I have some (not a lot, but some) sympathy for the "some people want good education for their children and work hard and forego stuff to be able to just about afford to send them to a private school. If VAT is added, they'll no longer be able to afford it" argument.
However, practically speaking, a quick Google tells me that average private school fees are about £16k a year. So, if adding VAT may make it unaffordable for some and the child no longer goes to a private school, they'll then have £16k a year to spend on tutoring, trips, clubs, holidays to interesting places etc, all of which will still significantly enhance their child's state education.
The lords presumably will block anything too radical?
Unlikely if it's part of the manifesto and they get a good mandate. For the Lords to block it in those circumstances would precipitate a constitutional crisis.
Canada has no private healthcare. IIRC at least one of the Scandi countries has no private schools.
Both private schools and private healthcare actu8ally make the state provision worse by removing dedicated practitioners from the state system whose education has been paid for by the state. Both entrench inequality as well
How much are these lessor private schools fees? I'll bet well out of reach for the average person - you know middle earners on £30 000ish PA
George Watsons in Edinburgh are £17500 pa for seniors as an example
Yeah, the Parliament Act basically says that the Lords can't block something that's in a Party's manifesto
And poorly performing state schools are not rubbish because private schools exist.
I'm pretty sure the evidence disagrees with you there.
Private schools are always elitist by their very nature. They exist to separate the children of the wealthy from the poor with all their chaos and annoying needs.
Education and healthcare are special cases within society, since they form the very foundation of the social contract - everyone should have an equal chance at a decent life.
It's not about freedom of choice for the very few who can afford it, it's about equality of outcome for everyone. The rich kids will still succeed because their parents are usually well educated and engaged, even in the state system.
No-one wants to deprive you of anything, we want to give you a better, healthier society for you children and grandchildren to live in. We love you, despite your selfish tendencies.
You mean those richest few % in our society. middle earners cannot afford private schools. The very fact you can afford private schooling puts you firmly in the rich bracket. average (ie middle earners) earnings are around £30 000 pa.
Thanks I am very much aware of how much I earn compared to the national average.
I also know that if this happens I probably wont be able to afford to send my kid to private school, and having had conversations with others they may not be able to either. However there is a % of people that 20% extra cost will make naff all difference to. Therefore it becomes even more elitist than it was before.
So, if adding VAT may make it unaffordable for some and the child no longer goes to a private school, they’ll then have £16k a year to spend on tutoring, trips, clubs, holidays to interesting places etc, all of which will still significantly enhance their child’s state education.
Agreed - we will be significantly better off if we pull our son out of private school and would certainly be looking towards additional tutoring to make up for the shortfall in working day.
I am sure all teachers offering additional tutoring put it on their self assessment form as additional income 🙂
The rich kids will still succeed because their parents are usually well educated and engaged, even in the state system.
Possibly, or actually, and it might surprise some people, people get rich from working bloody hard for it. Both Mrs FD and my parents were brought up on council estates. Mrs FD was the first person in her family to go to university. Both of us went to our respective state schools. 30 years ago we both had no money at all. We have both worked bloody hard for it, and now we are doing what we can to give our son the best start in life.
Are people suggesting that the best start in life we can give him is to send him to the most shit school we can find as that helps him and society? Or do we send him to a school that inspires him to achieve ? I wish the school I went to had given me half the skills my son has been given so far.
I also know that if this happens I probably wont be able to afford to send my kid to private school, and having had conversations with others they may not be able to either. However there is a % of people that 20% extra cost will make naff all difference to. Therefore it becomes even more elitist than it was before.
To me this suggests that we should take an alternative approach. Perhaps make them cheaper, maybe even free. Of course, some central funding will then be involved but I think that's ok as now everyone will be able to attend regardless of economic background. Elitism solved!
How much are these lessor private schools fees? I’ll bet well out of reach for the average person – you know middle earners on £30 000ish PA
Don't really know. Possibly somewhere around the £8k - £10k. And that is probably easily within reach of a couple of middle earners - if it's something they feel strongly enough about committing to.
molgripsFree Member
it’s about equality of outcome for everyone
it’s about equality of opportunity, not outcome.
