To be gleeful that most of us were right

[Wranglestar]

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/adding-vat-to-private-school-fees-has-had-no-obvious-impact-on-state-sector-applications-390546/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2ATdaVlNkJsbtC-KizuW4Fw41obnpvezxnFv4IAFwzJPHXmU90Awr5eqAaem9tMIsn9I0vHSC4jrdYONIA#0rd9makyd4264nstc4us9j77yk5kaoswtLondon Economic

And that private schools has had no impact on state school places. The rich have simply - paid more. Excellent news!

Said lots of people actually. Including a number of Tory MPs.

“Anyway, its all a bit off tack, VAT on school fees is unfortunately, required, the 5 to 6 billion over 5 years, can go into state education.
Talking to my brother, whose children go to PS, his opinion is thats its just another cost, which he and everyone he knows at their school is very affordable.
Yes well aware thats not going to be the case for all.”

@Absolutely45 - the 5/6 billion will not manifest. Do you also believe the non dom tax will raise billions?
These are populist policies based on behavioural “data/predictions” (oxymoron) that do not lead to what the politicians claimed (not without an ounce of bad faith either). Not sure relying on spurious data in the first place to get yourself voted in is a good thing.

I was at a party recently listening to some quite serious Central Bankers discuss the financial risk of populist policies, of course, Trump being the main concern for global financial stability. But non dom taxation changes/farmers taxes/VAT on Education etc. these are all symbolic policies aimed at a voter base, but can cost us dearly.
Right now the pound is a buying opportunity and we have a lot of companies with strong underlying performance, but not many people are buying into the British idea. It is because are not seen as politically stable anymore. And introducing further populist policies which Labour did, contributed further to that. So it is very difficult to believe that the grown ups are in charge and that it is fully costed etc. It clearly is not.

Was your party before or after Trump’s tariff announcement? Most commentators are of the view that with the UK having the lowest tariffs in the world from the US business here will be very attractive.

@blossomtoes- it was after and specifically discussing the risk to financial stability due to Trump and what a shame that U.K. had not positioned better since June 2024. If we didn’t have stuff putting international investors off then we would have been in a great position, so had Labour come in and pledged more pro EU stuff, been friendly on non dom etc and restored politically stability immediately, the millions would now be flowing our way. The non dom appeals symbolic only and clearly won’t affect any of us directly but it sends the completely wrong message, just like the private school VAT.
As a liberal I am centrist economically but pro socially conscious policies. It’s a shame we didn’t get a more Blairite Government from day 1 of June 24. Things would be very different for us now if we had. You can see it in the volatility here- we are experiencing more volatility because of the general view that we aren’t fully predictable, politically speaking. At some point, we need to reinstate that, somehow. Labour have a massive majority and if they care about the country long term they should ditch populism completely. I think Starmer would be on board but needs to manage his own party better.

I agree. Also, the chances of children being their first choice secondary school were going to be higher this year anyway due to the low birth rate. I'm not sure if this has been factored in?

I find it sad that you’re gleeful about this topic. You sound like a jealous/spiteful person.

The VAT isn’t a bother for most of our friends. I think even doubling the cost would see us keeping our DC in private, as the state provision is woeful. I don’t mean the education/facilities, but more the abhorrent behaviour we hear about from neighbours with kids in local primary!! Just one or two asshole kids in a class and it scuppers the chances for the group.

At our prep school we’ve seen 10% leave each class and I feel sad for those kids having to change their friendships.

As a general comment though, charging more tax on school fees doesn’t mean more money for the government coffers. We just don’t spend that money on other things. For example, we’d usually go to a UK hotel a few times a year and spend £1.5k a visit. This year we haven’t. So that money doesn’t go through the system in the same way, it doesn’t benefit the hotel owner/food suppliers/waiting staff/housekeeping. It’s gone straight to a black hole of HMRC to be pissed up a wall!! I highly doubt it will benefit the state system and there will still be a crisis keeping good teachers etc.

It’s a spiteful little policy that impacts kids whose parents were just able to afford the fees. Leaving private education only available to the very well off. It will impact employment and tax revenue and end up costing the tax payer far more than it saves. All to appease the envious.

It was entirely why it was introduced in January. Conniving little sh*ts.

13,000 kids forced to change schools are you are celebrating that .. have a good hard look at yourself

shame that all the money is going for new homes for illegal immigrants

dotn whinge when state schools dont get any better

evil bridget wants your children dumb and needy

Nobody likes a smug git regardless of circumstance.

Well I'll tell you what's happening in our household so we don't have to take our autistic Y11 son out of school. We are working more hours, not having holidays and cutting back in every way we can possibly think of. It's miserable, but it's for our DS so we will get on with it. We are not "rich". I'm a teacher and my husband is an engineer. We downsized and both work 2 jobs to try to keep our boy safe and in education.

Have you applied for an EHCP?

what new homes for illegal immigrants?? have you been watching GB news?? Please do some research and use some critical thinking

Illegal immigrants don't get homes at all, let alone new homes. The clue's in the word "illegal". If one were daft enough to turn up at the council housing office, the only new home they would get would be a short-stay cell in a detention centre prior to deportation.

the illegal immigrants will not be deported but will be allowed to stay and will then need housing.

where do you think the 1000 people a day crossing the channel will end up living ?

maybe stop reading the guardian and listening to LBC !

Many are being deported, Labour seem to have upped this, with much faster decision making.
Its not 1000 migrants a day, that would be over 350,000 per year.

Total numbers are around 30k per year, thats 30k too many but pls don't exaggerate.

The latest figures are 44,000 detected illegal immigrants in the year to March. There will, of course, be undetected illegal immigrants as well, but the detected ones are likely to be deported unless they successfully claim asylum (most fail) or leave voluntarily, and the government certainly isn't building new homes for the undetected ones.

If you listen to callers on LBC you will hear plenty of claims that don't stand up to any scrutiny.

Most don’t fail? About half are granted at initial stage and appeals have gone up.

Sorry - my bad. I didn't explain myself properly and, to make matters worse, relied on memory. Most asylum seekers enter the country legally. I believe I saw some statistics that showed illegal entrants who sought asylum were significantly less likely to succeed, but I can't find them, so I withdraw that.

Pre 2024, around 68% of x ch migrants were granted asylum... but bear in mind, thats just those who got a decision.
The Tories decided that being left in no mans land would be a deterrent, clearly was not.

The rate now is lower, around 50% but again, of a small number, despite the asylum decision process speeded up.

Its a great pity that a Dublin style agreement wasn't negotiated by Johnson as part of his Oven Ready Deal!

Dublin agreement as it was only saw a couple of hundred and more enter than leave.

Whether France will accept all people trying to cross at any point not sure.

Yes it was only a few 100 but that was better than nothing and probably more due to our asylum process and inaction by the Government.

It appears to have acted as a deterrent.

Something a former govt minister - Chris Philp - have acknowledged too.