Forum Topic

The impact of Labour's planned VAT charge on private schooks

There are some heart-rending stories being told, but this one, in today's Telegraph, beats the lot: a paediatric consultant complains that "I’ll have to quit being an NHS doctor and work in Lidl under Labour’s private school tax raid."This is the best bit: she currently earns £90,000 a year in the NHS! I never knew Lidl staff were paid so much; I'm off straightaway to apply for a job there....

Richard Carter ● 317d105 Comments

It has emerged in evidence presented to the High Court that back in July Rachel Reeves was warned by her own Treasury officials that 25% of the households affected by VAT on independent schools would be in the bottom half of income distribution. That’s around 100 000 poorer families taxed twice in order to satisfy Labour’s longing to punish the rich.

Steven Rose ● 23d

I'm not sure if this covers all Local Education Authorities private educational spending but it implies (see below) that the VAT is recoverable.I assume the VAT would be recovered quarterly in arrears so it may impact cash flows."Local authority placements in private schoolsWhen a private school is named in the EHC plan of a student and the local authority funds the place of the student, VAT will be due on the fees.This means that local authorities will pay VAT on the supply of education to the student.Local authorities can reclaim VAT incurred using the existing ‘section 33’ processes.Find out more information about section 33 in Local authorities and similar bodies (VAT Notice 749)."https://www.gov.uk/guidance/charging-and-reclaiming-vat-on-goods-and-services-related-to-private-school-fees#:~:text=Some%20specialist%20special%20educational%20needs,will%20be%20subject%20to%20VAT%20.

Ed Robinson ● 24d

Once central government put a tax on something it becomes part of the general coffers which is then gets lost in the bureaucracy and inefficiencies of government.VAT on insulation is a good example. It should be zero rated, after all we have a climate emergency -  but it is not due to central government becoming accustomed to the revenue.What we are seeing with VAT on private education is effectively money moving from local education to central government. Now the Guardian doesn't allude to what the what comprises of the "high costs of Send placements in private specialist schools" are - perhaps they do not want to over tax their readers with the details??Such costs are likely to have increased due to: Increased Staff costs including Employers NI, Inflation & VAT.Of course it would be nice someone more knowledgeable about local education budgets could comment.Sometimes a question is just that @Michael B.

Ed Robinson ● 24d

@Ed - let me try again.You literally posted an article that had nothing to do with VAT on private schools and somehow claimed that backed up your theory.D Minus - must try harder.Perhaps go back to conspiracy theories? At least they were entertaining. To an extent.

Michael Brigo ● 25d

"There's no mention of VAT on private schools in this article, so yet again you are off on a tangent, enjoy it though."I don't know who Michael Brigo is referring to with the above comment.Anyone have an clue as no names were actually mentioned??

Ed Robinson ● 25d

There's no mention of VAT on private schools in this article, so yet again you are off on a tangent, enjoy it though.

Michael Brigo ● 25d

My understanding is that where the local authority have to pay for private specialist schools the VAT is not recoverable unlike a proportion of VAT for supplies or facility maintenance.Is this not an impact?"Insufficient special needs capacity in state schools, and the high costs of Send placements in private specialist schools, have been driving overspends."https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/30/councils-england-insolvency-risk-send-costs

Ed Robinson ● 26d

lol - yup, maybe!

Michael Brigo ● 38d

Mr Brigo'Where's the evidence of a negative impact on the state school system that you all predicted?.Who predicted what ?

John Hawkes ● 38d

Your position reminds of the quip made by Steve McQueen's character in the 'Magnificent Seven': a man jumps off a six storey building and as he passes the third storey the says, 'so far, so good.'

Steven Rose ● 38d

but it's not to early to tell, the evidence so far says that there has been no effect. There may be other, contradictory evidence down the line - but currently there has been no effect.

Michael Brigo ● 38d

And I repeat myself, it is too early to tell.While I admit that the intention of introducting VAT to fees in public schools was branded about for some time, many people were more than likely hoping it would not happen in January 2025 (school year had already started) or that it would be cancelled sometime during the school year.Having said all of this, it is too early to tell what will happen.  It is only two months since the introduction and next term's fees will be due soon.  There is a prediction that some 100 public schools will close within the next 2 to 3 years.Let us wait and see, shall we?

