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Cosmetic procedures are liable for VAT, so not all healthcare is exempt.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Alls well with the world . Wimbledon starts tomorrow !
There’s nothing quite like it. Im tuning out of politics and the news in general and am going into my happy tennis bubble!
Always brilliant. Absolutely in my top 5 annual sports events along with the Open, the Arc, the Crucible, and Boxing Day football.
I'd like to see Novak do 25.
Novak used to really grate on me but I’ve warmed to him in recent years as he’s coming to the end of his career and to play at such a high standard at his age is exceptional and deserves respect . Before my early retirement I used to always take off two weeks to watch and sometimes get to Wimbledon . And when the final BBC montage used to appear I was really gutted .
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Cosmetic procedures are liable for VAT, so not all healthcare is exempt.
Surely cosmetic procedures are procedures not prescriptions.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
He's a massive clothes horse isn't he? Are they fish hooks?
I recently checked out the SR bespoke tailor where he gets his clobber made up. You're talking 5 digits (easy) for a suit. Could not justify that to myself so I found a cheaper alternative.
(I have a concentration of 'events' this summer and next)
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Sounds like it. Bunch of wackos.
There are three features I found particularly interesting:
1 - His current manner of presentation is very like a Church of England country vicar (in the UK "vicar" is a term normally used for a priest with a geographical parish). Here he is calling for people to attend the recent Unite the Kingdom rally, whilst on a country walk:
2 - His actual background is as a Pentecostal Pastor and recently transitioning to Confessing Anglican Church UK (these change names a bit regularly so are easy to misstate).
I'm surmising possibly Elim Pentecostal because his churches near Portsmouth ("Living Word Church Network") have used the "Foursquare" formulation of the gospel, which has been characteristic of Elim since Elim was founded in the 1910s.
3 - The form of satire or protest from the women in the background. That to me is very reminiscent of gay men kissing very publicly to say "we will not be forced into the closet" - make highly public that which the opponents wish to force into privacy.
I don't think I'm likely to see as good as England captain in my lifetime, or for England to play as positive and optimistic cricket. Bazball has been criticised heavily in its time - never more so now than at its end - but it has given us some unique and compelling victories, and I wouldn't have had it any other way.
Speaking as a midly interested fellow traveler (I have got gently pissed at a couple of cricket matches, nothing more), how can a style of play be 'at its end'?
Bodyline came to an end when restrictions on how many fielders could be stationed behind square on the leg side were introduced.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Nope- it's a dismal scabbling round for scraps of cash that can fund the state without changing the headline rates of the big taxes. Nothing more.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
He's a massive clothes horse isn't he? Are they fish hooks?
I recently checked out the SR bespoke tailor where he gets his clobber made up. You're talking 5 digits (easy) for a suit. Could not justify that to myself so I found a cheaper alternative.
(I have a concentration of 'events' this summer and next)
Well, I simply couldn't afford that in my life just now, but if you can, it is a craft and it's keeping people in good employment all through the process, so I'd do it once (though I am sure your current solution is admirable).
I might have more sympathy with the alumni of, and supporters of, private schools if they weren't so frequently dismissively sneering about the 'typical comprehensives' that around 90% of us attended.
Note to readers: most comprehensive schools are pretty good these days. A minority are poor, as is the case with independent schools.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
All taxes, as all government expenditure, involves choices. There is no inherent logic. We choose to impose VAT on some things and not others for a whole host of reasons... but whatever the reasons, it's ultimately just a choice. We should remember that.
VAT on private school fees wouldn't have been my first choice as PM or CoE. I think Labour made a mistake in ruling out various more widely paid taxes. But they won the election, so they got to stick VAT on private school fees.
Describing those choices in emotive language ("envy", "class war") is standard politics, but not very enlightening. For a lot of voters, seeing increasing wealth inequality all around them, "class war" begins to look quite attractive, so you might find it a label that backfires.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Cosmetic procedures are liable for VAT, so not all healthcare is exempt.
Surely cosmetic procedures are procedures not prescriptions.
They involve prescriptions such as Botox and Dermal fillers, and are VATable.
