Would Labour voters be upset if joining the EU meant they could no longer tax children’s education?

[Blarneyspoco]

Taxing children’s education is banned as part of EU membership. If the U.K. rejoined the EU, would Labour supporters be upset that they can no longer levy the tax or would it be seen as a necessary compromise.

Yes not sure what was up with those posts.

Deletions can be a bit all over the place though.

I know you agree with that.

My charitable assumption would that someone felt so upset and uncomfortable with what happened to that family that they could not bear to look at that post, because it showed what this policy achieved.

But I think I’m too kind, as usual.

Unless you usually post under a different name, you know nothing about me. We have barely interacted. Have a lovely Sunday.

I don’t understand.

Is it wrong to name change?

So do you agree or not that some posts have been deleted in error?

You don’t have to answer, of course.

You can always query the deletion with MNHQ, they are happy to explain and in some cases reinstate the post.

It's a monopsony

It’s not that either because there is no market.

Plus because it's the only "free at point of delivery" provider it doesn't need to compete, hence the poor service etc.

The private providers are in a genuine competitive market place so do compete against each other, hence the generally better service quality etc.

If we had, say, two, genuinely independent, free at point of delivery, health providers under the NHS, competing against each other, the service would definitely improve.

It's because there's no comparable competition that the NHS continue to give shit customer service with the "it's free so put up and shut up" attitude of far too many of their staff.

To normal schools. Like most of the rest of the population.

Or to Home Ed, when the parents had put their child into private school after state school failed due to SEN.

An even higher proportion of those pushed out of private school by the tax are in that category than you would expect from the overall percentage of SEN in private school, since desperate parents choose private school even when their finances are precarious - so they are the ones who couldn't manage the extra 20%.

This tax attacks the most vulnerable.

The most vulnerable were never in a position to pay for private school.

To suggest that a tax on private schooling ‘attacks the most vulnerable’ could be the single most batshit thing I’ve ever read here.

we are totally through the looking glass now

The most vulnerable children go to private school? I'd love to see your working, because at the moment that comes across as one of the most idiotic statements I've read on here.

I just looked up various freedom of information requests for some oversubscribed state sixth forms. Looks like people are asking about entrants from private sector, and numbers significantly up. There are facts that cannot be denied.

I don't think anyone is denying there is some knock on effect.

Does that mean those state sixth form are just as good as private ones?

And ofcourse plenty of state schools are closing as well.

If we had, say, two, genuinely independent, free at point of delivery, health providers under the NHS, competing against each other, the service would definitely improve.

You mean in exactly the way the energy companies did ? Right up until they all went bust and we had to make sure their shareholders didn't lose out.

Because it's not as if any of these "providers" is actually making what they sell = which is the skill of the staff. They're just jumped-up billing outfits (again, like the "energy" companies were).

The actual "manufacturer" of healthcare is the system that trains and regulates the professionals.

Smarter readers will already have realised that broadband is the same. Loads of "providers" but all drinking from the same well.

There's actual capacity in the state school system, well north of 10% in London.

Options are to close or reorganise schools, which is both expensive and disruptive for kids in the state system; or follow policies that will fill that capacity, whilst raising some tax at the same time.

Leaving aside any arguments around reducing unearned privilege, VATting private schools is just a good bit of governance.

“I don't think anyone is denying there is some knock on effect.
Does that mean those state sixth form are just as good as private ones?
And of course plenty of state schools are closing as well.”

@DuncinToffee - so my understanding was that the original IFS report described private schooling as pretty inelastic. The thing is that these big shifts at Sixth Form prove the opposite. I would have assumed that if someone paid for many years of private schooling, they would keep their DC their for Sixth Form, arguably the most important time. But the opposite appears to be the effect. So it is an interesting question for behaviour economists. Why these large shifts especially at Sixth Form? And more widely, the general public is more affected when the best places end up being taken by ex private school pupils directly as a result of Government policy. That is when the whole perception of the policy starts to change in the common mind.

@AStonedRose - it is not about capacity in the state school system more widely. It is about capacity in the most sought after state schools and effects on public perception as a result of the shift.
You can liken it to inheritance tax. Even if only 4% of the population actually pay it, if lots more people believe they might have to pay it or lots more people believe they aren’t going to get access to best state schooling anymore, perceptions change.

What is interesting with the freedom of information requests is that Sept 25 the shift is still quite minor, but then a marked shift by September 26. Still waiting to see figures for September 27. Whether it has settled and private school parents are just sucking the cost up or whether this shift will continue in a marked way. In which case, the policy is screwed.

If parents don't think private Sixth Forms are worth the money, that is quite damning in itself.

Does the information say if this is regional or nation wide?

And who pays for them?

Utilities and broadband aren't truly independent of each other because they use common infrastructure. That's why privatisation hasn't worked. For, say, gas, it's the same gas, through the same pipes, regardless of the "supplier".

With the NHS, you could have separate hospitals, separate GP surgeries, etc., all genuinely "competing" under the NHS umbrella, just like, say, opticians, who genuinely compete against each other for NHS patients, by being different, i.e. some open on Sundays, some offer evening appointments or home visits, some have "nicer" premises and waiting areas, some have better range of frames than others, etc.