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”

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

Our standard fees increased significantly year on year and VAT on fees has been mooted for donkeys’ years. No one with children in independents now can pretend they don’t know this was a possibility when they signed up.

I think the state sector is much maligned.

MOST schools do very well with the limited resources they have.

Anecdote: I was once at a party where private school parents discussed how they couldn't possibly send their children to the local "sink" comp, I was horrified to discover that they actually meant the OFSTED outstanding school that my children went to. I've also been in rooms where parents discussed in hushed and horrified tones having to send their child to the local school, which was actually one of the top performing state schools in the country.

As with their feelings about how well off they are, they are just "ordinary" when they are actually in the top income decile, their feelings about other schools are usually completely off.

We need more money in schools and in all the services that used to support children before the Tories cut everything back. But it'll take a long time as there are financial constraints.

The proposed increased investment for 6500 additional teachers from Labour is at least a start, it is so badly needed.

Shocking that the current government has deliberately cut back state education so much and for so long. The funding gap between private and state is far wider than it was in 2010, which is damaging for the country - ultimately the future of the whole nation is reliant on the education of the 93% who attend state schools.

Except until 18 months ago ish Labour didn't stand a chance of winning an election.
That's like saying that someone with a mortgage should plan for 20% interest rate increases 5 years in advance.

As the evidence is that providing free school meals to all students lifts attainment across the board, it's a sensible policy. It's why the coalition introduced it in the first place.

If school fees are such a concern, perhaps have fewer lattes and cancel Netflix (this seems to be the advice when people complain about the cost of other things)

As a private school parent I would be happy to pay more if it went directly into helping Struggling State schools but I don't believe it will and as a policy it concerns me that its a gleeful attack on middle class professional people as the really rich won't care or be affected. If I believed that this policy would genuinely help children I would be all for it
I am considering voting labour (certainly won't vote Tory) but its the fact that I can only think of one labour policy and its an ill thought out one that gives me pause.

It is minor cos Thornberry just got it wrong.

There isn't 'confusion', just a single person making a gaffe, really.

I think if you are privileged to live near a great state school then private school looks ridiculous.
If you live near a poor performing (outcomes/behaviour etc) state school then you may feel differently.
Many of us do use state for part of the journey and aren't wedded to private, we just do the best for our children at each stage as the majority of parents do.

Except until 18 months ago ish Labour didn't stand a chance of winning an election.
That's like saying that someone with a mortgage should plan for 20% interest rate increases 5 years in advance”

As interest rates were 15% when I had my first flat and my husband his first house, we’ve always borne that possibility in mind and factored it in 🤷‍♀️

You do spend a lot of time on here arguing about tax on private schools and nothing else though, a.n.Other. You can see why people might think you are Tory HQ.

Weird as it sounds, the research between class sizes and educational outcomes is all over the place. I suspect it is down to cultural factors I have not seen properly disentangled from outcomes, and that in more individualistic societies such as the UK smaller classes do work better. But respected researchers have made good cases for other (properly funded) types of classrooms.

Agree with your implication about the underlying concern of funding proper classrooms, whatever the model.

As an election issue, I don’t honestly see this attaining the importance of eg starting to fix the NHS or the housing crisis.

I think the point is that hungry kids get breakfast.
IF I was convinced my extra 20% did that I would happily pay it

It isn't about money. any random claims about the economics of it and where the money will be spent.

It's about ideology.

Labour don't want you to have the option of going private for anything, be it schools or health treatment. They want uniformity for all.

Which, if you want to put your life in the hands of the state and you trust them to do the best for you and your family then it is fine. And if you don't, it's not so fine.

And if VAT was already in place then people know up front and can make decisions around that.
How about all the threads on mortgages saying people can't meet their new payments when they have re-mortgaged, they hadn't prepared for (comparatively low against 20% VAT ) those rises.

both my kids go to private schools

I pray to God they bring VAT in so that those stupid yearly increases start getting regulated.

we're having an average 10% increase per year, they're absolutely taking the piss!

bring VAT on to get some effing control!

@twistyizzy

"I think if you are privileged to live near a great state school then private school looks ridiculous.
If you live near a poor performing (outcomes/behaviour etc) state school then you may feel differently."

Read the rest of my post. Who are these private school parents who have 90k to spend on 6 years of schooling for one child at secondary but live in catchments of poor performing schools?

In reality I think that lots of private parents try to use this to justify it to themselves and others when it isn't true.

Why is the assumption always Tory HQ as opposed to someone personally invested in the VAT policy ie a parent?
I think this sums up the mindset of some posters that they immediately assume Tory when anyone criticises Labour.

Try rural North of England

@WhereIsTheFreakingSun why will it bring in some control?

A gaffe? She is the shadow Attorney General. The Attorney General is chief legal adviser to the Crown. She doesn’t even understand the basic fundamentals that VAT and charitable status aren’t linked. It’s one of their main policies. If she doesn’t even understand this very basic thing, how on earth can she be trusted with that position of responsibility?

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/attorney-general

"It isn't about money. any random claims about the economics of it and where the money will be spent.

It's about ideology.

Labour don't want you to have the option of going private for anything, be it schools or health treatment. They want uniformity for all."

Oh my, the Ayn Rand loonies are here.

Labour want to stop giving tax breaks that currently further facilitate the highest earning households in the country buying privilege for their children.

You are free to buy it, just pay tax on it :)

Oh I quite agree.

We really need more private services, the water companies for example are doing sterling work. And privatised rail has been a triumph. And the energy companies are great value - who would want cheap energy anyway?

Labour are not going to remove access to private providers, this is pure nonsense.

But the ideal, obviously, is good public services with private options for those who prefer that.

I'd need a better source than the Independent before I took this seriously. And since I have no children at a fee paying school, I couldn't give a monkeys anyway.

This.

I work in local government. We've had very few coherent policies from central govt in the last 14 years...

@Aladdinzane we live in a catchment with a requires improvement secondary. Next secondary along is inadequate. A number of parents scrimp and save to send their DC to private schools.