The 2024 UK General Election - news, speculation and updates

[Chz]

This is an argument for comprehensive education, no? If a large chunk of the richest 20 percent of parents consistently opt out of the state system, their local state schools are being deprived of the parents who could be helping most.

They're unlikely to inject cash into the system. It would all go to private tutors and other outside-the-school provisions. I actually spoke to some parent down the road, well-off enough, who bristled that they were asking for handouts when they were slumming it in the state system that they'd "already paid for". Christ wept.

On a different note, my poll card just dropped through the inbox. Not sure why, because it basically says "ignore this, you're registered for postal vote and that will go out for the 19th".

 

[two sheds]

"Fuck Drummond" seems a fine message.

 

[Dovydaitis]

Quite an amusing Guardian piece about the vermins' shitshow campaign

View attachment 428728

Particularly drawn to this para:


and, lo, here is the said campaign launch in all its glory...

View attachment 428729

Feel sorry for the dog. It looks embarrassed to be there, and I don’t blame it

 

[kabbes]

There’s a lot of absolute bollocks being spoken about the economics of this VAT on school fees by people who are obviously not used to dealing with accounting and finance. For a start, if schools are VAT rateable then they can also reclaim VAT on their spend. It’s estimated that this offsets about 8% out of the 20%, so even if you just treat it as a straightforward need to fund the additional costs, fees should go up by 12% not 20%. By comparison, private schools have already put their fees up by way more than 12% over recent years. Second, you might have to fund additional state school places if some parents can’t afford that 12%, but even in conservative estimates, the additional tax revenue is many many times greater than the cost of those marginal places, particularly since birth rates are so low, meaning that schools will start to gain capacity. I’ve seen other fallacies trumpeted too but I CBA, because those two things alone are quite enough.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They're unlikely to inject cash into the system. It would all go to private tutors and other outside-the-school provisions. I actually spoke to some parent down the road, well-off enough, who bristled that they were asking for handouts when they were slumming it in the state system that they'd "already paid for". Christ wept.

Quite a bit of research has been done on this, though. Schools with more kids whose parents are invested in their education do better. The 'sharp-elbowed' upper/middle-classes will make more demands.

This is why even setting arbitrary selection demands such as requiring proof of church attendance or baptism to gain admittance for their kids (extraordinarily, this absurd practice is still allowed in the state sector) in and of itself has the effect of raising a school's results - it means only those parents prepared to jump through the hoops get their kids in, so the parents are self-selecting as invested in education.

Subsequently, the presence of selective schools in an area has an adverse effect on the non-selective schools. Selection of any kind, whether by academic testing, religious requirements or provision of large sums of cash, harms the overall school system.

 

[skyscraper101]

So what are the actual arguments for and against?

Presumably the argument against imposing VAT is that it will (arguably) raise fees to the point where more kids are pushed into state funded education at further cost of the taxpayer, and therefore offering VAT free may be in the state's interest, and could be considered a rebate of sorts? And furthermore why should schools get to claim 'registered charity' status when they are basically businesses.

And presumably the argument for imposing VAT is that until now, its effectively offering a privilege to the already privileged, and that tax revenue could be put to better use in the state sector.

TBH I'm not really sure I buy either argument because it assumes all people who send their kids to private schools are wealthy enough to be able to swallow an extra 20% on top of the fees. Of course many of them are, but it seems arbitrary to just assume nobody is already struggling with the costs. Then there’s special needs schools and etc.

But then again 20% VAT is arbitrary in itself. Why not reframe it with a rebate and acknowledge that U.K. based parents not sending their kids to state schools are already saving the taxpayer so why shouldn’t they get a rebate?

But then also, why should people with kids get a rebate when we already have too many people and I, with no kids, get no rebate for not having kids and saving the taxpayer and the environment that way.

The whole thing just seems a bit suss. Why not means test it? Like student fees were when they were first introduced (and when paid no tuition fees). Means testing surely creates a fairer playing field for all, no?

 

[The39thStep]

Neither really. If it raises a bit of revenue great, but all it'll do is bottom slice the private sector marginally. A few - already struggling - schools at the bottom end of the hierarchy might close. A few m/c families might switch to State, but elite reproduction will be utterly untouched.

