given that the kids at private school aren't costing the state to educate them, yeah, I do. If they have to be taken out of private school and go into state, that's another place needed and another £5k plus a year for the taxpayer to fund
Realistically, how many children will this affect? I don't pretend to have the stats (pretty sure they don't exist) but let's assume several thousand children are placed back into state education. That'll be up and down the country. We do the census every 10 years precisely so those policy makers and government planners know where to place schools, hospitals, houses, other services etc. Presumably, some kind of formula gives a highest and lowest number of children needing to be educated in a given area, allowing for migration, immigration and private schools. Presumably, there is therefore some level of absorption possible.
I say that as someone with a 13 year old who did a couple of years in private school at the start of his school career. Of a class of 15, I am aware that 6 of us no longer privately educate. The school has continued to thrive - people have taken our places. None of us had an issue getting a state school place. People come, people go, people move, people emigrate, people's financial circumstances change.
The idea that we say those children who are privately educated are somehow more important than the decent, hardworking people of this country who are struggling, the disabled and people who for whatever reason need some form of state support should go without instead is morally abhorrent, at whatever cost. We cannot support a situation where our nurses are using food banks and our key workers cannot afford housing.
The majority will continue to pay their school fees. The rest will be welcomed back into the state system. The lives of the truly vulnerable will be that bit more secure.