Nope to labour

[Mrsdeehoang]

I was considering voting for Labour, but their manifesto proposal to change the VAT on private education has made me reconsider. I'm not financially well-off, just about managing, and I took on two jobs to afford the fees for my son’s private grammar school. Despite our efforts, he couldn’t get a place in any of the five local state schools due to oversubscription, and our appeal was unsuccessful. We were instead assigned a school outside our area with a poor Ofsted report. Faced with this choice, I opted to work harder to provide him with a better education privately. The proposed VAT changes would make it even harder for families like mine to manage.

For me, Labour doesn’t seem to understand that not everyone who sends their children to private school is wealthy. I don’t like the Tories either, but I would rather vote for them than for Labour.

It's not about 'transgender rights'. They have the same rights as everyone else last time I checked. It's about women's rights. Which a lot of women care about. If you don't share that then fine, good for you. For a lot of women it is important.

If you read the post I was responding to, the poster was pointing out that the women most likely to be affected are those in prison. I would have to be quite paranoid to think I was unsafe in the loo from any of my colleagues! However, women in prisons (who most of us don't think about because they are literally locked away) are most likely to be at risk.

I think the problem with GC is that they spend so much time thinking about, posting about, protesting about transgender women that they've lost all sense of material reality.

Lost all sense of material reality? Is that supposed to be ironic 😂 The loss of sense of material reality is what's got us here.

Males. Males are the problem. Statistically so. Regardless of how anyone identifies. Until that changes, yes people are going to be posting and protesting. And rightly so.

"If you read the post I was responding to, the poster was pointing out that the women most likely to be affected are those in prison. I would have to be quite paranoid to think I was unsafe in the loo from any of my colleagues! However, women in prisons (who most of us don't think about because they are literally locked away) are most likely to be at risk"

The number of women in prison at risk from assault by a transgender women in infinitesimally tiny, compared to the number at risk from almost any other issue currently affecting this population - severe mental illness, absolutely staggering levels of self harm, serious assaults by another female inmate (there were almost 488 assaults per 1000 inmates last year - almost all of them by biological women).

If you're spending vastly more energy on reading and writing about the impact of transgender women in women's prisons without spending any effort at all at looking at the things that I've mentioned, it's because your obsessive interest in trans issues is distorting your sense of reality and proportionality.

"Males. Males are the problem. Statistically so. Regardless of how anyone identifies. Until that changes, yes people are going to be posting and protesting. And rightly so."

You could remove every transgender woman from women's prisons, and every male prison guard, and you'd still have staggering levels of self harm, suicide, violence, assault, bullying and mental illness in those places.

And if you're talking about problems facing the women's prison population and your primary focus is on the impact of trans prisoners, then it's because trans issues have become a hobby horse to you, and not because you genuinely care about the welfare of this incredibly vulnerable group.

How did a post about VAT and Labour turn into one about the trans issue? Who brought it up? What have the two things got to do with each other?

I agree.

I also note that this is the only particular issue that those women face that requires little to no agency from their so called supporters.

Does it require them changing their behaviour? No.
Does making changes regarding trans issues in public spaces demand greater tax contributions? No.
Does it require significant public programs that address key issues and take significant amounts of public spending? No.

Are they advocating for significantly better mental and physical healthcare for women and children?
Advocating for significant ( and better directed) education spending ?
What about infrastructure spending?
Are they advocating for higher benefits (as benefit cuts disproportionately impact women and therefore women who are more vulnerable)
How about building more high quality social housing?

No, none of these things. The same people hear arguing GC theories are the ones arguing against VAT on schools because it'll directly increase their own costs.

It will raise some money for the state, will be used to provide things for those that are most vulnerable, but because it requires something from them? Nah.

@asterel "Well, presumably that would involve making existing staff redundant if you wanted to increase class sizes immediately to compensate for increased VAT. Would probably cost a lot in redundancy pay, as well as having the obvious effects on the individual staff."

Redundancy payments would depend on the type of contract staff were on. Many staff working in schools aren't on permanent contracts and some might be open to having reduced hours. As for the 'obvious effects on the individual staff' - well, yes. Many state schools are currently making support staff redundant or reducing their hours, not great but there's no reason why the private sector should be protected from the impact of economic change, when the state sector isn't.

However - there's always the option for private schools to take on more pupils, and increase class sizes that way. They could do what my son's comprehensive had to do when faced with a 'take on more pupils or lose staff' funding challenge - whack up large tents in the car park to accommodate the additional pupils.

My actual opinion is that women should be safe in all situations.

No, none of these things.

How on earth do you know this? Evidence?

There's probably plenty of women advocating for these things but still believe women should be able to be in spaces, compete in sports, attend rape crisis centres, go into a jail, without the presence of a penised male there. It's wild that there's women who try and shout these women down, or minimise.