I'm in favour of it however I can't see it as being part of some Labour plan to dismantle the private sector at all.

 

[The39thStep]

"Poor education"?

My CSE in Art is as good as anyone's

 

[Chz]

Means testing surely creates a fairer playing field for all, no?

One of those things that's great on paper and almost always a disaster in implementation. The money spent on means testing would be more usefully pumped directly into the education system. It's why UBI is gaining traction as an idea - untold billions spent on paperwork and getting people to jump through meaningless hoops, in effect begging for their dinner.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

He's such a fucking weasel.

 

[A380]

Yeah, I'd say that. It's also not just for the resources that people go to private schools - my dad had a stockbroker friend (he started off with a stockbroking job out of uni but decided to go for something with less money he enjoyed more) and my mum says she remembers a conversation where they were talking abouy getting their kids into Rodean and Eton. This couple basically said 'It's OK for your kids, they're academic but ours will need the connections'.

That’s the main point of private education isn’t it. To massively boost the chances of average kids of parents who pay for education. More academic kids can do well wherever they go . Others need to be brought the leg up private education brings.

The town where we brought up our kids was, for historical reasons, infested with far more private schools than a town of that size is normally . I don’t think MsA320 - who takes after her state school and Cambridge educated mother- would have done any better academically if she had gone to a private school, whereas mr A319 who takes after me, would have got far higher grades. But that’s class size and support and then the overconfidence/arrogance pumped into the private school kiddies isn’t it?

 

[redsquirrel]

So it's fine then. Nothing to argue over, apparently. Losing 10% of the education budget in real terms while the number of students increased was just that fat in the system the politicians like to cut and they were right to do so. You're aware that there's already a class system in public education? In more prosperous areas, state schools regularly ask for, and get, contributions from the parents towards things like stationary and tissues and whatnot. Let alone the computers bought during Covid time. You think the education system is fine and fuck the schools where parents can't afford that. That doesn't sound like you.

What is this gibberish.

I think the education system (at all levels) has been underfunded and marketised to the detriment of workers and students. But that is not an argument for harming it even more by helping private providers. The idea that the private eduction sector supports the state sector is Thatcherite crap. It is a parasite that feeds of the state sector and harms it. And those using private eduction are harming others.

I also believe that despite all the attacks on the state sector comprehensives generally did, and do, provide a bloody good eduction for kids in the UK.

 

[Cloo]

I don't understand how anyone who isn't getting a scholarship/heavy subsidy can afford private school, in London/SE at least, on less than a City salary with bonuses.

I mean, in a good year, our household brings in 6 figures. I did humour my husband (private educated) by looking at private secondary when oldest was looking, Highgate. I was a bit scared he'd love it and demand we sacrifice everything to send them there but in the end, he actually said though the facilities were very nice it didn't seem that amazingly better than the state schools we looked at. Also, there was no way on earth we could afford it. Quite rightly, we were not eligible for any financial help with it, but even if we didn't have a mortgage we'd have had difficulty sending one child privately and certainly never both. And add the fact that fees go up significantly every year. So I don't see how it's possible to afford it unless you have a very secure 6 figures a year plus big-bucks bonuses, and if so you can bloody suck up fee increases as far as I'm concerned. Also I was once in a uniform shop buying for my kids, that also sold private school uniform - woman in front of me was buying a year of gear for her kid going to a local private schools. Eight. Hundred. Fucking. Quid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But then also, why should people with kids get a rebate when we already have too many people and I, with no kids, get no rebate for not having kids and saving the taxpayer and the environment that way.

You're not saving anyone shit. The whole of society would collapse and you'd have nobody to look after you as you age if other people didn't have kids. When we pay for the education of the next generation, we're not subsidising the parents of those kids. We're repaying for the fact that we received an education paid for by the generation that came before us.

This is a really shit argument on all kinds of levels.

 

[chilango]

I'm in favour of it however I can't see it as being part of some Labour plan to dismantle the private sector at all.

That's because it isn't!

It's a good soundbite that generates some juicy "wedging" headlines.

It might generate a bit of additional revenue.

That's it.

Turkeys aren't going to promise Christmas in their manifesto.

