Why are Labour and Phillipson shutting down democratic debate?

[Another76543]

Yet again, another petty social media post about private schools. I understand that many people disagree with private education. Many people agree with it. Why are Labour trying to stop democratic debate around this policy which disrupts the lives of many children? Her Facebook page also appears to be removing any comments she doesn’t agree with.

If you truly believe in something, have some backbone and stand up for your principles. Don’t try to silence those with a different opinion.

The post also shows a serious lack of comprehension of the tax system. This has nothing to do with tax on private schools; it’s a tax on parents. It’s the parents, not the schools, which have to pay any VAT.

For some reason, the Labour Party don’t want scrutiny of any kind. They don’t want this policy questioned. I assume it’s because they realise that the numbers don’t add up and don’t justify their actions.

Don't get me started on grammar schools 😂

@Another76543 I think your comment about VAT only being charged on things that aren't necessary says a lot.

You essentially think that people with not a lot of money should only buy the absolute essentials and minimum. Meanwhile your luxurious private education should be left alone.

Taxes should rise on the richest in society first.

If you’re interested in some facts… It won’t raise £1.5b. Even the IFS who supposedly said it would are now saying it won’t. The guy who wrote the report - who doesn’t work for the IFS now and who’s come off X - turns out to be best friends with someone in the Education Dept - which undermines the impartiality of the report. But back to the figures… If 120,000 kids migrate from private to state, the ‘policy’ makes no money at all. Because every child who migrates costs the govt £12k. More if they are SEND which 1/4 private school kids are. Figures suggest that 90,000 will migrate. But loads of private schools will close down due to falling numbers, forcing even more into state schools. Not to mention those who don’t even start. That won’t show up for a few more years. Apparently, 4 out of 5 kids in private schools are first generation users.That’s across the board: from smaller, cheaper, local private day schools to the major public schools. It’s across the board. Their parents are first generation professionals, businesspeople, entrepreneurs who were state educated themselves. They don’t come from wealthy backgrounds. Keir Starmer - who went to a private school on a bursary (look it up) - had kids at a state primary in Camden whose catchment was 182 yards at one point: average house price £2m. Loads and loads and loads of parents with kids in state schools earn enough to send their kids to private schools. Not just Keir Starmer. But they choose not to because they can buy houses in affluent areas and get their kids places at excellent state schools. There is nothing fair or good about this policy and it won’t improve the state schools that need improving.

Every child that leaves private and goes state costs the govt £12k on average. More if they're SEND and 1/4 of private school kids are. If 120,000 migrate then the 'policy' makes no money at all. No 6,500 new teachers, no breakfast clubs, no 3000 new nurseries, no oracy or teacher training or OFSTED reforms... Even the Treasury are saying 90,000 will move. But don't forget the private schools that will close down and force more kids into state. Or the thousands of kids who won't ever start. Apparently 4 in 5 kids at private school today are first generation users. That means their parents and grandparents went to state schools... Their parents are first generation professionals, businesspeople, entrepreneurs. That's across the board - from small, cheaper local day schools to the major public schools. But why let the facts get in the way of a good story...

Talking of facts, where did you get ‘costs £12k on average’ from because as far as I can see that’s not from per pupil state school funding plus loss of VAT.

Most pupils with SEND don’t get extra funding either.

Sheer Arrogance. Keir Arrogance.

I think the poster has got £12k from the £8k cost of state education, plus lost VAT of around £4k on average private fees.

But state school funding is £7,460 per pupil and average private school fees per Google are about £17-18k so VAT of £3600. More like £11k.

And SEN pupils mostly don’t attract extra funding.

So if facts matter, they should evidence their facts?

The idea that the Tories "care about all children" is frankly laughable.

You’re looking at 23/24 figures. From gov.uk

“On a per-pupil basis the total funding allocated to schools for 5-16 year old pupils, in cash terms, in 2024-25 was £7,690”

The average day school fee in 23/24 for a day school was just over £18k (ISC survey). Fees have increased since then (5% not unusual), so fees this year will be about £19k, ie VAT of £3,800. Those figures don’t include boarding schools or day fees at boarding schools.

Adding the £7,690 and £3,800 totals £11,490.

Day fees at boarding schools were around £24,000 (which are likely to be around £25k this year). 31% of ISC schools have boarding provision, taking the average overall fees far higher.
If anything, the poster’s estimate of £12k per year is an under estimate. Fees for day pupils at day and boarding schools are likely to average around £21,000. That gives a VAT figure of £4,200. Adding that figure onto the state funding figure gives £11,890, without including the boarding figures.

Not everyone campaigning against this policy are Tories.

Day fees at boarding schools were around £24,000 (which are likely to be around £25k this year). 31% of ISC schools have boarding provision, taking the average overall fees far higher.

Is there any estimate of how many people are expected to take their kids out of a boarding school and send them to a state school instead because that would seem to be a far less likely switch?

And would still like to see the working on that 1/4 of private school kids being SEND meaning they would get extra funding in the state sector.

You can’t defend the indefensible.

Labour certainly cannot.

Also, if parents can't afford VAT increases on a really expensive private school, what's stopping them switching to a cheaper private school instead of just binning private school and going state?

Why do you think they would lose the next election if the alternative is Jenrick/Badenoch?

Five years is an age. But it comes down to this and growth in general

He has squandered the lead in 100 days but the test will be the above

No, which is partly why I excluded boarding pupils from the calculations.

Some will switch to state (and already have done). Others will switch to cheaper schools. The IFS figures, which the government are relying on, didn’t calculate the effect of that as far as I’m aware. It’s partly why the IFS figures aren’t remotely accurate.

The point about house prices in the catchment areas of good state schools is a good one. IMO this is just as divisive as private schools vs state schools. The differences in price for similar houses near me is in the hundreds of thousands. What makes it worse is the smugness of parents who virtue signal about using state schools when they have just bought an extortionately expensive property to get in.

Meanwhile, I am looking forward to Labour trying to recruit the promised 6,500 new state school teachers…

I've suggested on other threads that unless drastic measures are introduced to break the catchment system, which would be deeply unpopular and not voted for, you will never break the link between wealth and educational attainment. Add to that the other aspects that promote inequality like tutoring, extra curriculars and parental engagement/ expectations and abilities to help and guide. There are large numbers of posters on here who proudly boast that they don't use private while omitting to mention their house is worth 500k+. If the real intention is to reduce inequality and raise revenue, a raise in general taxation, applied to all is by far the more effective way to do it. This vat rise is not only ineffective, it's lack of scrutiny, rushed implementation and the rhetoric surrounding it screams only of "screw the wealthy" and nothing else.