That shows a lack of ambition.
Possibly somewhere around the £8k – £10k.
My entirely unscientific survey of the one private school I know of in the vicinity suggested around £8k per term for someone in years 7-11.
You get lunch for that though.
I’m not sure elected house is actually that good either – but I think you could easily define something both fairer and cheaper.
There has to be some democratic input for it to be a meaningful reform, even if it isn't direct elections.
I don't think that cost is an issue - I can't imagine that we are talking about large sums of money. Criticism of the House of Lords is centered on the fact that it is unrepresentative, and undemocratic.
Labour has already looked into the issue in quite a lot of detail:
Numbers at his school have already dropped post COVID.
Then they'd be wise to soak up the VAT to hold prices the same. Might mean some cuts I suppose. Bigger class sizes. Not fixing leaks in the roof. Selling off playing fields. You know... the shit most schools have been going through while Labour have been in opposition.
I we suggesting that the best start in life we can give him is to send him to the most shit school we can find as that helps him and society?
There wouldn't be any shit schools if there wasn't an escape route for the rich via private schools. The people with power would make sure all schools were good if there was a chance their kids had to go there.
What do you think Sunak's attitude to teachers would be if his daughters had to go to the local school in Yorkshire whilst he's pretending he lives there?
Criticism of the House of Lords is centered on the fact that it is unrepresentative, and undemocratic.
And has far too many members. All these Conservative PMs we've had having a go... each one stuffing the house with more mates... makes some kind of reform inevitable. HoL reform has to happen now. The choice is between tinkering and major reform.
Data centres are important, but they don't run on fresh air. Electricity production is most important.
I was watching the various party's and I think the Green Party most closely align with my thoughts, but I can't help thinking that I should vote labour as we can't be doing with either a hung parliament / coalition, or more time with the Tories in power.
There's a lot of people out there that have lsot faith and think that not voting, or spoiling their vote is much more productive, however I think that that just makes the situation worse - by that token you could say so does my voting intention.
I think Labour's a pretty safe seat here, so maybe the Green's might be worth a punt, but will it count for anything?
Don’t really know. Possibly somewhere around the £8k – £10k. And that is probably easily within reach of a couple of middle earners
So two middle earners - lets be generous and say thats £35000pa each - so take home into the household will be around 50 000 ish? ( back of rizla packet calculations) ( disposable income after housing say £40000 pa. Two kids at private school - so thats £20 000 pa minimum? half of their disposable income? ( and I bet average fees are a lot more than that- #Watsons is a middle rank school in Edinburgh at £17000pa
Hardly easily within reach. Again I think the issue here is richer folk not realising how rich they are. Middle earners are around £30 000pa or maybe a bit more.
Edit - recalculate because I misread - 8-10 k a term?
~so in my above sums using Watsons fees - two kids is £35000 pa ie almost the entire disposable income of two middle earners
There's no way round it no matter what some people are saying on here.
If you send your child to private school, ya rich.
The costs of most schools per year are beyond what I earn and I consider myself to be well off. Clearly I'm poor.
My entirely unscientific survey of the one private school I know of in the vicinity suggested around £8k per term for someone in years 7-11.
One school in our vicinity it is £7.3k for one child per year for years 7-11. So, yeah, it varies. 🙂
There wouldn’t be any shit schools if there wasn’t an escape route for the rich via private schools. The people with power would make sure all schools were good if there was a chance their kids had to go there.
What do you think Sunak’s attitude to teachers would be if his daughters had to go to the local school in Yorkshire whilst he’s pretending he lives there?
I think this is a bit of a utopian view. Even of there were no private schools there would still be shit schools, and they'd probably by the ones in the poorest areas, unless you're going to fix poverty too (and no-ones found a way of doing that). The ones in the better off areas would have excellent facilities paid for in large part by very well-funded PTAs. I'm sure Rishi's local school would have an excellent music department and tennis court for example.
Rishi Sunak refuses to say if he had told close aide Craig Williams the date of the election before he placed £100 bet on when it would happen
so how much was your cut then Prime Minister ? And have you paid Piers Morgan yet ?
