Labour confused and arguing among themselves over VAT on school fees

[Another76543]

This policy is getting more ridiculous by the day.

We have the shadow Attorney General who doesn’t understand the basic concept that the VAT position and charitable status are entirely separate issues. She also doesn’t understand that it’s parents and not schools who will pay the charge.

“the question is, is it appropriate in these circumstances for schools, such as in Eton or Winchester or whatever, to be seen as a charity and that, therefore, they should not be paying VAT on the huge fees”

This statement is factually incorrect on two things.

She also seems to think that any money raised will be spent on breakfast for children. The potential money has already been allocated to new teachers. They seem to think they can spend the same money twice.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-labour-institute-for-fiscal-studies-education-secretary-winchester-b2559439.html

The Party are also now fighting among themselves over this proposal.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/emily-thornberry-bridget-phillipson-labour-david-lynch-london-b2559684.html#

“sign of divisions within Sir Keir Starmer’s party over the policy”

If you are going to criticise someone, at least get their name right!

I would love to the see the stats on how many parents actually cannot afford breakfast. I would guess a teeny tiny %. Feed them, by all means, yes. But feeding the remaining 90% or more is an insane thing to budget for.

Funding breakfasts was not the aim of the policy when outlined by the party. No child should be going hungry but it would be a better policy to give parents more of their working money to spend on their own children.

Secondly, given that these children would already be receiving free school meals, where is the responsibility of parents to provide for their children? The cost of cereal/bread and milk is not extortionate.

No one wants to think of children hungry and unable to learn properly. It is why this has happened and preventing it from happening in the first place that should be the solution.

Lots of reasons.

1. education should not be taxed. A good education is of benefit to society.
2. Labour have said they don’t want to diverge from EU law. This policy does that.
3. It will push more people into the already stretched state sector.
4. Because of inequalities in the state sector, not everyone has access to a suitable state school. 5). Many families have moved to the private sector because they’ve been failed by the state system. Should they be penalised further?
5. Each child in the private sector is saving the taxpayer £8k a year. Until we improve the state sector, it’s helpful if we don’t add to the burden. The Labour Party are going to use the private health provision to improve the NHS. Why is private education any different?
6. Disrupting the lives of any child should be avoided where possible. 8). The policy is estimated to raise a tiny amount of money so there’s no gain. Even the IFS admit this.
7. There’s a strong possibility the policy could end up costing the taxpayer money.
8. the private sector provides a lot of employment to local economies. Why harm that? 11). Most other sensible countries value their education system and support the orate sector. Some successful countries subsidise the private sector. 12). We should work bottom, up not top down. Improve the state sector so fewer people rely on the private sector. Knocking down a highly successful education system with happy children is non sensical.
   13)Pitting children and parents against each other, stirring up spite and resentment does not make for a happy population.

😂😂🙈🙈

Well funny. Not funny.

I am very against VAT on school fees. However if this was where the money (if any) generated was going to be spent I would genuinely change my mind. It’s criminal that children are arriving at school hungry in this day and age. Unfortunately I don’t think Labour actually care about children in poverty any more than the bloody Tories.

This!!!!!

Budget for? Are you assuming labour have this all mapped out in a detailed budget with associated figures? 😂

Rhetorical question. Because we all know the answer.

The question I’ve got is why would anybody vote for them? I guess if I was on benefits, a man, not disabled. I’d vote for them. That’s their key demographic.

Male, not disabled, on benefits.

I would never vote labour!

Breakfasts are not where the money is going to be spent. Their own pledges document says that it’s allocated to extra teachers and mental health support. They’re now making things up to try to garner more support for a policy they don’t even understand themselves.

GOsh Tory HQ are out in force today.

Tell me again about National Service?

Rachel Reeves has a UG degree in PPE from Oxford and an MSc in Economics from LSE, which is up there with Cambridge as one of the most competitive and mathematically rigorous Economics programmes in the world. Whatever your disagreements with her, there is no call to air quote her credentials.

People do mis-speak and reveal pockets of confusion during the heat of electoral campaigns. Only Friday the current Children’s Minister revealed in an interview on LBC that he does not know the amount of Child Benefit and had not even thought to look it up.

I think people are focussing on this issue and Labour’s relatively minor missteps because it’s pretty much the only one they’ve got.

I do agree with PPs that voters have other options, however

Some would argue that parents who do not provide basics for their children are the criminals. It's a harsh sentiment but this type of talk from the Labour party will concern state school parents who work very hard to provide for their own children. They should have kept it to providing teachers which benefit everyone. They couldn't help themselves and are now going to divide state school parents regarding where the (imaginary)money is spent.

No need to troll. Just scroll past.

I feel incredulous that on top of the income tax/NI I pay, plus the state school places we don't use and funding DC's education as well, I'm now going to be handing over another £10k pa in tax to feed other people's kids breakfast.

I’m not Tory HQ. Just because I disagree with a Labour policy does not mean I am a Tory or support all of their policies. I think it’s a shame that many voters feel there’s no credible party to vote for. To pretend that the Labour Party is the to everyone’s prayers is disingenuous though. How can they be trusted to run the country when they are stating factual and legal inaccuracies with regard to their main policy, and when they are arguing among themselves before being elected?

It doesn’t bode well when the shadow Attorney General and shadow education secretary are publicly bickering before they’re even elected.

I certainly agree with Item (12) on your list posted at 10.41, OP. What is your proposal for working bottom up?

Politicians arguing amongst themselves? Well, there’s a novelty.
Ever heard of the Conservative and Unionist Party?

Most people really don’t care! Ours were at independents. We would not have committed if we could not have afforded unforeseen increases.

The state sector needs improving. Pretty much everyone would agree on that. I’m not an education expert, and there’ll be people better placed to know how best to improve things. I think the answer runs far deeper than a simple question of funding though.

Behaviour is a huge problem. Why is that? Do we need more support in classrooms? Do we need more or less discipline? Do we need to engage parents more? Are the existing funds being spent wisely? Do we need layers of highly paid management under academy arrangements? Is the answer to getting kids engaged about having different types of schools like Germany for example? Would some children prefer being in a less academic, but equally valued, environment? There are so many things to look at.

It's an incredibly popular policy among the vast majority of people (especially parents of the 93% of UK children who don't attend private schools) and polls very well indeed. It's a no brainer for the Labour party to implement it as soon as they can.

All the private school parents complaining about it on Mumsnet are really fighting a losing battle.

But they aren’t ‘publicly bickering’. It’s a minor confusion at a level the Tories could only wish for as their biggest problem over the past couple of years.

Although the Labour team have it all over the current Tory lot in terms of competency and compassion I am not their 100% biggest fan. I am simply bemused by the effort to make a mountain out of a molehill here, whilst the ignorance of ‘How Much is Child Benefit’ Johnston goes unremarked.

Thornberry just got it wrong. Phillipson has presumably bollocked her and has corrected the record.

Manifesto will be out on Thursday, we can look forward to even more threads about this then I am sure!

Agreed! And they all take money

Easy to say when you weren't facing 20% + fee increase year on year

A minor confusion? I think that one saying that class sizes will increase, and the other saying they won’t, with a very public disagreement, is more than a minor confusion. Many families are concerned about class sizes and do not view it as minor