Do you want to discuss boring politics? (165 Viewers)

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Of course Tony, you are really paying for it all.

That’s not how subsidies work. It’s a subsidy because the accusation is that if they charge VAT it becomes unaffordable. That’s the very definition of a subsidy.

It’s also bollocks. Private schools are not a broken business model. I read the other day that the cost of private education to the user has increased by 55% in a 20 year period. If the schools themselves are that concerned they can always succumb to the free market economy and adjust their pricing model like any other business.

Mucca Mad Boys · Jun 19, 2024

shmmeee said:
Find me one teacher who thinks adding upper middle class kids with parents committed to education to their school is a burden.

The burden is on the classroom sizes and financially. Every student that moves from private education to the state sector carries the cost of £6.6k to £8.8k per pupil.

So if we need even more teachers to deal with the influx of new students, it could defeat the point of the levy.

jimmyhillsfanclub · Jun 19, 2024

All these micro-case studies of parent sacrifice & postcode lottery are fine as outlier examples, but beside the basic point.....
That point being that private school fees should be subject to VAT @ 20%.
The business & its customers will both have to figure out how to cut their cloth accordingly.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Exactly.

It's not exactly equal that people who live in Finham or Kenilworth get better options than those who live in Bell Green, is it?

But if you buy a 3 bedroom house in Finham or Kenilworth to ensure your kids get a better education you don’t pay stamp duty at the going rate for a 3 bedroom house in Bell Green do you. Your stamp duty is not subsidised for the sake of the standard of your children’s education.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
All these micro-case studies of parent sacrifice & postcode lottery are fine as outlier examples, but beside the basic point.....
That point being that private school fees should be subject to VAT @ 20%.
The business & its customers will both have to figure out how to cut their cloth accordingly.

How will it impact people going to university if they start paying VAT? What about the SEN private schools where people pay because the public equivalent isn't up to scratch?

Is private healthcare exempt?

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
But if you buy a 3 bedroom house in Finham or Kenilworth to ensure your kids get a better education you don’t pay stamp duty at the going rate for a 3 bedroom house in Bell Green do you. Your stamp duty is not subsidised for the sake of the standard of your children’s education.

Surely your answer should be to make sure that the school in bell green is up to exactly the same standards as the one in Finham and there shouldn't be a better education lottery dependent on postcode?

Grendel · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
But if you buy a 3 bedroom house in Finham or Kenilworth to ensure your kids get a better education you don’t pay stamp duty at the going rate for a 3 bedroom house in Bell Green do you. Your stamp duty is not subsidised for the sake of the standard of your children’s education.

Do you live in a grammar system Tony?

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
How will it impact people going to university if they start paying VAT? What about the SEN private schools where people pay because the public equivalent isn't up to scratch?

Is private healthcare exempt?

I think when you get to the point of inventing scenarios where something might happen to prove a point you’d be better off just conceding the point.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
I think when you get to the point of inventing scenarios where something might happen to prove a point you’d be better off just conceding the point.

Funnily enough I'm not inventing anything.

The dream scenarios are the ones where the education system is going to be fixed and everybody will be equal

Deleted member 5849 · Jun 19, 2024

jimmyhillsfanclub said:
All these micro-case studies of parent sacrifice & postcode lottery are fine as outlier examples, but beside the basic point.....
That point being that private school fees should be subject to VAT @ 20%.
The business & its customers will both have to figure out how to cut their cloth accordingly.

Princethorpe College say they'll share the burden with parents of any VAT add-on. Given that their fees are going up nearly three times the rate of inflation it's the least they could do...

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Surely your answer should be to make sure that the school in bell green is up to exactly the same standards as the one in Finham and there shouldn't be a better education lottery dependent on postcode?

Agreed. But that’s not the reality. You’re saying we should subsidise parents A so their child can go to a better school but not subsidise parents B who have also taken action to so their child can go to a better school. Parents B just didn’t go the private education route they moved house instead. There also a direct correlation between house prices and school catchment area so technically parents B are paying a premium on the house price and then a premium on stamp duty to boot. It’s parents B we should have sympathy with long before we have sympathy for parents A.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
Agreed. But that’s not the reality. You’re saying we should subsidise parents A so their child can go to a better school but not subsidise parents B who have also taken action to so their child can go to a better school. Parents B just didn’t go the private education route they moved house instead. There also a direct correlation between house prices and school catchment area so technically parents B are paying a premium on the house price and then a premium on stamp duty to boot. It’s parents B we should have sympathy with long before we have sympathy for parents A.