Ivonne Holliday ● 38d

@Ivonne - I answered your question before you answered it by presenting an article that said "so far" no evidence of any of the doom mongers predictions coming true. Here it is again for youPredictions that adding VAT to private school fees would set off a wave of parents moving children to the state sector have been proved wrong at their first key test, according to figures from councils in England.While critics including the former chancellor Jeremy Hunt had predicted that up to 90,000 children could flood the state sector if VAT of 20% was charged, most councils say they have seen no impact from the policy in applications to start at state secondary schools later this year.Forecasts of widespread shortages of school places have also fallen flat, based on application figures for places in year 7, the first year of secondary school, that show more families receiving their first choice of school this year.https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/no-exodus-to-state-sector-after-vat-added-to-private-school-fees-say-english-councils

Michael Brigo ● 39d

@Steven - predicts, expects... etc. No real world evidence presented

Michael Brigo ● 39d

No, Michael B,Quite a few people have posted replies to your initial question.  I did on 11/03/25 at 10:15 and also asked you a question on 11/03/25 at 16:28 which you chose not to answer.You are being particularly obtuse and choosy in what you want to hear.

Ivonne Holliday ● 39d

Michael, do you imagine that the laws of economics are suspended for Labour? When the price of a service rises, demand falls. When VAT at 20% is aded to school fees, some parents, particularly those on modest incomes, will inevitably withdraw their children. That is why the Treasury minister, Torsten Bell,  has said that he expects 100 independent schools to close over the next three years. That is why the Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that between 3% and 7% of independent school pupils , around 20 000 children, will enter the state system.

Steven Rose ● 39d

Another evidence free opinion bit of fluff that counts for nothing.Where's the evidence of a negative impact on the state school system that you all predicted?Awkward silence.

Michael Brigo ● 39d

"Labour’s Schools Bill is undoing Britain’s successes"https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-schools-bill-is-undoing-britains-successes/This Bill seems an attempt to take away the right of any legitimate educational body other than a local Council to setup and manage schools in its locality, subject to OFSTED oversight, and to force them to all teach the same Government defined curriculum.What pleasing and commendable personal achievements from the two boys referenced who took advantage of the opportunities the current system offered them.Does the content of Labour's School Bill not sound somewhat Soviet bearing in mind the current admiration for the British pluralistic approach from abroad ?"Why the English education system is so envied in Belgium"https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-english-education-system-is-so-envied-in-belgium/Like VAT imposition on private schools, another attempt by Labour to cut down tall poppies and impose a levelling system.Envy at its base once more.

John Hawkes ● 39d

Mr Pike'Did Mr Carter dictate that  for you'Are they a double act or is this a case of gender fluidity !

John Hawkes ● 43d

Mr Rose'However my main complaint is that the tax is inherently unfair. I am sorry to repeat this point but I have not yet received a reply. Why should parents who already pay income tax to finance state education be taxed twice over because they don’t use the state system and have chosen to send their children to independent schools?  What possible justification can there be for double taxation?'No justification.The root cause of the attack on those that pay to send their children to private schools as well as making their proper contribution to state education via income tax is purely class envy."I can't do it so why should you be able to".

John Hawkes ● 43d

Hello Andy,"Did Mr Carter dictate that  for you"How excruciatingly rude and unacceptable of you. Truly reprehensible.

Ivonne Holliday ● 44d

I think it is more likely that it is costs in general including higher energy and lack of insulation and maintenance works that will have made the difference and that VAT is just being used as a political excuse.

Philippa Bond ● 44d

Sorry. Torsten Bell is the Treasury Minister.

