That Starmer fella...

Seriously just fuck off now - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/sep/27/labour-backs-down-from-plan-to-strip-private-schools-of-charitable-status

Just burn them all down. With the pupils, and ex-pupils, inside.

I'm not sure whether this is a bad thing or not.

If they are able to cut out the VAT and business rates breaks then that is getting rid of a large parts of the benefits that they had by being a charity.

If they removed charitable status from the schools then that would mean they could charge corporation tax on the profits but the schools would then be able to do what they wanted with the fees rather than have to spend them on education (and I wouldn't be surprised if some of that involved management fees, rights, etc to overseas companies or trusts to cut that tax bill right down).

Although personally I'd just abolish all private schools and have done with it.

Out of curiosity would people remove the advancement of education as a charitable purpose? Or have some sort of specific carve out that only applies to private schools?

This is really interesting to look back on given the way starmer and labour have spoken about migrants, migrant policy, the refugee convention and the boats.

"Keir Starmer launches illegal migration crackdown to woo Tory voters...
The Labour leader will outline plans to ‘smash’ criminal gangs which smuggle people to the UK and ‘bring order to the border’".

I get that people want to have hope but Starmer has shown us who he really is far too many times, sadly.

Bit unfair for kids who will have been told to go. Obviously once they become cunts well that's another thing.

If they are able to cut out the VAT and business rates breaks then that is getting rid of a large parts of the benefits that they had by being a charity.

This was the benefit of removing their charitable statuses as far as I could see. I certainly saw it in terms of rescinding the VAT exemption / business rates benefits.

I didn't see any further benefits - can someone explain functionally what the difference is and why you're annoyed/seeing this as a rollback?

Lots of problems with removing charitable status/VAT etc in education. Most universities are technically private education institutions, many of which offer A levels, some private schools do mini degrees, its complicated. To be consistent, are Labour going to remove benefits to universities as well?

As someone that was lucky enough to go to private school, I feel it's important to reiterate that only a handful of them are the nightmare Eton image that people usually think about private schools, most are small, relatively progressive places that don't have a tonne of money and are used by people that aren't especially wealthy or have kids that have special needs that their local state can't cover.

In terms of getting the Tories out, this is a very risky proposal by Labour.

I feel it's important to reiterate that only a handful of them are the nightmare Eton image that people usually think about private schools, most are small, relatively progressive places that don't have a tonne of money and are used by people that aren't especially wealthy or have kids that have special needs that their local state can't cover

lol

used by people that aren't especially wealthy

I love you man but if a family can afford an average £17k per year toward private education for their kids, they ARE especially wealthy. They may be making other sacrifices, and I'm not downplaying that. But if you've got £17k a year to blow, you're doing alright.

Sure thing, but there's quite a big difference in income/status between someone that can do local private school fees of £17k and fees for places like Eton which are £50+k per year.

I think what I'd do as Starmer is to take an approach something like universities. Regulate the term fees to make them more accessible and perhaps mandating wider entry conditions/ free places in return for the continuing tax breaks.

TBH I agree, especially at the general knee jerk to assuming all private schools = the most elite public schools

However, I'm also a bit torn as I recognise it gets a lot of air time for a tiny % of the population.

On the broader Starmer is a U-turn king point. Adding 20% to school fees which on average are already increasing 7-10% annually is a pretty massive blow to private schools. It is also low effort from a policy pov - which is what I was I was getting at about how you go about amending the Charities Act.

TBH I'd also argue that bringing in full VAT on day 1, rather than tapering it in is quite tough. If your kid is in say year 3, and you'd made the choice of stretching yourself to going private when there was no visible prospect of paying an extra 20% now being landed with it in one go means you probably have to pull your kid out at a critical school age.

Tough shit.

TBH I don't really get this attitude.

We're taking about children with lives, friends and routines, etc. Giving people the ability to take policies like this into account and do some forward planing strikes me as a kinder process, rather than saying fuck 'em they've already had too nice a life, let's make them pay.

Fingers crossed, they'll get the shit kicked out of them when they move schools.

Maybe a touch far, but quite likely.

When we're in a situation where working people cannot earn enough to feed their kids, I have absolutely zero sympathy for anyone who sends their kids to private school. No-one seems to give a fuck about those kids who go to school hungry, day-in, day-out.

I am confused, school kids getting the shit kicked out of them is fine but you draw the line at criminals/rapists?

One of my key concerns is if you make it easy for a siginifcant proportion of the population to opt out, people are going to feel more antagonistic towards state provision of services and you're losing a constituency that might otherwise be supporting their local schools.

Another issue associated with private school provision is that in many cases you are encouraging people to travel further making problems of school run worse

I think it makes sense that some portion of the private school fees is reinvested in education for the general public (ie. 20% VAT). The current ruleset is that the school says "we're a charity so we can't take a profit and have to reinvest in education" and in practice that means buying a tennis court for the fee-paying students. That's not really investing in education in a charitable sense, you're just providing a service to rich people

If you bring in a tax on private school fees, make them retain charitable status, and ringfence the money for education, you get the correct outcome which is that any money spent on school fees benefits the students at the school as well as all children in state education (to a lesser extent)

Edit: if extra "profit" is spent funding bursaries that is a similar outcome, but this way the state is mandating that 20% of the fee goes towards state education, whereas bursaries are at the school's discretion, so the school gets to make the decision between a new swimming pool or taking a couple of inner city poor kids. You're setting a minimum level of charitable public good.

You would hope high earners have enough sense to see which way the wind is blowing politically and factor that in to thier decision making, this proposed policy has been published enough that anyone it impacts will have had several years to plan accordingly

One of my key concerns is if you make it easy for a siginifcant proportion of the population to opt out

This 100%. If we had no private schools, those with £17k a term a year to "invest" in their offsprings education would be incentivised to ensure that state schools were as successful as possible

Then you end up with catchment area house inflation. A particular issue in the Greater Glasgow area. The catchment areas for the best state schools become completely bourgeoised. A circle of privilege.

I admit it's complicated, but you've got to try and read all four posts in order, one after another.

Idk. I think I've given a pretty solid e.g. which was based on someone sending their kid to private school pre-Truss.

Before Truss came in I don't think anyone was saying a Labour government was a done deal, and definitely not that adding VAT was a certainty.

This is the basis for my point of tapering it in. It doesn't even have to be over an especially long period.