2024 Election thread
Comments
-
I'm not going to point out that not all local authorities and thus not all state schools are equal, and the fact there was even a grammar school available to you is a bit like the fenced in issue RC is referring to. Because you probably already know this.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 -
TheBigBean said:
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.
It would hard to be more incompetent than the incumbents. Given his caution on the EU, I'm surprised they've punted on this one despite the relatively small figures involved and the inevitable political blowback.0 -
Suspect this was a clumsy attempt at gauging how a policy would be accepted.TheBigBean said:
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.
Also suspect this is what Sunak has been up to lately.
If they had any sense, they'd stick to using polling companies rather than the national press.0 -
The grammar I went to became a comprehensive in the late 1970s....First.Aspect said:
I'm not going to point out that not all local authorities and thus not all state schools are equal, and the fact there was even a grammar school available to you is a bit like the fenced in issue RC is referring to. Because you probably already know this.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.
but weren't grammars proven to assist with social mobility for those lucky enough to pass their 11+, though to the detriment of those who went to secondary moderns.
Seemingly there are still 163 grammars in England and 5% of pupils go to them.
There are around 1,500 independent senior schools aparently.
0 -
Not sure what it was like in your day, but these days to get into a grammar school near me requires private tuition to pass the 11+.Dorset_Boy said:
The grammar I went to became a comprehensive in the late 1970s....First.Aspect said:
I'm not going to point out that not all local authorities and thus not all state schools are equal, and the fact there was even a grammar school available to you is a bit like the fenced in issue RC is referring to. Because you probably already know this.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.
but weren't grammars proven to assist with social mobility for those lucky enough to pass their 11+, though to the detriment of those who went to secondary moderns.
Seemingly there are still 163 grammars in England and 5% of pupils go to them.
There are around 1,500 independent senior schools aparently.0 -
It helps social mobility if you can afford it, yes. And be able to afford a house within the catchment.TheBigBean said:
Not sure what it was like in your day, but these days to get into a grammar school near me requires private tuition to pass the 11+.Dorset_Boy said:
The grammar I went to became a comprehensive in the late 1970s....First.Aspect said:
I'm not going to point out that not all local authorities and thus not all state schools are equal, and the fact there was even a grammar school available to you is a bit like the fenced in issue RC is referring to. Because you probably already know this.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.
but weren't grammars proven to assist with social mobility for those lucky enough to pass their 11+, though to the detriment of those who went to secondary moderns.
Seemingly there are still 163 grammars in England and 5% of pupils go to them.
There are around 1,500 independent senior schools aparently.
The closest system to remove those boundaries was supposed to be streaming within subjects.
You know, the naughty clever kids being in bottom sets, and the polite well behaved thickos in top set, so that we all promote mediocrity and suppress independent thought.
Does that still happen?0 -
My daughters both go to grammar schools.First.Aspect said:
It helps social mobility if you can afford it, yes. And be able to afford a house within the catchment.TheBigBean said:
Not sure what it was like in your day, but these days to get into a grammar school near me requires private tuition to pass the 11+.Dorset_Boy said:
The grammar I went to became a comprehensive in the late 1970s....First.Aspect said:
I'm not going to point out that not all local authorities and thus not all state schools are equal, and the fact there was even a grammar school available to you is a bit like the fenced in issue RC is referring to. Because you probably already know this.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.
but weren't grammars proven to assist with social mobility for those lucky enough to pass their 11+, though to the detriment of those who went to secondary moderns.
Seemingly there are still 163 grammars in England and 5% of pupils go to them.
There are around 1,500 independent senior schools aparently.
The closest system to remove those boundaries was supposed to be streaming within subjects.
You know, the naughty clever kids being in bottom sets, and the polite well behaved thickos in top set, so that we all promote mediocrity and suppress independent thought.
Does that still happen?
They had private tuition to get in, as did most of the kids there. Our tuition wasn't madly expensive - we just used Explore Learning in Sainsbury's. There were 11+ classes at school, but they weren't great, I wasn't confident they would be sufficient on their own. Trying to do the 11+ with neither would be like plonking your child in France with no lessons and expecting them to speak French.
It is undeniable that their friend groups are from significantly richer households than average, albeit not as extreme as the local private schools.0 -
Whoever started this thread seems to have spelt 'education' wrong
2 -
That wasn't the setup when I was at school. It was clearly a results based setup. Plenty of top tier naughty. There was a strong correlation of naughty and "thickos" though.First.Aspect said:
...
You know, the naughty clever kids being in bottom sets, and the polite well behaved thickos in top set, so that we all promote mediocrity and suppress independent thought.
Does that still happen?
"Thickos" were generally just not interested in school. There was probably a multiple of reasons for this.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 -
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Do state schools have the ability to stream any subjects these days?pblakeney said:
That wasn't the setup when I was at school. It was clearly a results based setup. Plenty of top tier naughty. There was a strong correlation of naughty and "thickos" though.First.Aspect said:
...