 

[PR1Berske]

Council tax reform 'not something we're planning to do', says Labour's Pat McFadden
In the Sky News leaders special last night Keir Starmer refused to rule out Labour having a council tax revaluation in England. English council tax bands are still based on property valuations from more than 30 years ago.

Pat McFadden, Labour’s national campaign coordinator, was on the Today programme this morning and he was notably evasive when asked about council tax.

Asked if Labour would recalculate council tax bands, McFadden just said there was nothing in Labour’s tax plans to justify any change in tax rates beyond what has already been announced. Asked why it made sense to keep a system based on property prices from when Mikhail Gorbachev was leading the Soviet Union, McFadden repeated what he had said.

Asked how he could justify not having a revaluation, when council tax is particularly regressive, he replied: “There’s nothing in our plans that requires a change, or other taxes.

Pressed on this again, he said Labour’s priorities were the ones set out in its first steps for change. But he did eventually say reforming council tax was “not something that we’re planning to do”.

A council tax revaluation could lead to many, or most, homeowners paying less council tax. But people in London and the south of England could end up paying more, which is why political parties are nervous about the idea

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

So what are the actual arguments for and against?

Presumably the argument against imposing VAT is that it will (arguably) raise fees to the point where more kids are pushed into state funded education at further cost of the taxpayer, and therefore offering VAT free may be in the state's interest, and could be considered a rebate of sorts? And furthermore why should schools get to claim 'registered charity' status when they are basically businesses.

And presumably the argument for imposing VAT is that until now, its effectively offering a privilege to the already privileged, and that tax revenue could be put to better use in the state sector.

TBH I'm not really sure I buy either argument because it assumes all people who send their kids to private schools are wealthy enough to be able to swallow an extra 20% on top of the fees. Of course many of them are, but it seems arbitrary to just assume nobody is already struggling with the costs. Then there’s special needs schools and etc.

But then again 20% VAT is arbitrary in itself. Why not reframe it with a rebate and acknowledge that U.K. based parents not sending their kids to state schools are already saving the taxpayer so why shouldn’t they get a rebate?

But then also, why should people with kids get a rebate when we already have too many people and I, with no kids, get no rebate for not having kids and saving the taxpayer and the environment that way.

The whole thing just seems a bit suss. Why not means test it? Like student fees were when they were first introduced (and when paid no tuition fees). Means testing surely creates a fairer playing field for all, no?

If you start up a business consultancy, offering training for staff in businesses, that service you offer, in line with other services will be subject to VAT. Private schools are offering a service.

Pushing the kids in to state schools at a cost to the state; same for private pools as schools, if VAT is charged on building and maintaining a swimming pool in my garden I may have to use the public baths at a cost to the state. Doesn't quite cut the mustard.

Private schools are by their very nature anti-social. Yet it's not them who gets the ASBOs...

 

[Sue]

The whole thing just seems a bit suss. Why not means test it? Like student fees were when they were first introduced (and when paid no tuition fees). Means testing surely creates a fairer playing field for all, no?

Means testing is already in place. You can only 'choose' to send your kids to a private school if you've got the money to do so.

(And yes, I'm sure there are scholarships and bursaries but I imagine most of those don't pay for everything. And no doubt getting smart kids in to boost your exam results while fulfilling some kind of charitable legal obligation or whatever more than makes that worthwhile from the school's POV.)

 

[Chz]

I don't understand how anyone who isn't getting a scholarship/heavy subsidy can afford private school, in London/SE at least, on less than a City salary with bonuses.

I mean, in a good year, our household brings in 6 figures. I did humour my husband (private educated) by looking at private secondary when oldest was looking, Highgate. I was a bit scared he'd love it and demand we sacrifice everything to send them there but in the end, he actually said though the facilities were very nice it didn't seem that amazingly better than the state schools we looked at. Also, there was no way on earth we could afford it. Quite rightly, we were not eligible for any financial help with it, but even if we didn't have a mortgage we'd have had difficulty sending one child privately and certainly never both. And add the fact that fees go up significantly every year. So I don't see how it's possible to afford it unless you have a very secure 6 figures a year plus big-bucks bonuses, and if so you can bloody suck up fee increases as far as I'm concerned. Also I was once in a uniform shop buying for my kids, that also sold private school uniform - woman in front of me was buying a year of gear for her kid going to a local private schools. Eight. Hundred. Fucking. Quid.

