If labour win the election can they introduce VAT immediately?

[londonparent321]

(For school fees) Or do they need to go through the courts which could take years /never happen?

@strawberrybubblegum I was just suggesting London isn’t other rural counties where parents don’t have lots of schools to choose from. There might be just one. If that one is poor, you can move to an area with a better school but it will cost a lot. People working in rural areas frequently don’t earn enough to move. If they do earn well they might not want to move but might spend money on private education to avoid a poor local school. It’s a fairly common rural scenario.

Schools with specialisms have gone where I live. No school brought in aptitude testing in the wake of schools being labelled as specialist. My local secondary was sport and another was performing arts. As the performing arts one is a grammar, they still selected by 11 plus. The sport school still got the dc who didn’t get to the grammar. Nothing much changed. It’s only areas with a big number of schools and good transport that can maintain testing for subjects. Our secondaries don’t because of travel issues. Not much point applying for schools with no transport available and they all have strict catchments which has been the case for decades.

And @Lesina my dc aren't at private school.

There are so many flaws in Labours very very basic calculation of potential earnings from this tax I wouldn’t hold my breath on any school or pupil seeing any real benefit at all.

Think Labour need to take a serious look at their figures along with all the financial analysts that have already voiced their grave doubts on their fiction.

I would imagine that they mean the budget per pupil will go up equally for all schools. If it raises as much money as they are currently suggesting, that would result in the average per-pupil funding for ages 5-16 going up from £7690 to £7890.

Labour have simply multiplied the number of kids in private school by 20% of their average fees and come up with a figure.
Accounting only for The ifcs woefully inaccurate guess at between 5-7% of pupils leaving The isc who obviously have more intel on students at private school estimate 15-17%. But who knows! Really!

Labours figure on how much will be made 🫤! takes

• No account of parents reducing their earnings, stashing extra in pensions or giving up work. After all they don’t need to earn so much anymore. So there will be a tax and ni loss

• No account on the tax claims schools will be able to make on building and maintenance work, etc etc ( they can claim for works going back 10years as well )

• No accounting for the portion of the money that cannot be taxed or even an estimate.

• No accounting for lost tax when smaller schools have to close

• No accounting for more people out of work after schools close, they won’t all join the state sector. It really is completely different from teaching in the private sector. Plus there’s the cooks, cleaners, beadles, matrons, secretaries, bursars, groundsmen, maintenance staff, security staff etc etc the list really is endless.

• No accurate figure known of potential number of students in private education after the tax takes effect.

• No acknowledgment at all of the number of reduced fees in bursaries ( the figure multiplied is a one size fits all….very basic ) and how many there will be after the tax takes effect

Statisticians have been looking this policy for years and Labours ‘figure’ since announced and all note no thorough analysis has been carried out to date and the real figure will invariably be far lower than given. And possibly, given no one knows, in the negative.

Its like the Brexit bus figure for the nhs

Its a meaningless number, with a pound sign in front of it, to get votes.

Accounting only for The ifcs woefully inaccurate guess at between 5-7% of pupils leaving The isc who obviously have more intel on students at private school estimate 15-17%.

They’ve also assumed that every parent who moves to the state sector spends 100% of the money saved on school fees entirely on other goods and services subject to VAT at 20%. They haven’t thought that perhaps some of that money saved will be spent on foreign holidays (no VAT), savings, or pension contributions (which would actually cost the state in tax relief).

Quite right.
They really are delusional

But many as noted on this thread and others will just cut their hours or give up work.
They forget most parents will be used to not having that money to enjoy!

Last posts all excellent, but remember who cares as long as other people don't get!!

Sad isn’t it.
Cutting their nose off to spite their face.

Our most recent school guidance is to expect ~10% increase if VAT is implemented as described. Obviously there are few details on the policy so some of it is conjecture, but this suggests hmrc won’t be getting anywhere near what ifc has forecast.

i don’t know if masses of children will leave private or not - personally we would do our best to keep them in current school at least to a natural transition year, but at least one family at our school has left in anticipation of this policy and a desire to make the change on their own terms rather than wait and risk a more chaotic transition.