There are other weird anomolies out there. Psychology assessments do not pay VAT but psychotherapy or counselling does.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Nope- it's a dismal scabbling round for scraps of cash that can fund the state without changing the headline rates of the big taxes. Nothing more.
You clearly see it that way but there is an argument to be made that private education is a corrosive and malign influence on the country. If you believe that to be the case taxing and otherwise disincentivising its use is valid policy.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Meritocracy is just a crap ideology so that people who have risen to the top of society - often with a large dose of luck or help from others - can justify treating the people at the bottom of society like shit.
Whatever the merits of taxing private education might be, I am immediately suspicious when meritocracy is reached to as a justification.
Should we go back to lords and peasants? That's the alternative to meritocracy.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Cosmetic procedures are liable for VAT, so not all healthcare is exempt.
Surely cosmetic procedures are procedures not prescriptions.
They involve prescriptions such as Botox and Dermal fillers, and are VATable.
There are other weird anomolies out there. Psychology assessments do not pay VAT but psychotherapy or counselling does.
Meritocracy is just a crap ideology so that people who have risen to the top of society - often with a large dose of luck or help from others - can justify treating the people at the bottom of society like shit.
Whatever the merits of taxing private education might be, I am immediately suspicious when meritocracy is reached to as a justification.
Should we go back to lords and peasants? That's the alternative to meritocracy.
divine rights of kings, that was some justification
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
Nope- it's a dismal scabbling round for scraps of cash that can fund the state without changing the headline rates of the big taxes. Nothing more.
There’s a case for Burnham, I think, to make a clear case to raise one of the big taxes when he gets in power. We’re all in it together. Probably income tax, and put the triple lock into scope of the review of the state pension age, final report due 2029 and Dr Suzy Morrissey due to file initial report imminently.
Heaven knows we will all be miserable now, but he may get a bit of a bounce and some good fortune.
He could use some of the money to reduce costs of employment.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Meritocracy is just a crap ideology so that people who have risen to the top of society - often with a large dose of luck or help from others - can justify treating the people at the bottom of society like shit.
Whatever the merits of taxing private education might be, I am immediately suspicious when meritocracy is reached to as a justification.
Should we go back to lords and peasants? That's the alternative to meritocracy.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
Surely if it’s right to apply VAT to education via school fees the same should apply to university fees
Universities and the fees they charge are highly regulated by the government, much more so than private schools. The equivalent would be to tax fees at the small number of private universities in the country.
You really are a class warrior if you believe private university students should pay VAT on fees and state university students shouldn’t. That really is grossly unfair, illogical and almost impossible to legislate for.. it’s the service that’s taxed not the provider
The government sets the fee and, to a large extent, sets the service. Fees are usually paid back by loans on non-commercial terms, set by government. If the government wants to change the system, it can do that in multiple ways.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
I am not arguing the university fees should be subject to VAT. I am arguing that it is unfair and inconsistent that education provided by private schools is subject to VAT whilst education provided by universities is not. Both should be zero rated for VAT in my opinion. Education is Education
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
All taxes, as all government expenditure, involves choices. There is no inherent logic. We choose to impose VAT on some things and not others for a whole host of reasons... but whatever the reasons, it's ultimately just a choice. We should remember that.
VAT on private school fees wouldn't have been my first choice as PM or CoE. I think Labour made a mistake in ruling out various more widely paid taxes. But they won the election, so they got to stick VAT on private school fees.
Describing those choices in emotive language ("envy", "class war") is standard politics, but not very enlightening. For a lot of voters, seeing increasing wealth inequality all around them, "class war" begins to look quite attractive, so you might find it a label that backfires.
When there is no rationale, logic consistency or robust financial justification behind choices what other conclusion can you come to.
A British-Thai cryptocurrency billionaire who is Reform UK’s biggest donor has registered to vote in Britain in a move that the party hopes will pave the way for him to give more money.
Christopher Harborne, 63, gave Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, a gift of £5 million shortly before he became an MP in 2024, and has donated £15 million to Reform since 2025
A British-Thai cryptocurrency billionaire who is Reform UK’s biggest donor has registered to vote in Britain in a move that the party hopes will pave the way for him to give more money.
