£240 million allocated to new grammar schools in the Autumn Statement

"It has to be our priority to educate our brightest children to their maximum potential."

Indeed. So how about improving the existing comprehensive schools instead then?

DD is bright. She did exceptionally well in her GCSEs in a good comprehensive. It isn't rocket science.

It won't be cut so much as the costs will just go up massively (with each new announcement about National Insurance, pension contributions, minimum wage, etc), as will inflation... which funnily enough, results in massive cuts having to be made in education in general, as the same money as last year pays for one hell of a lot less this year. Meanwhile, of course, if you retain good staff, they get more experienced each year and more effective and therefore cost more to employ, not the same. Clearly the government wants low paid, unqualified, inexperienced people working in and running our schools, and massive class sizes, in order to keep the costs down. Not that it has been averse to the idea of spending huge amounts of money on structural changes to the way good schools are run at a time of huge money shortages and now throwing away a little bit more still on the idea of creating new grammar schools. I would far rather an extra £7.50 per child than throw away £240 million on another underfunded project destined to be disruptive and distract energy and attention away from the mess the government is making of education in general.

The schools getting more money will be happy but the schools losing money will scream blue murder

There will be transitional arrangements. The details are not yet clear but no school will see its funding cut. It may be frozen or, more likely, rise at a slower rate but it won't be cut.

It has to be our priority to educate our brightest children to their maximum potential

Really?
My priority would be to ensure all dc are given access to the best education for that child.
I wouldn't have an issue with a Government announcing additional money for grammar schools if they were funding specialist provision properly. There are simply nowhere near enough specialist places for the children in our authority that require them. I think any half decent society ought to prioritise the most vulnerable in their society.

I agree with a fair national funding formula, but how will that ever happen? The schools getting more money will be happy but the schools losing money will scream blue murder, we will have union strikes and the idea will be decimated.

Rather than wasting money on underfunding new grammar schools, the DfE could always get its finger out of its arse and work out a fair national funding formula and increase the education budget before too many good people haemorrhage from the education sector.

any new schools being opened shouldn't be faith schools either

So just say to the parents who pay for schools "I dont care what you want, go to the bog standard local school". I would like to see the government who dictated that to families. Never going to happen.

they shouldn't exclude at least 75% of the local population

Why not? most oversubscribed comprehensives exclude a large number of locals on various different criteria.

This is indeed well off topic.

Not sure why you say "no longer allowable". This hasn't changed since the 2013 version of 733. Under the flat rate scheme the business can only reclaim VAT on capital expenditure. Motor expenses, travel and subsistence are not capital expenditure. They are therefore factored in to the rate used. The flat rate set for any type of business is supposed to approximate to the VAT a typical business of that type would pay if it was not using the flat rate scheme. If a particular business is paying substantially more in motor expenses, travel, subsistence or other VATable supplies than a typical business in its sector it may be well advised to avoid the flat rate scheme.

Money can be found when it suits the whim of the PM

So what do think children should do that won't have schools places?

prh
diverting the thread, but why is expenditure on motor expenses no longer allowable under flat rate VAT ? or travel and subsistence ? or any sort of capex ?

roundabout
Yup, the 4 day week in Sussex looms nearer

Well, if schools start implementing four day weeks and slashing staff numbers, £240 million on grammar schools is going to look as fucking inane as it actually is. Pissing in the wind won't fix chronic underfunding.

It is, of course, possible for any business that is disadvantaged by the changes to the Flat Rate Scheme to leave it at any time.

I'm struggling to understand what you are getting at here. Are you, perhaps, referring to paragraph 15.2 of VAT Notice 733 which says that you cannot reclaim VAT on capital expenditure on services? That has not changed from the 2013 version. And since such spending is taken into account in calculating the flat rate I struggle to see how it is morally wrong.

If you are referring to some other provision please explain.

prh47
The fact that the proposed VAT changes to the scheme disbar spending on services - such as design or graphics or legal or accounting - is morally wrong.
I have two totally legit businesses who will be hit quite hard by the arbitrary nature of the change.

It is so sad that Philip Hammond had no bravery at all in this Autumn Statement

That said, this is a stupid vanity project at a time when existing schools are struggling for funds

Spot on. Ed Dorrell (TES editor so should know) claims that existing grammar Heads hardly have a good word to say about the Green Paper.

No. It benefits the company in that situation.

Imagine you are an IT software consultant. You work for a client for a couple of weeks and bill them £5,000 plus £1,000 VAT. Your total spending in that period is £20 on office supplies on which you have paid £4 VAT. Under the normal VAT rules you would pay £996 to HMRC - the VAT you have charged your client less the VAT you have paid. Under the Flat Rate Scheme you will actually pay £870 to HMRC, giving you an additional £126 profit. Following the changes you will pay £990 to HMRC, reducing your additional profit in this scenario to £6.

The flat rate scheme benefits the government though surely if a company who doesn't purchase a lot pays it?

You can't use it once your turnover is over a certain amount anyway.

the VAT raid on small businesses is pretty shitty too

I guess you are talking about the changes to the Flat Rate Scheme designed to make it harder for businesses to misuse the scheme in order to underpay VAT as highlighted by the Guardian recently. Long overdue and not at all shitty.

Most small businesses won't be affected. Those that are affected will be businesses that spend very little on goods. These businesses are generally paying significantly less VAT than they should.

When the coalition came to power, funding on a programme of repairing, and in some cases rebuilding existing LEA schools, was scrapped immediately - those schools that had already had their building work funded were lucky and others were very unfortunate and missed out. That's leaving aside the ongoing maintenance and emergency repairs that all public buildings need.