2024 Election thread
Comments
-
-
I'm guessing to came from here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/281416/birth-rate-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/Dorset_Boy said:
What 22% fall is this Brian?briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
They must think that the state school system is underused and it needs more pupils.TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
There are murmurings about changing democratics and that when the 22% drop in birth rate kicks into schools and universities it's going to lead to significant school closures. So, from Labour's POV, shunting more people into the state sector is probably a timely move.
In 1978 there were 11.983 births per 1000 people. In 2023 it is expected to be 11.267, a 6% difference, but there population is higher now than in 1978.....
In 2021 the live birth rate of the United Kingdom fell to 10.4 births per 1,000 population, the lowest it had been during this time period. From 2010 onwards the birth rate in the United Kingdom declined steadily, after reaching a high of 12.9.
0 -
Is that an estimate of net gain after funding more state school places or just 20% of current school fees?rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
1 -
Which is why it is sensible to avoid it if you are trying to win over swing voters.rick_chasey said:
Red meat for the base, surely.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
0 -
You want your politicians to say what they want to do before they get elected, don’t you?TheBigBean said:
Which is why it is sensible to avoid it if you are trying to win over swing voters.rick_chasey said:
Red meat for the base, surely.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
0 -
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
0 -
I'd say if the Labour swing has reached the territory of people paying private school fees they'll be fairly content to have that argument“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
0 -
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
0 -
Why not get it on private medical treatment as well?joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
0 -
From the IFS. Includes cost of creating the required extra school places. Given the shortage of teaching staff, I'd imagine they have just looked at costs rather than the practicalities of finding the extra space and resources.TheBigBean said:
Is that an estimate of net gain after funding more state school places or just 20% of current school fees?rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Would think the typical swing voter is more likely than average to have a child at a fee paying school.joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Well private medical cover is a lot more accessible.TheBigBean said:
Why not get it on private medical treatment as well?joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
For example I get it through my work but I can't afford £18k per year X 13 years = £234k per child0 -
Tax is a percentage though so I don't really follow your logic. Private medical costs less, you say, so VAT would be much less.joeyhalloran said:
Well private medical cover is a lot more accessible.TheBigBean said:
Why not get it on private medical treatment as well?joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
For example I get it through my work but I can't afford £18k per year X 13 years = £234k per child
0 -
It's not about the %. It's how many people are you taking money from and will they vote for you? For labour better to take more money from a small group that likely won't vote for you anyway than to take a small amount from lots of people who may well vote for you.0
-
Moat people whonhave it through employment probably already pay at least 40% tax on private medical.TheBigBean said:
Tax is a percentage though so I don't really follow your logic. Private medical costs less, you say, so VAT would be much less.joeyhalloran said:
Well private medical cover is a lot more accessible.TheBigBean said:
Why not get it on private medical treatment as well?joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
For example I get it through my work but I can't afford £18k per year X 13 years = £234k per child0 -
Very much an estimate then I would presume as I imagine it can't factor in private schools closing in the same way it doesn't factor in new schoola needing to be built.rjsterry said:
From the IFS. Includes cost of creating the required extra school places. Given the shortage of teaching staff, I'd imagine they have just looked at costs rather than the practicalities of finding the extra space and resources.TheBigBean said:
Is that an estimate of net gain after funding more state school places or just 20% of current school fees?rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
0 -
No different to school fees or bananas.First.Aspect said:
Moat people whonhave it through employment probably already pay at least 40% tax on private medical.TheBigBean said:
Tax is a percentage though so I don't really follow your logic. Private medical costs less, you say, so VAT would be much less.joeyhalloran said:
Well private medical cover is a lot more accessible.TheBigBean said:
Why not get it on private medical treatment as well?joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
For example I get it through my work but I can't afford £18k per year X 13 years = £234k per child0 -
Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.
Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.0 -
joeyhalloran said:
Seems like an easy win to get £1.5 billion from people they won't get votes from anyway.rjsterry said:Seems like a lot of aggro for £1.5bn of revenue.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Topsham (which is one of the wealthiest wards in Exeter City Council) has elected two Labour Councillors, and a lot of the parents at the (fee paying) school where I work are NHS doctors and consultants.
I can see why Labour would do this, as a point of principle, but it's relatively small beer (especially if it does shift costs to the state sector, and Labour funds that better than the Tories), and could lose them votes from the middle classes while not gaining any more from their traditional supporters.0 -
I'm not sure limiting private schools is a worthwhile or useful goal. If people want to pay through the nose for a slightly better equipped school gym or whatever it's less wasteful than plenty of other things. Any decent state secondary school has by now picked up the tricks of getting the best results you can out of a cohort and establishing links with HE and employers.Jezyboy said:
Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.
Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
I think it's far too sweeping an assumption to think it won't cost them any votes.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
rjsterry said:
I'm not sure limiting private schools is a worthwhile or useful goal. If people want to pay through the nose for a slightly better equipped school gym or whatever it's less wasteful than plenty of other things. Any decent state secondary school has by now picked up the tricks of getting the best results you can out of a cohort and establishing links with HE and employers.Jezyboy said:
Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.
Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
I think it's far too sweeping an assumption to think it won't cost them any votes.
Yup. There are plenty of 'natural Tory voters' who are massively peed off with this shambles of a government who I suspect will be intending to vote like me. For those who have or will have children at fee-paying schools, Labour's proposal might just nudge some of them to hesitate over their choice.
Given Starmer's caution in not giving Tories any ammunition, making a stand on this does seem a bit odd, as I really can't see it winning then any more votes, and might lose them some that they will need.0 -
The spin this morning is that it isn't VAT on school fees, it is VAT on the schools themselves, and it is then up to the school whether they pass that on or not.
Presumably that will involve some enforced change to the charitable status of the schools, which will mean them probably stopping helping out the state sector in the various areas that the do that....0 -
Why would Starmer go after his base with a Tory party like this?Jezyboy said:
Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.
Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
There is an opportunity cost to everything and this is the cost of going after centrist voters.
I think the cost is low versus the gains.
I also think the forum underestimates the anger a lot of people have with the walled garden system the private education creates. (I appreciate making private school more expensive doesn't necessarily help this, but given the vast vast vast majority of people are locked out of it anyway, the attitude is very much "why are you getting charitable status for something that is demonstrably self enriching, if you can afford it).
0 -
Cards on the table though, I think the school system is one of the most critical barriers to social mobility, and I defy anyone to argue against that.0
-
I'm not so sure, a colleague's child at an "outstanding" state school had to teach themselves half their chemistry a level, as the teacher was re assigned half way through the year. That just seems incredibly unlikely at a private school.rjsterry said:
I'm not sure limiting private schools is a worthwhile or useful goal. If people want to pay through the nose for a slightly better equipped school gym or whatever it's less wasteful than plenty of other things. Any decent state secondary school has by now picked up the tricks of getting the best results you can out of a cohort and establishing links with HE and employers.Jezyboy said:
Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.
Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
I think it's far too sweeping an assumption to think it won't cost them any votes.
The teacher's I've met at private schools seem to almost be doing an entirely different job compared to a state school.
0 -
I think given that anger, this would be a relatively uncontroversial policy amongst a lot of people.rick_chasey said:
Why would Starmer go after his base with a Tory party like this?Jezyboy said:
Thus far I think he's done a poor job of securing his base. He needs to win back the traditional "base" too, given the result in red wall constituencies.TheBigBean said:
Yes, but does it win votes? Does a swing voter think "great, the rich are paying more" or "is Starmer going to get me in some way too"?Jezyboy said:
Sure, but I think there are many more people that find the idea of having 50k out of your post tax income to spend slightly insane, so will immediately not feel in any way sorry for them.TheBigBean said:
I think anyone who thinks this is a great policy (rich should pay more etc.) probably already votes labour, but I think there will be a number of potential swing voters who struggle to pay £50k a year in school fees (for two kids) who would decide not to vote labour purely due to the £10k post tax hit. I think that single point will outweigh all other considerations.Jezyboy said:
Why?TheBigBean said:Surprised labour are openly talking about VAT on private school fees.
Private school is just miles off the radar for most couples.
It also gives interviewers easy questions around how the struggling state sector is going to absorb a load of new pupils.
Private healthcare also doesn't have VAT. Is that another area to go after?
Just seems an odd move for man who has made a career out of saying nothing.
Time will tell.
Also, I think a good way to limit private schools is to improve the state schools. The only reason I would consider private schools is crime in the state ones.
I too think making the state sector better is the best way of limiting private schools, but when school fees are multiples of the state school per pupil funding, that seems like an enormous challenge.
Obviously VAT on school fees isn't a fix for this though.
There is an opportunity cost to everything and this is the cost of going after centrist voters.
I think the cost is low versus the gains.
I also think the forum underestimates the anger a lot of people have with the walled garden system the private education creates. (I appreciate making private school more expensive doesn't necessarily help this, but given the vast vast vast majority of people are locked out of it anyway, the attitude is very much "why are you getting charitable status for something that is demonstrably self enriching, if you can afford it).
0 -
Not arguing but interested; what help do private schools provide to the state sector?Dorset_Boy said:The spin this morning is that it isn't VAT on school fees, it is VAT on the schools themselves, and it is then up to the school whether they pass that on or not.
Presumably that will involve some enforced change to the charitable status of the schools, which will mean them probably stopping helping out the state sector in the various areas that the do that....
I agree with RC, a good school system is massively important to social mobility and a meritocracy. It just takes a generation to work (or fail)0 -
Lol my reception class daughter doesn't even have the same teacher every day (3 teachers, one on Monday, one Tus-Wed-Thurs and a different one on Friday).0
-
I agree.rick_chasey said:Cards on the table though, I think the school system is one of the most critical barriers to social mobility, and I defy anyone to argue against that.
Interesting to know who here went to private school?
0