Steven Rose ● 44d

The subtext of the ‘Guardian’ report was ‘nothing to see here’. The dire predictions that thousands of children would need to seek places in the state system were supposedly proved wrong. So the government is on course to reap over a billion in VAT receipts in order to hire 6500 extra teachers. But does anyone believe that the increased costs will in every case be absorbed by the schools and the parents with no discernible effect on the education of the children? A dozen schools have already announced that they will close because of the VAT raid. The Education Minister, Torsten Bell, has said that he expects 100 independent schools to close over the next three years. The Independent Schools Council believes this is an underestimate. The independent Schools Bursars Association has forecast that as many as 286 schools could close, representing 11% of the total. If we go with the Labour minister’s estimate, that is 100 schools which will not be paying VAT into the Exchequer and around 20 000 children who will need to find a new school with all the consequent disruption to their education. Will they all remain in the independent sector? It seems highly unlikely given it was inability to pay the fees which caused the closures. So many will have to be accommodated in the state system., which will create other problems.

Steven Rose ● 44d

I think it has had a negative impact on education for several reasons.With large private schools clawing back VAT for works done in the past the net income may be a lot less.Then there is the impact on small private schools that specialise - SEND, arts etc.I suspect many larger well known private schools are oversubscribed so in terms of numbers it will have little difference. Perhaps there may be an increase in foreign students replacing domestic students??But I think the biggest loss is the political energy spent on this when it should have been spent on education generally including adult education & retraining.Of course if Reeves had spent a bit more time on the impact of her taxes she may not have trashed the economy and there would be far more money for state education.

Ed Robinson ● 44d

Did Mr Carter dictate that  for you

Andy Pike ● 44d

Mr BrigoCan you give evidence iof the actual Benefit to the state system this policy has provided.

Andy Pike ● 44d

It is not just the ‘usual suspects’ who believe that the number of independent school pupils will fall. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that the introduction of VAT ‘would lead to a 3 to 7 % reduction in private school attendance ‘ in the medium to long term. I don’t think that the figures quoted by the ‘Guardian’ prove their prediction wrong. The imposition of any tax on a product or service inevitably reduces demand but not necessarily all at once. Some parents at the beginning of the academic year may have been hoping that government would change its mind or at least postpone introduction of the tax. Others may be reluctant to withdraw their children in the middle of the school year but will be forced to seek a place in the state system in the coming months.  It is simply too soon to assess the impact of a tax introduced two months ago even in the short term, let alone the medium or long term. If the prediction of the IFS is correct, anything from 15 000 to 35 000 additional children will enter the state system, requiring from 1000 to 2000 extra teachers.However my main complaint is that the tax is inherently unfair. I am sorry to repeat this point but I have not yet received a reply. Why should parents who already pay income tax to finance state education be taxed twice over because they don’t use the state system and have chosen to send their children to independent schools?  What possible justification can there be for double taxation?

Steven Rose ● 44d

"But neither do I believe that the VAT revenue raised will enable an increase in the number of state school teachers to teach pupils of whatever background."Very good - I look forward to debating this point when there is some evidence to support your case :)

Michael Brigo ● 44d

Mr Brigo,'I'm sorry but again none of what you have written has proof of an impact on state schools due to the flood of kids fleeing the private system'.Let me spell it out to you s l o w l y.I do not believe there will be a flood of children being transferred by their parents from fee-charging schools to state schools and so it will not have an impact on that latter sector.I had hoped to have made that point clear earlier.But neither do I believe that the VAT revenue raised will enable an increase in the number of state school teachers to teach pupils of whatever background.I seem to be supported in that view by the Independent.Did you not read that post ?'I'm not engaging with you to refute or otherwise, this thread isnt about debating the pros or cons of taxation'.What ?The thread is entitled 'The impact of Labour's planned VAT charge on private schooks'. !Value Added TAX !(Spelling mistake not caused by a failure of MY state school education ).

John Hawkes ● 44d

The ‘proof’ that the introduction of VAT on school fees has had little or no effect on the numbers ‘fleeing the private system’ was given in the Guardian article, dismissed by the usual  suspects who seem to regard the paper as akin to the communist manifesto. In fact the Guardian article simply quoted the information provided by several local authorities, including many conservative ones with large numbers of children in private schools, that there had be no increase in demand for state schools places as a result of the VAT on fees. It is also incorrect to state that it is premature to judge the effect. The schools admission process for September 2025, both for state and private schools began n September 2024 so parents would have been aware of the VAT increase to begin in January 2025. State school offers were made on 3 March, private schools generally much earlier, so councils were able to provide the information in early March.