Well you are subsidising parent B, aren't you? As are parents A. If things being VAT exempt is you subsidising then you will be in for a shock with everything you are subsidising.

What about the people who can't afford to move or private school? Surely your whole argument is about equality?

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Funnily enough I'm not inventing anything.

The dream scenarios are the ones where the education system is going to be fixed and everybody will be equal

Well you are you’re saying what if VAT goes on university fees, what if VAT goes on private healthcare, what if your gran had bollocks…

Try reading up on Finlands education system. It’s possible, there just needs to be political will from politicians to propose it and from the electorate to support it.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
Well you are you’re saying what if VAT goes on university fees, what if VAT goes on private healthcare, what if your gran had bollocks…

Try reading up on Finlands education system. It’s possible, there just needs to be political will from politicians to propose it and from the electorate to support it.

I am just pointing out if education becomes non VAT exempt.

I don't live in Finland so why would I? Is it going to make the education of kids of the healthcare service et any better? Should I move there?

Like I said, people just get on and get shit sorted rather than pin their lives and outcomes on politicians who are all full of shit.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Well you are subsidising parent B, aren't you? As are parents A. If things being VAT exempt is you subsidising then you will be in for a shock with everything you are subsidising.

What about the people who can't afford to move or private school? Surely your whole argument is about equality?

How are you subsidising parents B? They’re firstly paying a premium on the house price for the location and then paying stamp duty that reflects that premium.

If the VAT on private schools gets funnelled directly into state education funding improvements in state education then that’s improving equality in education. Or levelling up if you prefer.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
How are you subsidising parents B? They’re firstly paying a premium on the house price for the location and then paying stamp duty that reflects that premium.

If the VAT on private schools gets funnelled directly into state education funding improvements in state education then that’s improving equality in education. Or levelling up if you prefer.

Parents A still pay tax don't they? Isn't the school in Area B a state school?

"IF"....

On the other hand it might tip that less kids go to Private so the balance of the VAT doesn't cover the additional load on state schools.. It will probably need new schools to be built.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
I am just pointing out if education becomes non VAT exempt.

I don't live in Finland so why would I? Is it going to make the education of kids of the healthcare service et any better? Should I move there?

Like I said, people just get on and get shit sorted rather than pin their lives and outcomes on politicians who are all full of shit.

Further education isn’t private education. It’s not a luxury. It’s also not free at point of use in most of the UK to everyone so technically it already isn’t subsidised.

torchomatic · Jun 19, 2024

Tory government from 2010 to 2024 worse than any other in postwar history, says study by leading experts

As John Stevens reports in a story for the Daily Mirror today, Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, was complaining at a private Tory dinner earlier this year about the electorate’s “total failure to appreciate our superb record since 2010”.

But just how good is the Conservative party’s record in government over the past 14 years? Thankfully, we now have what is as close as we’re going to get to the authoritative, official verdict. Sir Anthony Seldon, arguably Britain’s leading contemporary political historian, is publishing a collection of essays written by prominent academics and other experts and they have analysed the record of the Conservative government from 2010 to 2024, looking at what it has achieved in every area of policy.

It is called The Conservative Effect 2010-2014: 14 Wasted Years? and it is published by Cambridge University Press.

And its conclusion is damning. It describes this as the worst government in postwar history.

Here is the conclusion of the final chapter, written by Seldon and his co-editor Tom Egerton, which sums up the overall verdict.

In comparison to the earlier four periods of one-party dominance post-1945, it is hard to see the years since 2010 as anything but disappointing. By 2024, Britain’s standing in the world was lower, the union was less strong, the country less equal, the population less well protected, growth more sluggish with the outlook poor, public services underperforming and largely unreformed, while respect for the institutions of the British state, including the civil service, judiciary and the police, was lower, as it was for external bodies, including the universities and the BBC, repeatedly attacked not least by government, ministers and right-wing commentators.
Do the unusually high number of external shocks to some extent let the governments off the hook? One above all – Brexit – was entirely of its own making and will be seen in history as the defining decision of these years. In 2024, the verdict on Brexit is almost entirely negative, with those who are suffering the most from it, as sceptics at the time predicted, the most vulnerable. The nation was certainly difficult to rule in these fourteen years, the Conservative party still more so. Longstanding problems certainly contributed to the difficulties the prime minister faced in providing clear strategic policy, including the 24-hour news cycle, the rise of social media and AI, and the frequency of scandals and crises. But it was the decision of the prime minister to choose to be distracted by the short term, rather than focusing on the strategic and the long term. The prime minister has agency: the incumbents often overlooked it.
Overall, it is hard to find a comparable period in history of the Conservatives which achieved so little, or which left the country at its conclusion in a more troubling state.