@AccidentallyWesAnderson

Because MN is full of Gender issue threads and there are very few threads where whole hearted support is thrown into things that will improve outcomes for the most vulnerable. In fact you often find, as is seen here with people both advocating GC values whilst also being against VAT on private schools, that people get very cross about any policies which may impact them in order to improve things for the most vulnerable.

The reality is that for many, not all, a lot of the posters co-opt the most vulnerable exactly because it requires nothing much from them, in reality they don't care that much, the "most vulnerable" are a group to advocate for because its convenient just for this issue, not others.

@Lifelikinotdothinki

"My actual opinion is that women should be safe in all situations."

How does that work in women's prisons though, when removing transwomen inmates would still leave women prisoners vulnerable to sexual, emotional and violent assault, as statistically almost all these assaults are perpetuated by other female inmates?

"It's wild that there's women who try and shout these women down, or minimise."

Challenging your opinion on social media isn't 'shouting you down'.

When you refer to people 'minimising' the impact of transgender women in women's spaces and on the welfare of females, what you object to is people acknowledging the reality of how statistically rare it is for females to ever knowingly share any space with transgender woman, let alone be assaulted by one in a female space. The gender critical fixation on transgender issues is out of all proportion to the ACTUAL impact of transgender women on the lives of ACTUAL females. Just because it's a big issue in your head, it doesn't. mean it's a big issue in women's actual lives.

I took on two jobs to afford the fees for my son’s private grammar school.

And yet some people are taking in two jobs just to pay the rent, or mortgage, or feed their kids, keep the house warm in winter....

You are privileged whatever sob story you put on here.

Because the Tories are a) desperate and b) tone deaf to the millions of children in poverty due to their policies over 14y.

How does that work in women's prisons though, when removing transwomen inmates would still leave women prisoners vulnerable to sexual, emotional and violent assault, as statistically almost all these assaults are perpetuated by other female inmates?

So... women inmates are at risk from other women anyway. Lets throw a few men into the mix (rapists and sex offenders in particular) for more fun.

If you're worried about unfair and unearned advantage in sport, could we talk about the impact of going to fee paying schools? Because it has a much, much greater impact on the likelihood of someone becoming a medal winner than the inclusion of transgender women in women's sports.

Imagine making those legendary SACRIFICES to send your daughter to a fee paying school so she has a shot to become an elite athlete... only for her to be displaced by a male.

Good point.

Males. Males are the problem. Statistically so. Regardless of how anyone identifies. Until that changes, yes people are going to be posting and protesting. And rightly so

This. ☝

Most staff will be on permanent contracts, so redundancy rounds are expensive, and they won't take pay cuts due to the cost of living crisis. The cost-efficient way to cut staff is to wait for people to retire or quit (and not hire replacements), or have zero pay rises, but that takes years to work.

As for taking on more pupils, I don't think this works at all. Parents will be finding private schools less attractive than ever due to VAT, so student numbers will fall. Enrolments are already down, and they're going to fall further.

Basically there are very few levers they can pull to cut costs immediately, whereas VAT will come in all-of-a-sudden.

What we'll end up with is a significantly smaller independent school sector, with some chaos in the meantime as parents take their kids out, either because they can't afford VAT, or because the school is closing anyway due to reduced demand (because of VAT). Probably not much net tax revenue (if any).

I reckon the British public will come to regret it, like they do Brexit. But it takes time for the penny to drop.

Ok so all that said - why is it so important to you that men get to go in to women's prisons?

Other women...?🤔

So to extend your analogy, it's actually like taking out a huge mortgage which you're happily paying off (out of your salary which you've already paid income tax and NI on)... then the government deciding that as well as paying back your mortgage yourself (normal) you now have to hand over an extra 20% to the government . Even though no other country charges an additional tax on mortgage repayments.

Oh and you could have had subsidised council housing, but you're leaving that for another family since you're living in the house you bought with your own money. So evil of you!

Does that still sound OK?

(the equivalent to the government bailing you out following a rate rise would be if the government subsidised fees in any way. Which they don't)

It sounds OK to everyone who doesn't use the independent sector, because it's been presented as "free money" for state school teachers.

Free stuff is generally pretty popular.

I think this is the bit people really can't seem to understand (or don't want to, because it doesn't affect them). School fees are an investment, just like taking out a mortgage, which you manage through a mixture of saving up a lump sum, working out what you can put aside from income each month, and then allowing yourself a margin if this interest rates go up. School fee rises have gone up beyond inflation, and what the Labour party are saying is 'because you've kept up with your mortgage repayments at above inflation interests, you must be able to give us 20% on that every year from now on with almost no notice' (18 months is no notice). Maybe I can afford it, maybe I can't. Maybe I wouldn't have bought that house if I'd known I was going to have that extra payment. Maybe I would have bought a different house in a completely different area'.

Whoops wrong thread