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?

A very good comparison there @strawberrybubblegum

But privates have longer holidays so there is just as much time.
Even better really as it gives more days off to explore far and wide her creativeness.

Yes, that would be true but there are other aspects of private school ethos that just wouldn't suit her, the ones I know anyway. However, even if the idea is problematic for us (DH and I), I respect the freedom to choose.

“So in areas without grammars at least there is a wider spread of educational abilities for all schools.
In areas with grammars there isn’t and privates thrive.
the climate in those schools left behind is demoralising for kids and teachers alike.”

Is that also the case in other countries like France, Germany or Switzerland that also have grammars (actually more than us) and similar percentages of private schools. Because I don’t hear this as much in those countries where children are also streamed and then encouraged into apprenticeships and paid for work vs an alternative academic uni pathway? Why does almost everyone have to go to uni at such huge personal cost and with so much debt? If we are going to talk social mobility let’s talk about access to higher education now post pandemic. It has gone backwards.

It seems to me that there are a lot of rubbish parents in the U.K. who don’t parent properly, feed their kids rubbish, let them loose on streets, don’t control them or aspire educationally for them. And the solution is instead to punish the teachers and parents of children who are doing ok - make the out of control kids their problem indirectly when in reality that is those parents’ job and also the Government’s?

So you want to kill the social mobility of the person who works hard to send their child privately (for whatever reason) and the teaching group there and other staff. Makes zero sense.
You won’t affect the socially connected upper class - they don’t need private schools really anyway and can afford it anyway, with it without VAT. Even if you banned private schools they would quickly find similar alternatives in other jurisdictions.

It is almost like you want to keep some people in their box and punish private school teachers?

As I am passionate about education I am fundamentally opposed to taxing education, it is a huge matter of principle for me. I quite like Starmer, he is middle of the road and seems sensible and good for business (and frankly, at this point the country needs hard cash desperately). But this particular policy is bat shit.

I was simply commenting on the pages here referring to the ‘creative’ aspect of private schools which you have been highlighting as not as good as private.

Its also worth noting if that is paramount to your choice ( which from your posts, it seems to be ) you might want to have a look at entry stats for the top conservatoires and arts schools. Given only 7% of the population go to private!

Also @Goldenbear your story about your grandparents also doesn’t make much sense. I know a lot of old rich people like that and they are very philanthropic without fail, and all have significant charities they support and have supported for many many years both practically and financially.
That is where the money goes when they die - not all to HMRC. So if you tell me your grandparents didn’t want to dodge inheritance tax on principle - why did they not give it all to charity as that would be both tax efficient and really help those charities?

There not my Grandparents, they were DH's. They were Socialists and didn't believe in tax dodging. If they were like my MIL, she doesn't agree that fundamental services should be provided by or heavily rely upon benevolent ad hoc giving, they should be provided via the tax system. In all honesty I don't know the ins and outs of their principles as they had died quite a few years before I met DH.

I wasn't comparing the two as Arts provision in the state sector is frankly, shit.

Not sure what to reply on this, I mean she goes to a state school, knowing my DD this is the best option.

im saying quite the opposite if you look at my past posts and completely agree with your last paragraph.

Starmers tax will decrease social mobility and is a vote winner and nothing more.

My opinion is also informed by my own experience of private school and friends and family whose children have attended that achieved good academic results but the pressure was too much. This isn't something I want for DD.

I do think calling private schools diverse is quite humorous,

Yes, they have plenty of diversity in terms of ethnicity, but they all go to the same coffee shops, wear the same clothes (normally a black North Face puffa jacket amongst other things) and holiday in the same type of places.

I think they actually demonstrate that we like to talk about and notice lots of ‘privilege’ but ignore the single biggest one, growing up rich.

It is actually pretty tough for bursary students because, however generous the bursary, as soon as they walk through the school gate, their lives totally diverge.

Yet you did compare the 2

@Newbutoldfather I don't think some of the posters on here really listen to themselves.