In their concluding essay, Seldon and Egerton argue that poor leadership was one of the main problems with the 14-year administration. They say that Boris Johnson and Liz Truss were “not up to the job” of being prime minister, and they have a low opinion of most of the other leading figures who have been in government. They say:

Very few cabinet ministers from 2010 to 2024 could hold a candle to the team who served under Clement Attlee – which included Ernest Bevin, Nye Bevan, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Gaitskell and Herbert Morrison. Or the teams who served under Wilson, Thatcher or Blair. Michael Gove, Jeremy Hunt and Philip Hammond were rare examples of ministers of quality after 2010 …
A strong and capable prime minister is essential to governmental success in the British system. The earlier four periods saw two historic and landmark prime ministers, ie Churchill and Thatcher, with a succession of others who were capable if not agenda-changing PMs, including Macmillan, Wilson, Major and Blair. Since 2010, only Cameron came close to that level, with Sunak the best of the rest. Policy virtually stopped under May as Brexit consumed almost all the machine’s time, while serious policymaking ground to a halt under Johnson’s inept leadership, the worst in modern premiership, and the hapless Truss. Continuity of policy was not helped by each incoming prime minister despising their predecessor, with Truss’s admiration for Johnson the only exception. Thus they took next no time to understand what it was their predecessors were trying to do, and how to build on it rather than destroy it.

Seldon’s first book, published 40 years ago, was about Churchill’s postwar administration, and he has been editing similar collections of essays studying the record of administrations since Margaret Thatcher’s. He is a fair judge, and not given to making criticisms like this lightly.

The book is officially being published next week, and I’m quoting from a proof copy. In this version, the subtitle still has a question mark after 14 Wasted Years? Judging by the conclusion, that does not seem necessary.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
Further education isn’t private education. It’s not a luxury. It’s also not free at point of use in most of the UK to everyone so technically it already isn’t subsidised.

It is private education and also a luxury.

Grendel · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
Well you are you’re saying what if VAT goes on university fees, what if VAT goes on private healthcare, what if your gran had bollocks…

Try reading up on Finlands education system. It’s possible, there just needs to be political will from politicians to propose it and from the electorate to support it.

Aren’t you in a selective education area Tony?

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Parents A still pay tax don't they? Isn't the school in Area B a state school?

"IF"....

On the other hand it might tip that less kids go to Private so the balance of the VAT doesn't cover the additional load on state schools.. It will probably need new schools to be built.

But parents B are paying the price in full, they’re not getting a state subsidy on the costs they’ve put down to ensure their children get a better education.

You’re talking about a small percentage of 6% of all children attending school in the UK. And as I’ve already pointed out private education isn’t a broken business model, they can afford to offer you a discount equivalent to the rise in VAT should they wish. It’s not the states job to make sure that their business model works. Where’s the onus on the private school to make sure that you can afford their services? We live in a free market economy.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
But parents B are paying the price in full, they’re not getting a state subsidy on the costs they’ve put down to ensure their children get a better education.

You’re talking about a small percentage of 6% of all children attending school in the UK. And as I’ve already pointed out private education isn’t a broken business model, they can afford to offer you a discount equivalent to the rise in VAT should they wish. It’s not the states job to make sure that their business model works. Where’s the onus on the private school to make sure that you can afford their services? We live in a free market economy.

Fucking hell

Like I said, it's spite. Least be honest about it.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Grendel said:
Aren’t you in a selective education area Tony?

If you’re about to suggest that I moved to an area to get my kids into a good school you’d be wrong.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Fucking hell

Like I said, it's spite. Least be honest about it.

If only you knew.

Nick · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
If you’re about to suggest that I moved to an area to get my kids into a good school you’d be wrong.

Going by the way you post you would probably wait for a random politician to tell you how to parent.

duffer · Jun 19, 2024

MalcSB said:
And you are supporting a policy driven solely by a belief that they will vote the “right” way.

Nope. Not one bit of it.

I'm supporting it because it's the right thing to do, imho. If they all end up voting Tory, so be it.

I've come to terms with the fact that not everyone believes what I believe. I'd rather try to make my case than suppress their voting rights though.

Brighton Sky Blue · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Parents A still pay tax don't they? Isn't the school in Area B a state school?

"IF"....

On the other hand it might tip that less kids go to Private so the balance of the VAT doesn't cover the additional load on state schools.. It will probably need new schools to be built.