My mum offered to foot the bill for it once, but we're in the category of "SEN but mainstream" and non-specialist private schools (and grammar schools - we have one across the road and didn't bother with the 11+) all perform about the bare legal minimum for SEN students. They don't want them. They cost extra, they bring results down, fuck 'em and let the state deal with them.

 

[The39thStep]

Private schools aren't just about the education though are they? Even though there is a hierarchy of prestige all of them carry a tradition of influence, contacts, networking, and favours that very few state schools have.

I must say that one of the most enjoyable and character building things I did as a young teenager, was when me and my mates would lay siege with fireworks during bonfire night week to the Prep School at the posh end of the village.

 

[Chz]

Private schools aren't just about the education though are they? Even though there is a hierarchy of prestige all of them carry a tradition of influence, contacts, networking, and favours that very few state schools have.

There are 2600 private schools in the UK. A handful of them have name recognition and get the sort of people where just shaking their hand improves your odds in life. Yes, those exist, but they shouldn't be the ones used as a baseline for determining policy. Because those ones will always exist, and they'll just ship the kids to Switzerland if they have to. The target should be the standard private school that no-one who's not local or went there has heard of. I spent two years in a private prep (funded by the diocese) and it's done bugger all for my connections and prospects because it's not in the Top 20 of anything. It's just given me a lifelong fear of the Christian Brothers. (and very much lowered my opinion of what private schools can do for you)

 

[chilango]

Private schools aren't just about the education though are they? Even though there is a hierarchy of prestige all of them carry a tradition of influence, contacts, networking, and favours that very few state schools have.

I must say that one of the most enjoyable and character building things I did as a young teenager, was when me and my mates would lay siege with fireworks during bonfire night week to the Prep School at the posh end of the village.

Well, yeah, education is about a lot more than passing exams. You don't need schools to pass exams (as some Tory edtech chums are trying to cash in on). But it's the production of attitudes, dispositions, tastes and so on.

Confidence, connections, familiarity and so on.

To get all Bourdieusian the cultural and social capital acquired is more important than the paper credentials that serve as proxies for educational capital.

 

[PR1Berske]

 

[gosub]

Quite a bit of research has been done on this, though. Schools with more kids whose parents are invested in their education do better. The 'sharp-elbowed' upper/middle-classes will make more demands.

This is why even setting arbitrary selection demands such as requiring proof of church attendance or baptism to gain admittance for their kids (extraordinarily, this absurd practice is still allowed in the state sector) in and of itself has the effect of raising a school's results - it means only those parents prepared to jump through the hoops get their kids in, so the parents are self-selecting as invested in education.

Subsequently, the presence of selective schools in an area has an adverse effect on the non-selective schools. Selection of any kind, whether by academic testing, religious requirements or provision of large sums of cash, harms the overall school system.

Define 'invested' spending 30k a year sending your kids to boarding school IS investment monetarily, delegating the upbringing of your kids 24/7 for over half the year...in terms of time and interest maybe less investment

 

[gosub]

They went with greyscalr then

 

[chilango]

Define 'invested' spending 30k a year sending your kids to boarding school IS investment monetarily, delegating the upbringing of your kids 24/7 for over half the year...in terms of time and interest maybe less investment

I think it's really misleading to conflate wealth and parental engagement in school/education.

Parents of any social class can be really engaged.

Equally, parents of any social class can be utterly disengaged.

Nothing to do with money in either direction.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Define 'invested' spending 30k a year sending your kids to boarding school IS investment monetarily, delegating the upbringing of your kids 24/7 for over half the year...in terms of time and interest maybe less investment

Only 12 percent of private school kids are boarders.

 

[gosub]

Only 12 percent of private school kids are boarders.

And they pay more...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And they pay more...

So what?

 

[_Russ_]

This is an argument for comprehensive education, no? If a large chunk of the richest 20 percent of parents consistently opt out of the state system, their local state schools are being deprived of the parents who could be helping most.

Upper middle classes don't generally put their hands in their pockets for the good of the system beyond the direct interest of their own sprogs, if a school is in trouble they just go for another one.