2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Here's the sort of thing that reinforces that lack of social mobility.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/feb/05/critics-take-aim-at-subsidies-given-to-private-schools#:~:text=For many parents who can,£2.5bn a year.
Ensuring General Melchitt's children have the best education before taking up their assured place at Sandhurst in order to fill that vacant officer position waiting for them.0 -
Reality is supporters of private schools are either people who went through the walled system or believe they have the chance their kids will.0
-
One thing threads like this have taught me.
BR Forum is not representative of the UK population as a whole.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
Yes, based on my question on the previous page, I think we will learn that fewer of the forumites than average went to private school.pblakeney said:One thing threads like this have taught me.
BR Forum is not representative of the UK population as a whole.1 -
Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.Jezyboy said:
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.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.rjsterry said:
Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.Jezyboy said:
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.
Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.0 -
joeyhalloran said:
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)
That's me in the photo - I am paid to go into local state schools to help them increase their music provision & activities. This one currently has about 50% of its pupils on pupil premium.
0 -
Well, all of it obviously.First.Aspect said:
Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.rjsterry said:
Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.Jezyboy said:
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.
Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.0 -
You can't make VAT payable by the seller. I'm embarrassed that they even thought such bollox would wash.First.Aspect said:
Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.rjsterry said:
Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.Jezyboy said:
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.
Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
briantrumpet said:
Not arguing but interested; what help do private schools provide to the state sector?
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)
That's me in the photo - I am paid to go into local state schools to help them increase their music provision & activities. This one currently has about 50% of its pupils on pupil premium.
"The scheme is funded by Devon and Torbay Music Education Hubs."
The music club is partnered with Exeter School - a private school which is helping support the group with music teachers.
It's not quite clear to me how much help the private school is providing if it is funded by the "Education Hubs", either way that sounds great for the children.
One thing I have heard from numerous teachers in the state school recently is that their job is far less about teaching and schools have become a fill-in for lacking social services. They previously 'only' had to focus on children not being fed before coming to school, they are now dealing with homelessness, family evictions etc... on a significant scale.0 -
Can confirm that our local primary has effectively omitted music as they have no available funding and no capable in house staff. They literally have a cupboard full of instruments that no-one knows how to use. This is one of the Harris academies. One can see why he's f***ed off with his party.briantrumpet said:joeyhalloran said:
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)
That's me in the photo - I am paid to go into local state schools to help them increase their music provision & activities. This one currently has about 50% of its pupils on pupil premium.
Thankfully the secondary both of ours now attend has a good music department.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I really don't think your massive chip on the shoulder on this issue is all that representative.rick_chasey said:Reality is supporters of private schools are either people who went through the walled system or believe they have the chance their kids will.
I also think you believe that all private schools are along the lines of Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc, which they certainly are not. There is a wide variety of schools.
There are plenty of parents who make big sacrifices to send their kids privately. And plenty of private schools offer decent bursaries, and some even 100% bursaries.
Not everyone lives within easy access to a decent state school, and so make the sacrifice.
As (I think) Brian has alluded to, music, sport and drama are areas where there is often liason between the private and state sectors.
For FA's benefit, I went to a grammar that became a comp in my 3rd year.
My son went to state primary and then private because the two local state secondary schools are pretty shite.0 -
Exactly this. Anyone liable for VAT payments charges VAT.rjsterry said:
You can't make VAT payable by the seller. I'm embarrassed that they even thought such bollox would wash.First.Aspect said:
Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.rjsterry said:
Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.Jezyboy said:
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.
Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.
Surely a not for profit organisation reinvests everything and has no profits?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.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.
In what way do you mean RC, in terms of the link between schools and social class? I would agree that those who are privately educated are obviously at a huge advantage in terms of social status, employment, earning potential etc. I would say that this accounts for a very small % of the population though.
Social class is still a huge divide in the UK and a massive barrier to social mobility. Where you go to school and the quality of the education you receive is, of course, a direct link to this but just one part of the picture.
I worked in youth education and employment (with charities, LEA's, govt depts etc.) for a decade. One of the fundamental issues around social mobility which gets overlooked is confidence and self esteem of the individual. A lot of people from marginalised backgrounds struggle with social mobility because they (understandably) lack the confidence and belief that they are capable and will be given opportunities. If you have never had an issue with this, it is astonishing how big a factor this is for many people, they become entrenched in the idea (usually because they have had little encouragement, support in their lives) that they cannot succeed, get good jobs, improve their lives etc. It has a massive knock on effect across many areas of their lives.
