Whitehall “braced for private schools collapse” 3

[ICouldBeVioletSky]

Starting a third thread to discuss impact of VAT on private school fees, as the topic looks likely to run (and run). Though probably best to finish off the second thread before posting here, thx.

A 20% tax won’t change that, it just further limits the options for a wider group of parents.

FFS. You can’t ‘choose’ to buy a million pound pad in London if you’re poor either. Or buy a luxury car, or shop in Armani. Should we ban or add additional taxes to those too? And where do we draw the line. Afterschool clubs, trainers that cost £100+, tech goods?

Nope.

We had a free state nursery from age 3 attached to a local primary in London. Normal school hours and only thing we had to pay for was lunch as that was only free in our borough for YR - Y6.

But if you are poor you are going to have even less choice if other parents choose to opt out of private education and compete for what the state has on offer.

There are around 400 state funded nursery schools, and a few thousand nursery classes (part of existing schools), with plans to add more of this type of tax-funded provision. Sounds great as an idea, but it's still underfunded (like all schools) and the model is untested so could fail. Plus doesn't yet touch the sides of what is needed for childcare, so it's mostly private provision for most people. (Our local primary school has nursery classes, not a separate school)

Current govt could well decide that they want state to be the main option, and it would be very easy to charge VAT on private nurseries to get the same outcome as private schools - reduced uptake as people switch to state.

None if those are protected by ECHR rights.

The right to provide an education to your child according to your values - in particular for the government not to deliberately prevent that - is.

No. You can't choose to have a family either, if no-one wants you. Despite the ECHR right to family life.

But the government isn't allowed to deliberately make it harder.

How hard is that to understand?

Agreed, but it was the ‘if you’re poor’ you have less choice whine that I was responding to.

Hmmm it's not hard to understand the argument, but it'll be hard to convince me that access to private school is a human right. And neither can the majority of the country who could never even dream of affording it in the first place which is why they voted for a party that had it within it's manifesto.

Oh it's "whining" if someone says they can't afford private school now is it? Come on why don't you just tell us povos that we clearly haven't worked hard enough.

It’s not the access to private schooling that’s a human right - it’s the right to choose how to educate your child that is the human right.

The phrasing isn't "access to private schools", it's more "access to educational choice outside of state funded option". Some of the court case plaintiffs are religious schools with very modest/low fees, and yet their families would find the 20% extra prohibitive and lose their school as a consequence. It's that sort of thing.

Private school fees for schools near us are about £2000 a month for one child - this is exactly the same as full time monthly nursery fees for a 2 year old, and thousands of families do pay that for nursery already.

Ah, apologies. I didn't read your post properly.

Luckily, the ECHR wrote it all down in a list of rights.

Well luckily it doesn't seem to have stopped the government implementing a policy that was in its manifesto.

There is still a choice, either find the extra money or don't.

It's true, the government can choose to break ECHR human rights.

Who is going to stop them?

I suppose how you feel about that perhaps depends on whether you think human rights are a good thing, and whether you like the UK being signed up to the Human Rights Act.

I think being signed up has benefits (we are protected against human rights violations) but also both financial and social costs (court cases cost the tax payers, and judgements can override the intentions of laws and governments regarding who gets to stay in the UK).

I feel that if the Human Rights Act can't protect our children from a vindictive government deliberately interfering with their education, then I will no longer support the social costs of us staying in.

I agree Labour will ignore any ECHR ruling, their spite towards these children seems to have overridden any logic or common sense.

Well the majority of the country didn't vote Labour... unless you think 33.7% is more than 50%.

Oh very good, the majority of the people cared enough to vote then. The outcome is the same.

@OhCrumbsWhereNow is referring to the share of people that cared enough to vote - 33.7%. The majority of the voting population voted for something else.

And that's why there is a legal challenge to the policy which the government is throwing 4 x QCs at, all at cost to the taxpayer. Are you happy about that?

The human right is the right of parents to choose without government interference and government applying a discriminatory tax on that choice ie you only pay VAT on 1 type of choice.

What have I just read? That a Government the executive should be able to do whatever is in the manifesto even if it constitutes a breach of the human rights act? If that is what the court rules in the end?

I am sorry but that is unacceptable. That is Reform territory. There is no way Labour will be able to allow it to continue if it is a breach - they will have to either adapt the policy to make it compliant (for example exempting special needs more widely) or they scrap the policy entirely.
They have hired 4 QCs because they are scared. They absolutely cannot afford to let it stand as currently drafted if it is a breach.

I’d certainly be interested to know how much taxpayers will be paying for the four KCs. Just think - Labour could have used that (apparently available) money for state education!

But why is it a breach of human rights for you but not for the those who couldn't afford it even before the fee increase?