Where we see more profound impact is in registration in reception / y1. There has been a real drop off in enrolment over past year or two which is probably a combination of challenging economics and the looming shadow of this policy making families less willing to commit to fees until they need to. I do worry about the sustainability of our junior school given parents generally feel less urgency around education quality in primary, and unlike the senior school we cannot simply increase foreign intake to balance any decline in local demand. The junior school in particular is a real haven for children who don’t fit standard state offering, and is the only option within 45-60 min commute for us.

@Labraradabrador a 20% increase suddenly would be a big ask for many parents.
Most schools, I imagine, will increase fees gradually and just take the initial financial hit, like yours. Whilst they watch how parents react.

A 20% inc for our boarding seniors ( the school, not my kids as they’re first yr uni now ) would be nearly £9000 and for pre prep £2600. That’s a lot even if you have just one at the school.
They usually have their fees for next year already published, but they haven’t for this year yet.

Im not aware their intake has reduced but many parents pay a lot upfront before kids start anyway. I’m sure there will be a reduction in a lot of schools but in prep and senior a large majority of ours aren’t UK born and Labours ridiculous policy will simply lead to less UK born students using the option of private education.

Ours have announced cutting bursaries, removing 100% bursaries, charging for others to use land and properties ( currently free to local schools ) and I dare say are looking at other options too like charging for previously free lessons to local schools I know they give free music lessons and instruments for example.
So overall they plan to cut the freebies that our parents currently pay for and getting tax back in other areas.

Just as the private sector was becoming less elitist Labour reverses it back.

My DC are not in private schools but I have friends who are heads or senior management in preps and they are extremely worried for their teachers, budgets and the parent group. It is a complete storm for the sector because numbers are already low, VAT threat putting parents off, mortgage increases and cost of living.

They simply won’t be able to afford to keep going long term. So if we are going to have all these prep teachers become redundant where will they go? I thought the shortage of teachers is in the secondary sector? Have the Labour Government planned to integrate the teachers and other staff? I do feel for the private school parent of SEN kids and other children at a critical juncture, but surely we should all be worrying about those whose actual livelihood this is? The schools that will survive will cut their gardening & maintenance costs and all these jobs will be affected. This is the bit I do not understand about this policy. These schools create lots of local employment and even if they are a bit wasteful compared to the private sector all those employees and contractors pay tax anyway? So why would you do that in a cost of living crisis? Why would you make a whole sector worry about their jobs? Especially if we are not talking about rich people here but simple teachers and other support staff and local contractors?

The other bit I am quite concerned about is that we know that in more deprived areas doctors with children tend to send their children to private schools. So when these schools go bust, will it become even harder to recruit doctors in these areas? Why is everyone assuming that this will help deprived areas. It seems to be the opposite - more middle class areas with already good state schools will become even more sought after and deprived areas will sink further. Surely it is obvious that in well off areas only the very rich would choose private schools. It is the poorer and more isolated areas that will become even more deprived because you are further removing choice there.

So when you start thinking about this policy you do realise it is a bit like Brexit in that you sell something that is meant to be an attack on the very rich and to benefit the poorer people in society, but the outcome is actually the complete opposite. The very rich get to keep their elite schools and make them even more elite and you just remove more and more choice and cause further deprivation and you throw a whole sector with largely innocent working people into a frenzy. I mean come on - the very rich always have options anyway and they can just move their kids either here or abroad and most have options to work abroad as well.

I don’t think a lot of people realise how much employment these schools often create. There are quite a few schools (often boarding schools) in relatively small towns where the local economy is hugely dependent on private schools. Not only do they provide employment to cleaners, gardeners, catering staff, security etc, the children and parents spend a lot of money in local shops (supermarkets/bookshops/stationers etc). It’s such a short sighted policy.

I don't think that's true at all, people often choose private schools for historical reasons, i.e that is how children in their family are educated and people who are 'middle class' don't choose private school for ideological reasons or know that the culture isn't something they want for their children. I live in a city in an area that would be considered 'middle class' but people don't choose private school for ideological reasons, plus it is the lottery system so you can't buy advantage with post codes. Unlike the observations on this thread I know 2 people who are now battling it out with the private schools where their DC started in year 7 as their child has SEND and they have been asked to pay extra to cover the teaching or the child has to leave, another will probably have to leave at 13 as they are not academically performing.

I mean with regards to the question from the OP, it probably is here to stay as Labour are doing so well in the Polls, this is their most out there policy probably but it doesn't look likely they will U-turn.