Christopher Harborne, 63, gave Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, a gift of £5 million shortly before he became an MP in 2024, and has donated £15 million to Reform since 2025
Some startling commentary from one of Tommy Robinson's associated "vicars" * on the Makerfield byelection.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Sounds like it. Bunch of wackos.
There are three features I found particularly interesting:
1 - His current manner of presentation is very like a Church of England country vicar (in the UK "vicar" is a term normally used for a priest with a geographical parish). Here he is calling for people to attend the recent Unite the Kingdom rally, whilst on a country walk:
2 - His actual background is as a Pentecostal Pastor and recently transitioning to Confessing Anglican Church UK (these change names a bit regularly so are easy to misstate).
I'm surmising possibly Elim Pentecostal because his churches near Portsmouth ("Living Word Church Network") have used the "Foursquare" formulation of the gospel, which has been characteristic of Elim since Elim was founded in the 1910s.
3 - The form of satire or protest from the women in the background. That to me is very reminiscent of gay men kissing very publicly to say "we will not be forced into the closet" - make highly public that which the opponents wish to force into privacy.
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Regardless whether one thinks football supporters of one country should support the team of another, which nitwit thought this would persuade a single person not already inclined that way?
Comments
We tend to talk about things where people disagree, or where there is something new to add. Where's the bone of contention with an earthquake? What is there to say that hasn't been said before?
Over to you, Mr Burnham.
I would shift the whole education system by 2 years.
So you start education at 7.
Move to senior school at 13.
Sit GCSEs at 18
Sit A levels and start university or college at 20.
Leave full time education at 23 unless you are doing a masters etc.
This seves a whole host of purposes.
It gives children more time as children before they start formal education
It means they are not sitting important exams right in the middle of massive physical and emotional changes
It also takes into account we are shifting retirement age towards 70
I think it would do a great deal to help educational and social development.
But of course it takes lots of money to do it.
If you fall just below the mark for the 11+ when you take the test, then you would probably have been better off in an area with Comprehensives. If, on the other hand, you come in well above it, then that calculus is shifted.
Likewise, I think it's a lot easier to have a sensible Grammar school split if you are in a city or a large town. If you're in a rural area, by contrast, then getting to your local Grammar school might be next to impossible.
The goal needs to be to allow everyone to succeed to the best of their abilities, and to make sure that as many people as possible leave formal education with the skills they need to survive.
My gut is that we're having the wrong conversation here, because the real problem in the UK is not that the top 5% in the Comprehensive education system ended up poorly educated, but that the bottom 50% leave schools with very few marketable skills.
I think that's genuinely a law of economics we have to work with, that we can't fight against.
The best we can do is to link up the northern cities with better transport, so that they can function as one economic region, that has the scale to compete.
Which have the added benefit of being largely non selective.
They're large enough to have subject specialists, and to set by ability, if you want to go that route.
Off the top of my head, access to a park could be regulated and charged by a for profit company, a charity (like English Heritage), or a governmental entity. In each case, tax treatment will be different.
Apart from anything else, Bazball was also about making the most of a group of players who had failed when trying to play Test cricket in a more measured fashion. There's a new group of players now.
Apparently we have an "Islamo-Communist Government", and it is getting worse. He's overdoing his quote mining of the Bible - Andy Burnham appearing at the announcement next to a "Protect Wildlife" candidate in a fox costume leads him to make a comparison with King Herod (for whom there is a Gospel refence to Jesus calling "that fox"). He says there was "hardly any resistance" at the byelection, which is a stretch.
Here's a deep link to the segment. He is walking around Parliament Square in the sun and probably needs to get a more observant editor, unless he left the "knicker bombing" (which I have not seen before) in deliberately. I think that is unlikely for a pastor who probably wants to be seen as respectable.
https://youtu.be/yBuphSHm_yc?t=125
* This is a chap called Chris Wickland, who has appeared at several TR rallies, and is a minister in the "Confessing Anglican Church" (I think that is up to date), which is a group regarding the Anglican Communion as Apostate (the English CofE Bishops are a "nest of vipers"), and is associated with people such as Bishop Ceirion Dewar.