My personal favourite gems so far are:

State schools aren't diverse because the children of multimillionaires don't go there

My cleaner works really hard to send her children to private school (oh aye, that doesn't sound at all made up)

I also have a lot of friends and family who send their DC to private schools, but the reasons are a real mix. There definitely many going to London superselective independents with all the bells & whistles achieving fantastic grades and a myriad of extracurricular achievements as well. This can really suits the highly driven alpha child. However, I also have many friends who children in the private sector because they are autistic or dyslexic or just lacking in confidence and quieter and these friends have chosen a totally different set up. I also have 2 friends who had actual school refusers who went private in the end with success.
I also get stick from some of my friends for sending to London grammars because they are quite monocultural now (mainly Indian families). However, it suits my children. They are the types who always always demanded more work in primary and just want to learn and do well and lots of mock tests/testing etc do not phase them one bit. They enjoy it. They would have hated disruptive classes. So yes, we could have chosen music places at some of the top performing comps in London as an alternative but the grammars were closer. They could have also gone to a church secondary or the very local schools, none of which would have been terrible options. We were lucky to get to choose what suited them best.

I don’t like anyone crying out to limit other people’s educational choices be it private, grammar or church school etc. As far as I am concerned, any choice is good and so is any parent who is educationally motivated (obviously not overly pushy, but I am sure you understand what I mean).

I am not a Socialist because we have familial trauma due to Soviet times and the imposition of Soviet ideals and telling people what to think, how to behave. I am opposed to too much state control for this very reason. I also see some merit in having a thriving private sector to challenge notions of a too rigid state curriculum.

And state school kids don't wear the same clothes and go to the same coffee shops? All teenagers do that because they are tribal and want to fit in.
Ironically at DDs private school no-one gives a crap what brands/labels/not branded clothes they each wear. Unlike the local state where it is all £100+ Viviennr Westwood shoes + Marc Jacobs bags and kids get bullied for not having these items.
But thank you for your insightful sweeping generalisations and stereotypes.
.

The only thing I don't understand about your argument is what about social mobility for children in the state system, surely a good education system for the majority is more useful for society than a 'good' and 'well funded' education for the minority?

Some brilliant "private school" stereotyping going on here!! An acceptable form of social discrimination it seems!

Which you pointed out last night, suggesting it was inferred but not explicit. I thanked you for pointing that out and should have elaborated on my point that DD is better off being creative in her own time than in a school setting but thanks again for pointing that out as you did yesterday.

Our private schools were the same!
well said @twistyizzy
These are standard run of the mill comments from someone who perceives they know the lives of others and read newspaper hype.
None of that is reality and very discriminatory.

Sorry @Goldenbear , I can see that my post reads like that and it wasn't my intention.

It was meant to be more: Goldenbear is choosing what she thinks is best for her child, and that's fair enough. What isn't OK is when people (different people, not Goldenbear) are vindictive and mob-like.

FWIW, whilst I disagree very fundamentally with many of your opinions - and understand the world very differently to you - I've enjoyed the discussion!

BUT, there were quite a few posts by other posters - especially earlier on - which seemed to take pleasure in the idea of kids from private school suffering. It quite upset me that people who are part of our shared society seem to hate me and mine so much.

I think most humans are really strongly pro-social. We want to help people who are part of our society. It's why we're OK with paying lots more tax than we get out. But there are some instinctive back-stops to that pro-social, 'giving' drive, which evolved to protect us from being exploited. One of them is that we do need to believe that people we help feel generally positive about us. That there's some reciprocity: if we needed help in turn, they would give it.

Feeling that some people see higher tax payers with so much hatred that they want to cause us and our children harm is really destructive to social cohesion.

Exactly
👏👏👏

Yes because snobbery = bad, reverse snobbery = good
Stereotyping economically disadvantaged = bad, stereotyping people who are perceived to be richer than you = good
Having aspirations for state school kids = good, having aspirations for private school kids = bad
And the biggest one:
Spending spare money on material things such as holidays/cars/houses = good, spending money on education = bad.

Yes because state schools always have bullying over wearing labels or not - it's not the early 00s! Using your own hackneyed stereotyping there!

My children all do music in orchestras in London. There they mix with all sorts of children from private, to comp to grammar to church school. They are close to these children and have holidayed with them and had them over. I can never tell what school a child goes to unless they start talking about it in detail. One of my DD’s best friend was on a full bursary at a top private school and had loads of fun and did not find it difficult. Her brothers both went state for different reasons. I am so grateful that we live in London where at secondary level many people get an actual choice of what type of school may suit their child and family.

Only the experience from the kids I know who go to our local state school and their parents! But yes you see the issue with making such sweeping statements. I was doing that as a counterpoint to the PP comment about all private school kids wearing black North face jackets. So you sort of proved my point, thank you.