That’s true actually , the independent school in our local market town is the biggest employer . It also uses all the local businesses , for example the local bookshop, printer , taxi company etc .

@Goldenbear ”I don't think that's true at all, people often choose private schools for historical reasons, i.e that is how children in their family are educated and people who are 'middle class' don't choose private school for ideological reasons or know that the culture isn't something they want for their children. I live in a city in an area that would be considered 'middle class' but people don't choose private school for ideological reasons, plus it is the lottery system so you can't buy advantage with post codes. Unlike the observations on this thread I know 2 people who are now battling it out with the private schools where their DC started in year 7 as their child has SEND and they have been asked to pay extra to cover the teaching or the child has to leave, another will probably have to leave at 13 as they are not academically performing.”

So you believe these poor middle class people need protecting from evil private schools? Surely these people have the funds and educational knowledge to have made an informed choice in the first place and have read the terms and conditions?
So the whole sector and all the teaching staff should suffer for your friends’ choices?

I was responding to your Doctor's choosing private schools in deprived areas stuff. The notion that middle class parents in that context would definitely choose private, there is no other choices that this set of people would make - I don't think that is true.

It is irrelevant what I think as I am not working for the Labour party, the fact is they are doing very well in the Polls, at PMQs yesterday, Starmer made the TIn foil hat brigade comments about the composition of the Conservative party, they are a joke with Truss behaving in a deluded manner, backing Trump, the failing public services, when your school roof is falling in, you aren't going to have huge concerns over Private school VAT. So many people are visiting food banks, the social contract is dead and even for their classic boomer voters that is hard to swallow as many are waking up to what that means for their children. From a pragmatic point of view, the OP should probably be ready.

people often choose private schools for historical reasons, i.e that is how children in their family are educated

This isn’t true in very many cases. No one in our family has ever been privately educated. Our children are the first. We both went through the state comprehensive system, as did a lot of other fellow private school parents.

but people don't choose private school for ideological reasons,

I know quite a few people who were very vocally opposed to private education for “ideological reasons”. Funnily enough, those “ideological” ideals changed at the same time as their finances, and the children moved to the private sector.

battling it out with the private schools where their DC started in year 7 as their child has SEND

All of the private schools I have experience of make it quite clear that there are extra charges for learning support. The majority of parents are aware of this before their child starts the school.

Hands up, should have said, some choose for historical reasons because they do!

I'm unsure why the notion of ideological principles is so hard to understand. It is nothing to do with finances and everything to do with your values. My parents had huge fights about this and my DH's Grandparents didn't for him to go to private school as they were ideologically opposed to it. The Grandparents also didn't do anything to reduce inheritance tax for their children on a house from a very expensive part of North London. People do have certain principles, even with money.

Yes, they did know about the additional cost but as no official diagnosis like many posters on here, it wasn't really known from the outset whether it would apply. With other schools it is not a great surprise they want rid of these poor kids before the GCSES commence. Lord knows what that does to your self esteem!

Ideological covers objecting to the culture that dominates private schools. Personally, it would be too prescriptive for my DC, particularly my youngest DD, she needs to be in a creative environment and I think that is limited at private school.

Lol at getting a more creative timetable in state schools when most have pared back their arts/drama/music to the minimum.
The whole reason we chose private was freedom from the God awful national curriculum, a heavy emphasis on the arts and children being able to explore outside of the mainstream. Longer days allow for deeper investigation of subjects and an introduction to so many random topics.

Missing my point completely there, in fact you have confirmed it, private school is prescriptive creativity, how creative can you be if it is timetabled! All the best Artists IMO are commenting on society, how can they do that if they are in the society bubble that is private school! Besides, I've always ensured the home environment encourages the imagination with the way they played

Oh for crying out loud you don't think state schools are prescriptive? You are utterly deluded. You realise that state schools timetable every lesson too but don't have the freedom to ignore that timetable and go off piste? Private schools have that luxury.
If "all the best artists" come from state schools then fine howeverthis is merely your opinion I can point to a certain % who are from private schools.
You are against private schools but don't make shit up in a need to prove your point. I know what goes on in both state and private schools and that's why we chose private.
Obviously as private parents we don't create an artistic environment at home either, probably because we are too busy sat counting our money or coming up with ways to oppress the peasantry.