To ask if anyone is clued up on the challenge this week to VAT on school fees?

Cut it's cloth = make teachers redundant.
Most indy schools have approx 1 term surplus because they simply aren't the high profile likes of Eton etc.
They are cutting cloth by reducing, or stopping, bursaries + scholarships and making redundancies

No-one is closing the schools. They are businesses, paid for, and if you can’t afford the service don’t use it. Just as you buy the car you can afford or go in the holiday within your budget.
If a private school closes it’s because it wasn’t commercially viable or badly run. Or refuse to cut its cloth.

Well that’s bullshit. Because I had to pick a school in a catchment. I couldn’t just decide that I wanted another school 10 miles away.
So the state absolutely interferes.

It is completely hypocritical of a Labour Government that introduced the Human Rights Act in the 2000s in to direct law in the UK to strengthen it to then go ahead and deliberately breach it, knowingly.

This is a bit premature - why not wait for the outcome of the judicial review?

It really proves to many of us that the Labour Party is as fundamentally broken as the Tories and the ramifications of that are deeply worrying. You have the old school brigade that want to harm private schools at all cost, including the cost of the Human Rights Act. Absolutely shameful behaviour and also entirely ignorant. The private schools sector is as varied as the state school sector with many smaller players picking up the pieces where the state failed children.

The ECHR is there to prevent autocracies and fundamental breaches of human rights, as a back stop.
Parliament may be sovereign but they are not above the law. It is completely hypocritical of a Labour Government that introduced the Human Rights Act in the 2000s in to direct law in the UK to strengthen it to then go ahead and deliberately breach it, knowingly. Manifesto pledge or no manifesto pledge - Parliament is not above the law.

Sounds like prisoners not getting the vote to me. Mainly the prisoner who actually started the case.

The Hirst judgment was in 2005, and there wasn’t any resolution until 2018. It was also regarded as the ECtHR overstepping its remit and encroaching on parliamentary legislative authority.

People convicted and serving a custodial sentence are not allowed to vote whilst detained in custody.

Sounds like prisoners not getting the vote to me. Mainly the prisoner who actually started the case.

All the change in the law did was make it clear that "prisoners" isn't the same as "people in prison". Which is semantics, not ethics.

The UK did eventually partially change the law on prisoner voting so as to comply with the ruling.

prisonreformtrust.org.uk/updated-guidance-on-voting-in-prison/

Why is it so hard to explain to non U.K. friends? It’s pretty straight forward, the U.K. Government want to tax education. Do you mean because they think it couldn’t happen in their non U.K. countries? A lot of people thought it couldn’t happen here as well.

Labour can of course ignore the ruling, going to be interesting.

I do, however, think it is a pernicious awful measure rushed in without giving people time to prepare.

Well that certainly is nothing new.

(I don't think the litigation will be won, sadly, but I live in hope. I do, however, think it is a pernicious awful measure rushed in without giving people time to prepare. It would also be illegal in the EU.)

Ha ha, yes of course closing independent schools will lead to more diverse education.

Shrug.

I'm not pretending anything. Just to annoy some here, I have no skin in this game (that flew a long time ago). I'm just watching from the sidelines and dropping in when I have a thought. Or not, depending what you think.

If I had to explain this to my non UK friends (which isn't easy) then it would be: new government introduces legislation to deliver a manifesto pledge while a minority of affected people voice their unhappiness. Put that way, the response would universally be : "You what ? How is that even news ? It's a tale as old as time !".

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.

In broader terms I am interested in the concept of a court striking down legislation that was part of a manifesto pledge. Especially in the UK which has managed to avoid a single codified constitution when it comes to such things.

As I recall, the last time a UK government and the ECHR locked horns was over the issue of prisoners votes. The ECHR said prisoners had to have them. The UK - in the form of David Cameron - said "Thanks for the advice, but we're grand." and guess what. No prisoner got a vote. This clearly showing that whatever the ECHR rules, the UK - as a sovereign nation - doesn't have to comply. However since this issue is now a chew toy in the yappy mouths of Reform and the Tories, it impinges on politics in a wider environment. nothing exists in a vacuum (literally !). Folk here might be preoccupied with VAT on private schools. But looking to the ECHR for a resolution makes it a much more general issue. Especially if you are a fan of human rights.

@SerendipityJane - please stop pretending this is a Tory/Reform issue only.

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/vat-private-schools-step-far

Plenty of Labour MPs are against VAT on education. It is just that Starmer whipped them.

I also cannot understand how they can charge VAT on the boarding element of any private schools, if they have exempted it in the state sector. That makes zero sense either. It is welfare services. Kids attending schools miles away from home - charging VAT on that element does not appear consistent.

The Labour Government is acting in bad faith and will likely lose in court and are likely to deliberately delay the court case because they most likely want to cause maximum damage to the sector. If bad faith towards children can be proven eventually in the form of legal advice they will have received, they are likely to have to pay out damages towards those children.

It is inexcusable to go for small schools which charge similar amounts to state schools. It is inexcusable to go for any children with SEND when the state has already failed them.
I am losing all respect for the Labour Party.

The point is that the ECHR enshrines in law the freedom for parents to choose, without interference from the state.

Schrodinger's private school isn't it ?

FSM are a big problem for many disabled children whether they attend a state school, independent school or have EOTAS. A parent led campaign by a mother called Natalie Hay resulted in a change to the government guidance earlier this year that benefited many disabled DC. Contact now has several model letters parents can use to request funding. Including a model letter for DC in the independent sector or a NMSS where LAs don’t have a duty to fund FSM but do have the power to do so.

Ok, so? Perhaps those children would benefit from a wider more diverse education.
I’d say that regardless of the faith, BTW.

It is a pity the litigation cannot start with an emergency injunction application to stop the application of VAT on fees from January which apparently was in a regulation not the Bill which is not yet an Act.

On the Charedi community who as seen above will also be hit by this terrible new measure, they did lose a court case about free school lunches on the basis they are private not state schools. London gave free school meals to children but not to those in privat4e schools even those in private schools where many parents in this particular case perhaps live in poverty with low incomes. https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2024/1305.html

I’m totally lost now. I can’t tell if you support education tax, support Brexit because it made it easier to tax education, don’t support Brexit but support taxing education, think the ECHR protects us from education tax, didn’t support Brexit and support education taxing or are voting reform to remove us from ECHR in order to tax education.

The only irony I see is that Labour/Starmer, who seemingly support the EU + ECHR, are actively going against them with this policy.

I'd hate to be passive aggressive. People might think I wasn't trying ...

My point was really just highlighting the fact that not only would this thread not exist if it weren't for Brexit. But a lot of supposed allies to the cause are actively campaigning to remove any legal basis for the challenge.

It would be richly ironic if in 4 years time some people here are pushing for a Labour win as a Tory/Reform frankenwin could see the UK out of the ECHR and the protections it affords us all.

It's noting personal.

However the Daily Mail might actually be a big help here. They are massive supporters of the ECHR and will defend it to the death.