Jane Carter ● 44d

I'm sorry but again none of what you have written has proof of an impact on state schools due to the flood of kids fleeing the private system.I'm not engaging with you to refute or otherwise, this thread isnt about debating the pros or cons of taxation. Why not start another?

Michael Brigo ● 44d

Mr Brigo'None of what you have written has any bearing on whether or not there is any impact on state schools due to VAT being charged on private schools'.That's because I think in practice parents paying for their child's education alongside paying in tax for the education of others will continue to do so if they believe it is in their child's interest.In a free society, "Good luck to them" !Would you not do the same if you could and felt it beneficial or necessary ?So I do not think there will be a massive transfer of such children to the state sector placing an extra burden on it.But neither do I believe the tax revenue raised will produce a large increase in number of state school teachers.'What Labour claims will happen is that the revenue will fund the recruitment of  6,500 extra teachers, but experts have warned that to do this it would need to raise salaries by 10 per cent a year for the next two years. This would cost £5bn a year, far more than the £1.8bn Labour plans to raise from adding VAT to private school fees, according to a report by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), a registered charity, in December'. Source - The iPaper.You say "It's just another yawnsville anti tax ramble i'm afraid" but are never quite able to refute considered rational debate.Personal insult more up your street (another London expression to describe an action or attitude).

John Hawkes ● 44d

None of what you have written has any bearing on whether or not there is any impact on state schools due to VAT being charged on private schools. It's just another yawnsville anti tax ramble i'm afraid.

Michael Brigo ● 44d

How much of anything is ring-fenced?  There is a dire need in state schools for SEND teachers - and just more teachers as the ratio of children to teachers is much higher in private schools.When you cut all the music, art and sports in state schools you are denying generations of children to the well rounded education that gives them the interests, enthusiasms and energy release that they will hopefully follow and use all their lives.  Denying them this creates a greater rift between the haves and the have-nots.I don't believe that phonics is the be-all-and-end-all in learning to read and write that some seem to think.  We are all different and have different ways of learning.  It is interesting how many people detained at HM's pleasure have difficulty with reading and writing.

Philippa Bond ● 44d

Mr BrigoI think you mean 'fish'.You have misquoted an old London (I think) expression indicating that what was quoted has absolutely no relevance to  the discussion in question.And I reiterate three reasons why this tax is wrong.1) It makes the UK the only country in the world that puts a sales tax on schooling, indicating that this Labour Government has no real, rather than a politically and ideologically motivated interest in our children's education.2) If people are already paying for the state education system through general taxation, it becomes an issue of personal choice and freedom that they should choose not to use it themselves and pay for an alternative.3) The imposition of the tax shows the Labour Party up as one grounded in malice, spite and jealousy.Not promising potentially regarding other issues for those (the majority) that did not vote for it.

John Hawkes ● 44d

Whether the tax is unfair or not is quite frankly nothing to do with the price of milk.The point is, all you doomsayers predicting a meltdown have been unable to back it up with any evidence.

Michael Brigo ● 45d

There is no need, Michael, to be discourteous to other contributors. You may not agree with other people’s posts but they are not necessarily ‘ramblings’. As far as I can see, the only ‘evidence’ you have produced is a ‘Guardian ‘ article suggesting that, so far, children have not been withdrawn in large numbers from private schools. But as the tax has only been in operation for a month or so, this is hardly confirmation that all the predictions are wrong. Furthermore you have not addressed the point that, whether children are withdrawn or not, the tax is inherently unfair. Why should parents who already pay income tax to finance state education be taxed twice over because they don’t use the state sector to educate their children?

Steven Rose ● 45d

Hello Michael B,What real world evidence do you refer to, please? Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 45d

Loving all these evidence free protestations and ramblings that have absolutely no basis in reality.I'm the only one who has actually posted some real world evidence so far, the rest is just noise.

