General Election 2024

Public school kids are significantly over represented in (some types of) sport and the Olympics- I’d suggest that in part that is due to many public schools doing some kind of sports each day/offering them to pupils.

I think that that aspect is a good worth bringing to the state sector- for the health benefit of nothing else.

I'm always shocked how little sport there is in the state sector. Standard public school is min of 40m every day, with whole afternoons on some days.

Our reception age kid has one lesson a week.

I'm sorry but I disagree, you are still paying for an advantage. It's just a matter of scale from paying for travel to a better school, through tutors and private schools

Yes, my point is that I don't have sympathy for people crying about a tax break that allowed them to benefit from and add to an unfair system.

I used tutors and music lessons as an example of things that having money will afford the privilege of getting for your kids but again I wouldn't be expecting a subsidy from the government to pay for them.

Actually having facilities helps too.

The original comment was about affordability.

Surely if you can afford to send your children private you’re doing well enough to pay a bit more

Anyone who can pay for nursery fees without going into debt can probably also afford private school (albeit not a top secondary public school).

That doesn't mean that by default they can pay a bit more.

The Conservative government between 1979 and 1997 sold off around 10,000 playing fields.

But surely they reinvested those proceeds into alternative facilities?

Thatcher's 1981 Regulation 909 gave education authorities the right to sell school land that they considered surplus to their requirements.

Over the next decade an estimated 5,000 playing fields were sold, many converted to housing developments, supermarkets or car parks.

When a prolonged industrial dispute between government and teaching unions, centred on pay and conditions, led to thousands of teachers refusing to continue providing unpaid after-school sports lessons, pupils' hours of sports fell still further.

Thatcher's supporters would blame instead a decline in competitive sports. Other, wider forces were also at work - the rise of computer gaming, a society-wide increase in sedentary lifestyles.

Whatever the cause, a survey by the Secondary Heads Association showed that the proportion of pupils under 14 spending less than two hours a week in physical education rose from 38% to 71% between 1987 and 1990.

By the end of the Conservative hegemony in 1997, that figure had crept above 75%.

Source: BBC

Wreckers

Is so shit too, because while fixing/reversing that isn't rocket science, it is incredibly fucking hard.

1. Pass act to allow compulsory purchase of land for sporting activities
   
2. Purchase land
   
3. Build sports facilities
   
4. Allocate specific funding for dedicated PE teachers
   
   

Lol!

Anyone who can pay for nursery fees without going into debt can probably also afford private school (albeit not a top secondary public school).

I don't think the nursery fee comparison works. There isn't a state nursery system in place, they're all private. Plus you can do part time in nursery part at home or all at home, families will kill themselves to cover child care knowing it's just 3 or 4 years before 'free' school kicks in so I think to say people who can afford nursery can afford private school is nonsense quite frankly.

Some lady was on the radio last night saying she had her kids in a private school but she wasn't rich - I doubt she appreciates how rich she actually is compared to the average citizen.
Like that electrician(?) on question time that earned 80k and thought he was average.

It works as a benchmark for another child related cost and another relatively lazy assumption.

Of course being able to afford part time nursery for half the week isn't the same as paying for private school. But if you're spending post tax income of £1.5-2.5k p/m* then you can definitely afford more right?

Maybe. Or maybe not.

In the same way that someone who can make up £1.25k p/m for private school between their household income and some contribution from grandparents, may or may not be able to wear more costs.

I don't really see it as an "they can afford it so tax them" issue. It's about fairness and not giving a tax break when the state sector is in crisis.

*Tbf Av is actually a bit over £1k p/m per child but I doubt anyone in within the M25 is paying that.

No one does.

I listened to an interesting programme on this years ago based on a study of the wealthy in NYC. I'll see if I can find it.

Tl;Dr is that as you increase wealth your benchmarking shifts. As a result you're permanently aware of never being as wealthy as other people you know.

A bit like being able to afford a nice Trek or a vitsoe desk and shelf, but not being able to afford a Richard Sachs or a full walls worth of shelving.

i don't get this argument about "you can definitely afford more".

who gives a shit if whoever "you" is can or can't afford it?

if VAT makes it unaffordable - oh well. the state education system is still there.

Exactly.

It's about fairness and not giving a tax break when the state sector is in crisis.

yes, this sums it up imo.

next up - the fuel duty accelerator made my driving Bentley unaffordable.

Or would have done if it hadn't been frozen for god knows how long.

who gives a shit if whoever "you" is can or can't afford it?

Yes, this was all I was saying the whole time, it's already unfair that people can afford it, it shouldn't have a subsidy as well.

awesome - we all agree :)

VAT on Private School Fees is one of the few things this election we actually have a very clear choice on. If like me you think it's a good idea vote Labour, if you oppose it vote tory.

Personally I'd like to see a levy or VAT at a higher than 20% rate for Private School Fees and than money being used to scrap the 2 child cap. The richest kids helping the poorest kids out of poverty.

Erm... Supporting pub fights?

1 Attachment

I am not sure it is a good idea to do it first, without the provision in place to deal with any fall out.

But, whatever the impact of this policy is, it will be a less worse than another Tory govt.

I don't think there will be a lot of impact to the state in terms of the numbers going private. Currently 7% of children are privately educated. Perhaps that drops to 6% which would be a big change to private schools but is an extra child per class in the state sector. Money goes to schools based on role and the exchequer has extra cash from the VAT.

The IFS have modelled the impact at 3% reduction in private schooling, so 0.21% of the a school population.

Luckily they have good data to go on as private schools have implemented ridiculous price hikes over the last 30 years, so there is a wealth of historic data to analyse for price sensitivity.