My state school in the 70s took most of its kids from the schemes and had far better facilities than any fee paying school in the city ( glasgow). swimming pool, 2 gyms and a sports hall big enough for football with a climbing wall, fully equipped drama studio, up to date language labs, 3 outdoor football pitches, specialist lecture theaters for 5th year, no class over 30 and 15 for sciences, lots of extra curricular activities
Shit schools are a political choice
No-one has said why private schools shouldn’t have to charge VAT
I'm not really sure. As others have said, by charging VAT on fees it will drive the costs for parents up and will consequently take some parents out of the market. Which may well reduce the numbers in the school. Which reduces the school income and consequently on any income HMRC are likely to make out it. Plus they will then be able to start reclaiming VAT on stuff they currently don't. As a policy, sure, it gets the vote and approval of those who against private schools. But will there be much of a net gain to the tax take? I suspect not. And those that then do take their kids out of private schools, how many of them will then spend some of that "saved" money on private tuition - something that will have zero impact on raising the standards of the state schools that the kids are now in. Plus extra kids that the local authority are now paying for that they previously weren't.
South Shropshire: Lib Dems actually did it once (2001). I hear something has slithered away from danger in Wolverhampton this time for the unspeakables. Good luck.
Farmers seem to be the ones who regularly get screwed over by tory governments and yet keep on pushing them. Its like some form of BDSM for them.
They pushed my dad too far, and he ended up disliking them. Former party member like most of my family. (They loved me!). Same constituency, or its smaller predecessor.
biuking catastrophe - so £15000 pa for two junior school kids - still not affordable for middle earners is it? 1/3 - 1/2 of two middle earners disposable income ish?
Shit schools are a political choice
I think you're going to have to explain that one for us, because as a statement that doesn't stand up.
And I don't think that comparing your school in the 70's is especially relevant to the debate today. I would say that most state schools were better in the 70's than they are now in comparison to now. Smaller population, newer schools, a lot of comprehensives that were only just out of being grammar schools, fewer pulls on the national budgets, education and local council funding etc etc.
I feel this is a bit of a rabbit hole in the overall election debate. There are bigger issues to address than whether private schools should VAT, IMHO. But it does highlight why it's hard for any individual party to find agreement from all about their policies.
Even of there were no private schools there would still be shit schools,
That's undoubtedly true, but no reason to aim low. Reach for the stars, as S-Club say.
biuking catastrophe – so £15000 pa for two junior school kids – still not affordable for middle earners is it? 1/3 – 1/2 of two middle earners disposable income ish?
Where did I say junior school kids? And where did I mention 2 kids? I'm not arguing that it's easily affordable - was merely pointing out that not all private schools cost a King's ransom. On the other hand, we have 2 public schools in the town (one for boys and one for girls) that cost considerably more. Plus Radley College nearby where the fees are very definitely not for the middle income earners. (Radley College is currently £17k per TERM!! 🫨)
After all that, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of middle earners are not the type to be sending their kids to private schools anyway. Maybe those with only 1 kid might make that sacrifice (I know a couple that did). But it's also fair to say there is a significant number of people in this country who are earning above that £30,000 middle earner income - clearly enough to keep most of the public schools in pupils.
"I would think thats the sort of sensible solution. Although knowing how gov works: Elected July 24, Budget April 25 – announced from April 2026 – so really only school term Sep 26 on… and thats assuming they are “quick”.
The word in the sector is that VAT will be backdated to pretty much day one of a labour govt. Those that can afford it, so the richest parents and those least affected by the increase in fees are busily paying all their fees in advance right now to circumvent the rise. Some are paying ALL fees right till their children have left 6th form.
Remove private cars because of their pollution and mandate everyone either walks, cycles or uses public transport?
Stop threatening me with a good time and start a party already.
apologies - its the "year 7 - 11" that confused me. I read that as ages 7-11
Stop threatening me with a good time and start a party already.
🤣
did you read that recent report into the environmental impact of data servers.
I’ve read a few articles on the power consumption regarding them along with who owns them and how they are operated by tech companies in the USA, currently reading Vassal State - How America runs Britain by Angus Hanton and whilst I knew we were pretty ****ed I didn’t realise just how ****ed we actually are, we as a country own the princely sum of sweet **** all, since the mid 80’s we have to all intents and purposes sold everything, So it’s no wonder our tax income is fubar.
