The councils need to find spaces for all children!!

[HooverIsAlwaysBroken]

https://bmmagazine.co.uk/news/surrey-runs-out-of-state-school-places-for-private-pupils-as-vat-raid-bites/?amp

I am relieved to see that the Surrey is also looking at options to expand class sizes and use transportation to take children to other areas. They really need to get their act together quickly.

all children has a right to state education.

Not just kids either. I've attached a picture of Surrey County Council spending. When SCC have to pay for extra school transport - what this thread is about - who do you think is going to suffer?

Services for vulnerable adults and children make up 2/3 of the budget. Which will have to be cut, since SCC are already looking at doubling their borrowing in the next 4 years - already very worrying - even without this unnecessary extra expense.

You quoted the IFS when you believed the figure was 1billion over 5 years, now you ve been shown to be wrong, their figures aren't correct....

They aren't facts, they are estimations.

With all due respect, @twistyizzy , you stated that “the IFS never said that” and PP was showing that they did. Of course, any projections about any tax take will be estimates.

Anyway, I have a meeting to prep for. Have a good day.

I would urge you to listen to the video by Director of IFS which updates their stance on VAT saying "it will bring in very little". The original author has distanced himself from the report as he admitted it was overly optimistic and underestimated the number of SEN. Since the original, single IFS report, they have had to exempt state boarding schools, military, EHCP and other potential exemptions are in the pipeline.

All councils are suffering from financial difficulties, as a result of Tory policies over the last 14 years and their and now Labour's failure to address council tax re banding/reform.

So adding extra costs unnecessarily is a bit stupid isn’t it?

This is from their latest report:

Combining estimated tax revenues and extra public spending needs, our view is that it would be reasonable to assume a net gain to the public finances of £1.3–1.5 billion per year in the medium to long run as a result of removing tax exemptions from private schools. This would allow for about a 2% increase in state school spending in England, which Labour has proposed would be targeted at disadvantaged students

You might almost come to the conclusion that the 7% of parents who are happy to pay for their own children's education themselves - saving the state money - are doing everyone else a favour, and Labour shouldn't fuck up a good thing.

Medium to long term being in 5-6 years time, as we saw above. At which point there will be another excuse why it isn't raising any money. Maybe the sector having permanently shrunk, especially the most expensive SEN part?

Of course some of the costs will be hidden.

"1.3–1.5 billion per year in the medium to long run" doesn't mean in the immediate short term. It means from 2nd parliament onwards

Labour's policies are not sound, they drive people's emotions ie spite etc, hence the impact already seen in various ways

Hold on, the "extra money" was being spent on 1/3 teacher per school and a mental health professional in every school.

How is it now being targeted at disadvantaged students?

@strawberrybubblegum oh silly me! I thought I was paying private school fees so that my children don't have to mix with riff raff, when in fact it's a philanthropic act that everyone else should be grateful for q

Because the PP's interpretation is based on protections in the medium to long term ie 2nd parliament. The initial figure was 1.5 billion over the first term.
All Labour's own spending is based on 1.5 over first term NOT 6 billion.

There is research into the income levels of private school parents. There is no need to rely on anecdote. The overwhelmng majority of private school parents have high incomes. Where this is not the case familial wealth rather than busaries are often enabkes children's participation.
UCL have completed research. This blog is an accessible summary. https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/2021/02/08/housing-wealth-not-bursaries-explains-much-of-private-school-participation-for-those-without-high-income/

The merits of the VAT policy can be argued. However, data clearly shows that the vast majority of private school families have high incomes.

How to look a complete twat in one sentence. Showing your ignorance and major chip all in one go.

A sensible person would recognise the positive consequence on your own life. And the harm to yourself if you stop it.

Why I do it is irrelevant to the impact on you.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow thank you

I find this bizarre and just reinforces the stereotype that I have regarding private school parents. You'd throw in your entire career to stick it to Kier Starmer? Ok then.

A peer-reviewed source linking to the above blog. Not an anecdote.

Henseke, G., Anders, J., Green, F. and Henderson, M (2021). Income, housing wealth, and private school access in Britain. Education Economics 29(3): 252-268,

I can post this which shows distribution of indy pupils by income decile

Do you work in order to benefit the UK's GDP?

Or do you work to pay your own bills?

Nonetheless, you working benefits everyone.

And the state stopping you from working would be an act of self sabotage

@louddumpernoise My neighbour’s DS went to Eton and they always had a Skoda. Old money isn’t all about top show.

A few pages back the Times interview with Peter Lampl was illuminating. For the founder of the Sutton Trust to say dc should go to the local uni to save money is dreadful. Both our “local” unis are in the bottom 10%. I find metropolitan people so lacking in understanding of the situation elsewhere. Ditto politicians having a go at the better off who can swerve poor state schools. Labour never realise the it’s the better off people who pay more tax than anyone else put together.

As MacKenzie’s analysis reveals, Phillipson’s fallen for the UCL patter hook, line, and sinker:

• Statistically, she is falling for the Flaw of Averages. The average income of independent school households, and the average fee level, are both dragged way up by the millionaire and Eton / severe SEN outliers. Averages mislead, like the the guy who drowns in a river that’s “on average” three feet deep. If you’re choosing whether to holiday in Norfolk or Holland, you’d better not “on average” choose the middle of the North Sea.
• Empirically. Independent schools aren’t (only) for the “privileged few”, which to be generous call the top decile. They are clearly (also) for ~100,000 below-median-income kids, and ~200,000 median-to-second-decile kids.

I know of 2 families who have newly committed to private schools (one previously homeschooled, other state) who have just started sending their kids to private schools mid year with full knowledge of the VAT implications as new starters so I'm highly skeptical of the droves leaving.
None of the families we know who use private education have pulled their kids out. Lots of our professional contemporaries send their kids to private schools (common in profession) although our kids are in state because that is our preference.
I suspect that there is a certain level of hyperbole for those feeling 'victimised' by this policy. Yes some will struggle with it but the vast majority are already in a position of privilege compared to the main population and will no doubt find a way to maintain that privilege.