Ask yourself this Nick…if private schools for the most part have been raising fees at a higher rate than teacher salaries for at least a decade, and nearly all have been raising them at a rate higher than inflation…they can probably afford the VAT increase.

I know of one major private school locally making surpluses to the tune of £4 million a year that is trying to scaremonger staff about the Labour Party. Let’s be honest, strong private schools can absorb it.

duffer · Jun 19, 2024

Mucca Mad Boys said:
The assumption you’re making is that people are paying for this out of their salary. You can finance things with loans/remortgaging.

Regardless of the specific pros and cons of the argument, £16k for seven years, not allowing for inflation, would need a loan of £112,000.

Even as a further advance on your mortgage over a longer period, that's still going to be a pretty significant dent in your monthly income.

A shorter term personal loan, assuming you could even get one (which I think might be very difficult for that amount and reason), would be crippling for anyone on anything less than a very high salary. Better off selling a kidney or two on the black market, methinks...

MalcSB · Jun 19, 2024

shmmeee said:
So you want local councils and metro mayors and an English parliament and the two existing UK Houses of Parliament and the King?

It just seems a little politician heavy.

I don’t really see England Scotland and Wales as countries so much as one big region and two normal sized regions TBH, that’s why I think it would make sense to split England up and get rid of some of the pointless layers of govt and replace them with slimmed down versions with proper power and accountability. Right now it’s pointless voting in your local elections as most of the decisions are made in Westminster anyway, and only slightly less pointless voting in Scot/Welsh parliament or metro mayor ones.

A politician without control of a budget isn’t much of a politician at all and can always hide their performance behind the settlement with Westminster.

No, I don’t want the two UK Houses of Parliament. I don’t know why you mention the King, he is not a member of any government, he is a constitutional monarch.

How you see Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is irrelevant, it’s how they see themselves that is important.

We currently have UK Parliament, the three devolved nations, the House of Lords, metro mayors and Councils

I suggested an English Parliament, three independent nations. So less politicians there as there would only be the English constituencies represented in the English parliament. Get rid of the House of Lords, complete waste of space. I’d be happy to lose the metro mayors - less need for them with an English Parliament focussing on England.

Overall, less politicians.

torchomatic · Jun 19, 2024

MalcSB · Jun 19, 2024

shmmeee said:
I think you’re stretching very doable here. And I’m sorry but again we don’t need to guess or rely on anecdotes, we have the data on who goes to private school and it’s almost exclusively the very rich.

I’m sure there are one or two who live in squalor in one bed flats, and send their kid to Henry’s. But it’s a handful at best and frankly that shouldn’t be a choice parents have to make, and only works for single kids to still an above average income household.

Fees have gone up by more than inflation recently to no complaints from this supposed legion of poverty private school parents. They can pay the 20% and if they can’t frankly their kid is probably better off having the £15k spent on their living situation than where they are 9-3 39 weeks of the year.

People could use the money saved in fees to move to the catchment areas of the best state schools. They are already paying for those schools, they might as well use them. It will be interesting to see how many do take their children out of private education and fill up state school.

skybluetony176 · Jun 19, 2024

Nick said:
Going by the way you post you would probably wait for a random politician to tell you how to parent.

State of this.

Grendel · Jun 19, 2024

skybluetony176 said:
If you’re about to suggest that I moved to an area to get my kids into a good school you’d be wrong.

No that’s not what I’ve suggested

Grendel · Jun 19, 2024

duffer said:
Regardless of the specific pros and cons of the argument, £16k for seven years, not allowing for inflation, would need a loan of £112,000.

Even as a further advance on your mortgage over a longer period, that's still going to be a pretty significant dent in your monthly income.

A shorter term personal loan, assuming you could even get one (which I think might be very difficult for that amount and reason), would be crippling for anyone on anything less than a very high salary. Better off selling a kidney or two on the black market, methinks...

I cashed in endowments and remortgaged for 25 years at 90% mortgage value even though I’d almost paid it off

Grendel · Jun 19, 2024

Deleted member 9744 said:
That makes no sense.

It's not about the cost as far as i am concerned. I just don't agree with private education on principle nor private healthcare. These are services which should be available to everyone equally. Private education perpetuates inequality and privilege.

You would agree if you needed it and could afford it

Do you want to discuss boring politics? (165 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Tory government from 2010 to 2024 worse than any other in postwar history, says study by leading experts​

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Tory government from 2010 to 2024 worse than any other in postwar history, says study by leading experts