Education and healthcare are special cases within society, since they form the very foundation of the social contract – everyone should have an equal chance at a decent life.
While I think most people believe that in principle, in practice they'll do whatever they can to get their own kids every leg up possible. Private schools, nepotism for work placements, house deposits, etc. Hard to blame them really, to not do so while everyone else does.
So, yeah, it varies.
The fact that it varies reveals a lot about the pricing and what the impact of charging vat would be.
Schools don't charge as little as possible, they charge as much as they can. If that wasn't the case the prices would all be more or less the same.
If they have to charge vat - they'll continue to charge as much as they think their customers will pay. Which might be exactly the same as they charge now.
Which is why our politicians need to take charge of this and copy successful countries where these things are not allowed 🙂 No private medicine, no private schools are good for a country .
I understand parents urges to do the best they can but opening doors for one kid slams them in another kids face
https://labourlist.org/2024/05/labour-muslim-constituencies-general-election-2024/
The 16 constituencies LabourList found labelled as “battleground areas” were:
Bethnal Green and Stepney
Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North
Birmingham Ladywood
Birmingham Perry Barr
Birmingham Yardley
Blackburn
Bolton South and Walkden
Bradford East
Bradford South
Bradford West
Huddersfield
Leicester South
Luton North
Luton South and South Bedfordshire
Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton
Slough
Personally I think there might possibly be some unexpected surprises on election night which no one is currently really talking about. But we shall see - there might be no surprises at all!
Which is why our politicians need to take charge of this and copy successful countries where these things are not allowed
You appreciate that governments can't just do whatever they want, right?
Interesting views tjagain, don’t you think we should also ban second home owners as well or does your socialist utopian view just extend to things that don’t impact you.
Also please consider that a lot of kids that go to private schools have the fees paid by companies and also UK forces. It is likely that an increase in fees will just be passed on. There also need to have a provision for boarding that I don’t believe is routinely provided in the state sector. I know there are some state grammar schools that offer boarding options, but I am sure they are the exception.
Personally I think they should always have been treated like any other business, but the idea that this will somehow benefit the state sector and that private schools will no longer exist will not be a likely outcome in my view.
@molgrips You're missing a democratic between "that" & "governments". Those that are despotic or tyranny's will do what they wish regardless and objecting is likely to get the objector disappeared.
I think you’re going to have to explain that one for us, because as a statement that doesn’t stand up.
The political choice is fund insufficiently. IF the wages for teachers, funding for the buildings and education facilities is there pupils will excel. Currently the teaching staff are demoralised and poorly paid leading to it being a vocation not a sensible career choice with the really talented buggering off when they get tired leaving those who are marking time.
Buildings - hopefully we've been paying attention to the concrete beam problems of recent times.
Facilities books, paper, timber, chemicals to allow lessons to be held in practical as well as theoretical subjects. Plus well equipped sporting facilities, workshops and sundry other things.
A properly comprehensive (meaning - including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something) education for all.
And if the super-rich have to retreat into their ghettos and don't mix with us plebs over time they will see they need to join in or get left behind because the brightest and best will be coming from state schools. It's a two maybe three parliamnetary term scheme to effect permanent change as radical as anything Thatcher wanted to do.
Let's ban all individual choice, hey why not ban individual thought as well. We will get equality of opportunity and outcome, and it will crap. Stopping the more well off accessing private service will not improve public service one jot, it's just being selfish, if I can't have something why should someone else. Stop with the side show, if we want batter public services concentrate on that rather than blaming others, it's straight out of the Tory playbook.
Equality of opportunity is what matters and were a long way from that today, things were better for social mobility in the 80s for God's sake. Stop fixating on people that have done alright, it's not their fault your life doesn't meet expectations, their success is not at your expense, save the hate for governments, especially the current one, who have made they whole playing field a lot less level.
We ban plenty of things that are bad for society. Drugs, guns, pesticides, E numbers.
Engines of inequality are just as corrosive to society.
