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”

I can assure you I’m not Tory HQ. I post on school fees because it’s an area I have strong views on. I don’t post on other issues like pregnancy tests/health problems/family disagreements/the weather because I’m not interested in those threads.

I's not that she's criticising Labour. It's that she's started many threads on exactly the same subject and nothing else. I don't look out for Labour shills myself - I hope there are some - but it is important to remember that not everyone is a person with a personal interest. Some people are professionally interested in whipping up other people's personal interest. The OP may be prefectly genuine but her posting style is following the posting pattern of someone employed to do it.

". A number of parents scrimp and save to send their DC to private schools."

No one who is spending on average 18k is scrimping and saving.

Why are you spending so much instead of moving?

I don't believe you.

I can see it suits your agenda to try to whip up outrage about this, but it isn't unheard of for politicians to misspeak.

Excellent recent examples being Dominic Raab, James Cleverly, Boris Johnson, Kwasi Kwarteng, Liz Truss...

The policy is popular, the green paper will involve consultation, a misspeak by one politician is not major.

Is that aimed at me? This is the second thread I’ve started. The other one was about charitable status around 8 months ago. I’ve commented on others but not started them.

Parents who were pushed out of catchment for a good school by 3 huge housing developments in 2 years?
People who live in a postcode anomaly?
People whose houses are worth much more than 90% of the houses in the catchment for a "good" comprehensive but who are just outside it?
Parents who were advised by teachers who work at the State Comprehensive they have access to to NOT send their child there?
Parents where at least one of them was very anti Private until he visited the State provision available?
Not all Private school parents but certainly some of us
We would have loved not to send DD Private (probably would have paid of the mortgage by now) but we feel lucky that we had the option not to use a school that really didn't suit her needs and we would have been badly letting her down to send her here if there was another option.

@Aladdinzane because we like where we live, DC now at university so school classification doesn't impact us now. You can believe what you like, but you seem to think everything you say is gospel and everyone else is wrong

You would think that state schools are filled with knife wealding, half-educated idiots. I have been a Governor at a state school for years .. zero knife crime here

Anyway, 5% of children attend a private school, yet there are multiple threads in this issue every day.

Very few other policies talked about .. frankly bizzare

How about people don’t have children if they can’t feed them

@ExtraOnions what other policies are there to talk about?

Yeah sure.

Anyone who wants to take control of their own life rather than throw themselves at the mercy of the state is a "loony".

As many people will tell you on here, the state is great when it works for you. And not so great when it doesn't.

There's a lot of people who choose to put their kids in private schools because they feel the state is failing them. I don't see that position getting any better under Labour.

That is such a low benchmark. Some of us just don’t want to send our kids to schools where they’re one of 30 (best case) and get ignored unless they’re either so clever / disruptive it can’t be ignored.

That would be great but they do so should we let children go hungry because their parents make bad life choices?
Tackle the issues that lead people to have children they cant't afford to feed but in the meantime someone has to feed them.

Agree the focus is bizarre, it is targeted.

The policy overall is very popular, and most of the mainstream media are steering clear for this reason - although the Telegraph has been consistently vocal, unsurprisingly given their readership.

But again - how much does funding breakfast for 93% of students in the country cost?! When it’s a small minority who can’t afford them?

At a lot of state schools wealthier parents just donate them.

This is a ridiculous comment.

The answer might be for you to move to a country that won't tax you.

Yes I am with you on this. The average wage after tax in the UK is just under £28,000 so no amount of scrimping and saving lets them save £18,000. For most people this is not achievable unless they are already well off.

they shall all be given their brief to follow and this shall blow over soon

vast majority of people simply do not care about this policy

those relatively few that do and feel they are being punished can vote Tory it isn't going to make a difference to Labour winning the election

…not the case where we live, or at my school. We have gifted & talented children, alongside those that need extra support. We don’t kick people out because they won’t get 9 grade 9s, we find a pathway that works.

We have young people who have been to, and continue to go to top universities, and young people who have done brilliantly on apprenticeships

We have ex pupils who are now top tennis players, footballers, golfers, chess players, performers etc (all current)

This view that some people have of the state sector is very odd. It’s like me saying that all Private Schools are full of “I’ve more that you” snobs, more concerned with keeping seperate from the riff raff, with hugely judgmental parents” .. I’d be wrong wouldn’t I

@ExtraOnions didn't think the term gifted ad talented was used anymore.

What is your level of FSM and SEND?

I must be missing something here. How would adding VAT to fees regulate the increases?

"Anyone who wants to take control of their own life rather than throw themselves at the mercy of the state is a "loony"."

Build your own roads then.

Its almost impossible to find out who isn't feeding their child breakfast and why so if we offer ALL DC free breakfast then it solves the problem of hungry children.
I am not saying that this IS affordable by putting VAT on school fees but IF it is then great, its a good use of the money

Firstly good state schools are often better than mediocre private schools. There are many mediocre private schools.

A great many people who pay for private are wasting their money, educationally speaking. They are paying for social exclusivity - and if that is their choice that is fine. The choice should not be removed.

But the strength of the nation rests on having strong state education, it is vitally important to us all.