You know, the naughty clever kids being in bottom sets, and the polite well behaved thickos in top set, so that we all promote mediocrity and suppress independent thought.
Does that still happen?
"Thickos" were generally just not interested in school. There was probably a multiple of reasons for this.
We had it in maths and English, but not the *sciences, but disruptive kids were punished by going down a set. Often I'd have preferred the teachers to be streamed, rather than the kids.
(*Sciences plural, because there was more than one science when I were lad.)
0 -
Sorry. I thought Starmer's election mistake should be pointed out.Pross said:Whoever started this thread seems to have spelt 'education' wrong
0 -
Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.rjsterry said:
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No.First.Aspect said:
It helps social mobility if you can afford it, yes. And be able to afford a house within the catchment.TheBigBean said:
Not sure what it was like in your day, but these days to get into a grammar school near me requires private tuition to pass the 11+.Dorset_Boy said:
The grammar I went to became a comprehensive in the late 1970s....First.Aspect said:
I'm not going to point out that not all local authorities and thus not all state schools are equal, and the fact there was even a grammar school available to you is a bit like the fenced in issue RC is referring to. Because you probably already know this.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.
but weren't grammars proven to assist with social mobility for those lucky enough to pass their 11+, though to the detriment of those who went to secondary moderns.
Seemingly there are still 163 grammars in England and 5% of pupils go to them.
There are around 1,500 independent senior schools aparently.
The closest system to remove those boundaries was supposed to be streaming within subjects.
You know, the naughty clever kids being in bottom sets, and the polite well behaved thickos in top set, so that we all promote mediocrity and suppress independent thought.
Does that still happen?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Thought that was obvious, but perhaps basics of taxation needs to be on the National Curriculum.Stevo_666 said:
Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.rjsterry said:
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Some arguments flying around twitter suggesting that VAT is a more uniform way to apply tax to private schools rather than abolishing charitable status which hurts schools that are more heavily reliant on donations (usually the more prestigious schools....)rjsterry said:
Thought that was obvious, but perhaps basics of taxation needs to be on the National Curriculum.Stevo_666 said:
Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.rjsterry said:
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?0 -
-
Starmer has stated two things recently: the UK won't diverge from the EU and that he intends to apply VAT to private schools. The latter is apparently not allowed under EU rules, so not only does it contradict his first statement, it is a GB only policy.
0 -
And is also a waste of a policy as it won't remotely affect any perceived or real imbalance in the achievement of state versus private pupils.TheBigBean said:Starmer has stated two things recently: the UK won't diverge from the EU and that he intends to apply VAT to private schools. The latter is apparently not allowed under EU rules, so not only does it contradict his first statement, it is a GB only policy.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think the more prestigous private schools are less reliant on donations as they have build up huge trust type funds in the past.rick_chasey said:
Some arguments flying around twitter suggesting that VAT is a more uniform way to apply tax to private schools rather than abolishing charitable status which hurts schools that are more heavily reliant on donations (usually the more prestigious schools....)rjsterry said:
Thought that was obvious, but perhaps basics of taxation needs to be on the National Curriculum.Stevo_666 said:
Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.rjsterry said:
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?0 -
Some also have investment schools in other countries. No idea how that works.Dorset_Boy said:
I think the more prestigous private schools are less reliant on donations as they have build up huge trust type funds in the past.rick_chasey said:
Some arguments flying around twitter suggesting that VAT is a more uniform way to apply tax to private schools rather than abolishing charitable status which hurts schools that are more heavily reliant on donations (usually the more prestigious schools....)rjsterry said:
Thought that was obvious, but perhaps basics of taxation needs to be on the National Curriculum.Stevo_666 said:
Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.rjsterry said:
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?0 -
rick_chasey said:
Some arguments flying around twitter suggesting that VAT is a more uniform way to apply tax to private schools rather than abolishing charitable status which hurts schools that are more heavily reliant on donations (usually the more prestigious schools....)rjsterry said:
Thought that was obvious, but perhaps basics of taxation needs to be on the National Curriculum.Stevo_666 said:
Correct. Also VAT isn't connected to profit as implied above.rjsterry said:
VAT registration has nothing to do with charitable status as far as I'm aware. It's purely about whether what you are selling is on the list or not.pblakeney said:
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?
0 -
Can't think of a good argument against this that doesn't work for schools as well.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.
0 -
Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:
0 -
Rick's hacked your account!kingstongraham said:Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:
If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.0 -
It is nice when the evidence backs up one's assumptions.kingstongraham said:Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:
0 -
To be honest, it's the over 65s that are out of step with the rest of the population on almost every question.0
-
What's the point of the Libs except for for some kind of token jesture coalition.
They need to to call themselves the New Libs go a bit Tory and find a charismatic leader, Blair like.0 -
Look at the numbers for all under 65s!kingstongraham said:Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:
Mental0 -
Need something to vote for, first.Pross said:
Rick's hacked your account!kingstongraham said:Look at that number for young people in the latest YouGov poll:
If only the younger generations would get out and vote in the same numbers as the geriatrics.0