School is a part of this, but general inequality, marginalisation, prejudice and how they are negatively perceived are the biggest drivers.
This is before we even get into far more complex issues like structural oppression, institutional racism, which I would argue are even bigger barriers to social mobility. I worked on employment and training support with young (mainly black) men across London for 2 years. I won't get into the kinds of prejudice and daily aggressions the lads I worked with faced (and I often witnessed first hand), but one thing I would say is that most people really have no comprehension of the challenges a lot of people face day to day and how this negatively impacts (and often ruins) their lives.
This is one the major thing that p!!sses me off with right wingers who moan about becoming marginalized and 'woke' people taking over. They (like myself and I would guess most of us on here) are white middle class men with good jobs and social status. We do not face any kind of prejudice, from a social mobility point of view, we live absolutely charmed lives. But I guess that is the point for a lot of people, those who fear genuine equality are afraid that their own preserved status will be challenged.
Rant over 😂2 -
6,000 children nationwide get free education at private schools according to the article linked above.Dorset_Boy said:
I really don't think your massive chip on the shoulder on this issue is all that representative.rick_chasey said:Reality is supporters of private schools are either people who went through the walled system or believe they have the chance their kids will.
I also think you believe that all private schools are along the lines of Eton, Harrow, Winchester etc, which they certainly are not. There is a wide variety of schools.
There are plenty of parents who make big sacrifices to send their kids privately. And plenty of private schools offer decent bursaries, and some even 100% bursaries.
Not everyone lives within easy access to a decent state school, and so make the sacrifice.
As (I think) Brian has alluded to, music, sport and drama are areas where there is often liason between the private and state sectors.
For FA's benefit, I went to a grammar that became a comp in my 3rd year.
My son went to state primary and then private because the two local state secondary schools are pretty shite.
0 -
joeyhalloran said:
The music club is partnered with Exeter School - a private school which is helping support the group with music teachers.
It's not quite clear to me how much help the private school is providing if it is funded by the "Education Hubs", either way that sounds great for the children.
One thing I have heard from numerous teachers in the state school recently is that their job is far less about teaching and schools have become a fill-in for lacking social services. They previously 'only' had to focus on children not being fed before coming to school, they are now dealing with homelessness, family evictions etc... on a significant scale.
Sightly misleading wording in the report. The music club has been match-funded by the music hub, but I was paid by my school for two terms prior to this to go in weekly, with pupils from my school, for a full afternoon of leading class music activities. We've been doing this for about 15 years around Exeter. This year we're going into another local primary school to help develop their singing provision and to develop the skills of the music lead there.2 -
Simply ask yourself why one of the questions at a job application/interview is "What school did you attend?".
The qualifications alone should suffice.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Making u-turns - it feels like they are already in Government!First.Aspect said:
Seems like Labour have U-turned on it already anyway.rjsterry said:
Recruitment is a problem, certainly. Looking at the cost of the last agreed pay settlement for teachers, VAT on fees won't make any difference to that.Jezyboy said:
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.
Besides, as I understand it, the VAT would be payable by the schools, not on the fees, so would be a question of how much of a dent in the profits of these charitable not for profit organisations there would be, and how much passed on to the poor, poor parents.0 -
Can you provide a link to this as it doesn't make any sense? Private schools do pay VAT on costs already and are not able to recover it, because they don't charge VAT on their supplies. If they did charge VAT on their supplies then they could recover the VAT on costs.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....0 -
I did the entrance exam for one and was first reserve for a full bursary but without that my parents couldn't send me there. From my experiences of people who did go I'm not convinced they are academically more gifted but tend to be more confident in their ability. The fact that I nearly got a free place at one (albeit a very minor one) suggests the academic levels weren't that high, I was towards the top end of my classes through school but wasn't exacly a child prodigy.First.Aspect said:
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 -
Providing the teachers are communicating well and there is consistency in the teaching I don't think that is necessarily an issue. It could be quite good for the children not to get too attached to an individual teacher.rick_chasey said: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'm not sure if it is still the case (or if it ever was in reality) but I remember being told that teachers at private schools get paid less that those in state schools but there's no shortage of people wanting to take the jobs.Jezyboy said:
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 -
Yeah, consistency. Still waiting on that. So far she's had 6 teachers in 3 weeks.Pross said:
Providing the teachers are communicating well and there is consistency in the teaching I don't think that is necessarily an issue. It could be quite good for the children not to get too attached to an individual teacher.rick_chasey said: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).