Politically, I think they will align mainly with Restore Britain.
Though haven’t heard much from them lately.
The whole point of Bazball was its audacity. The team has lost recently by its opponents scoring more quickly than England have managed.
Adding VAT is pointless. The government has already set the costs and benefits how they want. It would be like the government adding VAT to the fee you pay for prescriptions. It’s a largely state-mandated ecosystem.
If you think students should pay more of their own resource into the system, sure, you can make that case, but there would be several more practical ways of doing that rather than imposing VAT.
It's not as if previous sided haven't slumped in these situations, but rather than 40-4 we are 100-4.
Stokes has been a fantastic player but I sense he knows he is struggling to deliver runs in the team and is hanging on as 5 th bowler and inspirational captain. Time for a new era.
I will never forget 2019.
Quite like that tie though.
https://x.com/scotnational/status/2071243567553454125?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
However what followed made me feel a bit uneasy as he milked all the applause (fair enough) but his opening batting performance seemed more about a couldn't careless attitude to the result, just bazball
Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't seem the way his distinguished career should have ended
There’s nothing quite like it. I’m tuning out of politics and the news in general and am going into my happy tennis bubble!
I'd like to see Novak do 25.
From a tax point of view how the purchase is financed and who sets the price is irrelevant for education charges as it is for anything else.
Without realising you raise a perfect example to make my point. VAT on both NHS and private prescriptions are treated exactly the same. They are zero rated.
The point I am making is that envy and class war are behind the introduction of VAT on private school fees not fairness, logic, consistency or practicality
(I have a concentration of 'events' this summer and next)
1 - His current manner of presentation is very like a Church of England country vicar (in the UK "vicar" is a term normally used for a priest with a geographical parish). Here he is calling for people to attend the recent Unite the Kingdom rally, whilst on a country walk:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pueSGHBJJE
2 - His actual background is as a Pentecostal Pastor and recently transitioning to Confessing Anglican Church UK (these change names a bit regularly so are easy to misstate).
I'm surmising possibly Elim Pentecostal because his churches near Portsmouth ("Living Word Church Network") have used the "Foursquare" formulation of the gospel, which has been characteristic of Elim since Elim was founded in the 1910s.
3 - The form of satire or protest from the women in the background. That to me is very reminiscent of gay men kissing very publicly to say "we will not be forced into the closet" - make highly public that which the opponents wish to force into privacy.
Note to readers: most comprehensive schools are pretty good these days. A minority are poor, as is the case with independent schools.
VAT on private school fees wouldn't have been my first choice as PM or CoE. I think Labour made a mistake in ruling out various more widely paid taxes. But they won the election, so they got to stick VAT on private school fees.
Describing those choices in emotive language ("envy", "class war") is standard politics, but not very enlightening. For a lot of voters, seeing increasing wealth inequality all around them, "class war" begins to look quite attractive, so you might find it a label that backfires.
There are other weird anomolies out there. Psychology assessments do not pay VAT but psychotherapy or counselling does.
Canada 1.91
Draw 3.45
Qualify
South Africa 3.35
Canada 1.4
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/football/fifa-world-cup/south-africa-v-canada-betting-35758406
For all his faults, Charles has more taste than that.
Piers Morgan told the Laura K show this morning that Burnham should call another EU referendum.
Heaven knows we will all be miserable now, but he may get a bit of a bounce and some good fortune.
He could use some of the money to reduce costs of employment.
x1000.
But then I'm always baffled as to why otherwise intelligent people care about professional sport.
I saw a video about how to "tie your tie like the King" do one, but I'm baffled as to why it makes a difference.
(Quotes may be borked.)
@Steven_Swinford
·
29m
Exclusive:
A British-Thai cryptocurrency billionaire who is Reform UK’s biggest donor has registered to vote in Britain in a move that the party hopes will pave the way for him to give more money.
Christopher Harborne, 63, gave Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, a gift of £5 million shortly before he became an MP in 2024, and has donated £15 million to Reform since 2025
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/2071302868590596547