I think there are chronic staffing issues and they are constantly fighting fires.
In better news. The new headteacher lasted 1 term and they have refused to announce to the parents that they have left, even though they definitely have.0 -
I was the last year of Direct Grant at a cathedral school with fantastic music provision. I remember one term the bill for one of my best friends was £13, of which £7 was for a rugby shirt. The social mix of the school definitely changed the following year.
The school is now an Academy, with specialisms in maths & music.0 -
Found the Starmer quote. It is worryingly ignorant for likely next PM.Sir Keir said his proposed tax rise “is not an attack on private schools”, adding: “It’s just saying an exemption you have had is going to go. I would add that it’s the VAT on schools that we are taking away.
“The school doesn’t have to pass this on to the parents in fees. And each of the schools is going to have to ask themselves whether that’s what they want to do.”0 -
There was a lot of talk yesterday about getting kids back to school since lockdown. Maybe it has applied to staff as well. My sister teaches in a primary school, one of her colleagues returned from maternity leave on the first day of term and the following day called in with stress.rick_chasey said:
Yeah, consistency. Still waiting on that. So far she's had 6 teachers in 3 weeks.Pross said:
Providing the teachers are communicating well and there is consistency in the teaching I don't think that is necessarily an issue. It could be quite good for the children not to get too attached to an individual teacher.rick_chasey said: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).
I think there are chronic staffing issues and they are constantly fighting fires.0 -
TheBigBean said:
Found the Starmer quote. It is worryingly ignorant for likely next PM.
Sir Keir said his proposed tax rise “is not an attack on private schools”, adding: “It’s just saying an exemption you have had is going to go. I would add that it’s the VAT on schools that we are taking away.
“The school doesn’t have to pass this on to the parents in fees. And each of the schools is going to have to ask themselves whether that’s what they want to do.”
Still has the hallmarks of wanting (on principle) of 'doing something' to address the inequality of provision, but the solution is not fiscally worth the electoral risk.0 -
I have recently paid invoices to a private school (one of the "famous" ones). They certainly charge VAT at the prevailing rate. However, this was for rental of space and is done through an entity called "XXXXXXXXXXXXXX School Enterprises" which is presumably a technically separate entity to the school itself.TheBigBean said:
Can you provide a link to this as it doesn't make any sense? Private schools do pay VAT on costs already and are not able to recover it, because they don't charge VAT on their supplies. If they did charge VAT on their supplies then they could recover the VAT on costs.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....Wilier Izoard XP0 -
That's because that supply is not exempt from VAT, so they need to charge it. This will then help them recover some VAT on their costs.laurentian said:
I have recently paid invoices to a private school (one of the "famous" ones). They certainly charge VAT at the prevailing rate. However, this was for rental of space and is done through an entity called "XXXXXXXXXXXXXX School Enterprises" which is presumably a technically separate entity to the school itself.TheBigBean said:
Can you provide a link to this as it doesn't make any sense? Private schools do pay VAT on costs already and are not able to recover it, because they don't charge VAT on their supplies. If they did charge VAT on their supplies then they could recover the VAT on costs.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....1 -
I don't mind him wanting to address inequality, but he needs to be competent in doing it. At the moment, he is a man without policy, but leading in the polls due to his perceived competence being so much better than the incumbents.briantrumpet said:TheBigBean said:Found the Starmer quote. It is worryingly ignorant for likely next PM.
Sir Keir said his proposed tax rise “is not an attack on private schools”, adding: “It’s just saying an exemption you have had is going to go. I would add that it’s the VAT on schools that we are taking away.
“The school doesn’t have to pass this on to the parents in fees. And each of the schools is going to have to ask themselves whether that’s what they want to do.”
Still has the hallmarks of wanting (on principle) of 'doing something' to address the inequality of provision, but the solution is not fiscally worth the electoral risk.0