Michael Brigo ● 45d

We all have to pay for services we don’t necessarily use such as hospitals and libraries and so on, but these things are paid for out of general taxation. The difference with the VAT charge is that it is a special tax imposed on individuals who choose to send their children to independent schools. Why should they pay more tax than other people to pay for additional teachers in state schools when they are actually reducing the burden of state education? That is inherently unfair in my opinion. Would you be in favour of taxing private bicycles in order to finance extra lime bikes for those who don’t own a bicycle? Would you advocate taxing solar panels, so that people who heat their homes without taking electricity from  the grid, would  contribute more than others to the cost of electricity generation? Would you advocate VAT on private healthcare, so that if you visit a private physiotherapist, thereby reducing the waiting list for physiotherapy at the local hospital, you contribute more tax than other people towards the cost of hiring additional physiotherapists for the NHS?

Steven Rose ● 45d

‘Well argued’ Really?´Why should people who save the state money by educating their children privately be saddled with a special tax to provide extra teachers for other people's children? Why should people who rarely or never use the Health Service because they are lucky enough never to be ill or are wealthy enough to pay for private health insurance pay income tax, a large proportion of which goes to the NHS, pay for the long term NHS treatment which several on this forum are benefitting from?

Jane Carter ● 45d

Isn't socialism more about equitable sharing of the wealth among those who generate it? Isn't that why some sensible organisations give bonuses and, sometimes, share options to even quite junior staff? 

Michael Ixer ● 45d

Mr RoseWell argued.'The VAT charge is a nasty and destructive initiative devised by individuals who think that socialism means ‘sticking it to the rich ’.Which of course many of them do.Put aside the right of each and every one of us to spend our money to benefit our families especially in the noble support of education."If I can't have it why should you " ?Politics of envy leading to unintended consequences.

John Hawkes ● 45d

It will be quite difficult to tell how much is the result of the VAT and how much is the result of the general cost of living including fuel and lack of insulation and ventilation in our older buildings.We all have to pay for things that we don't need or use whether it healthcare, education, libraries, music and sports facilities etc.  It makes for a better well rounded education if you have a mix of friends and interests and if facilities are available and free and affordable for all.

Philippa Bond ● 45d

Hello Michael B,I think it is too soon to say that the VAT on private school fees has had no effect.  The measure applied from January 2025 and that is in the middle-ish of the school year.  We should wait till the summer to be able to gauge properly what the consequences are.

Ivonne Holliday ● 45d

Some schools have already announced their closure, citing the VAT charge as the reason,so these children will have to seek a place elsewhere. In any case the tax was only imposed in January, so it is too soon to assess its overall impact.  For that reason the 'Guardian' article seems premature. However, as I argued, even if schools and parents absorb all the increases so that no children have to leave their schools, the tax is still unfair. Why should people who save the state money by educating their children privately be saddled with a special tax to provide extra teachers for other people's children? I don't know if you own a bicycle. But if you do, would you be happy to pay a special bicycle tax so as to provide community bikes for others?

Steven Rose ● 45d

"That means that 20 000 children whose parents cannot afford the increase in fees will be  be forced to leave their friends behind and seek a place in a state school where they probably won’t know anyone, where the exam syllabuses may be different and where they may not find adequate support for any special educational needs they have. How can that be right?"Except that NONE OF THE ABOVE HAS HAPPENED. Please read my post from yesterday morning.

Michael Brigo ● 46d

As a general rule, the more you tax a product or a service, the more likely it is that there will be a drop in demand and supply. The IFS has predicted that the number of independent school pupils will fall by 3,7% as a result of the VAT charge. Even if schools and parents pay the increased costs in full, the tax is unjustifiable. If schools absorb the VAT charge without increasing fees, there will be less money for bursaries of the kind which Keir Starmer himself benefited from when he was a pupil at Reigate Grammar. If the cost is passed on to parents, the rich won’t suffer but families of modest means who make sacrifices to pay for their children’s education will undoubtedly face hardship. But rich or poor, why should parents who save the state money by educating their children privately be singled out for a special tax  to pay for additional teachers in state schools?But what if the IFS is right to say that the number of independent school pupils  will fall by 3.7% . That means that 20 000 children whose parents cannot afford the increase in fees will be  be forced to leave their friends behind and seek a place in a state school where they probably won’t know anyone, where the exam syllabuses may be different and where they may not find adequate support for any special educational needs they have. How can that be right?And how will the state sector cope with this influx? 20 000 extra children will require around 1200 extra teachers, which is a fifth of the 6000 teachers Bridget Phillipson says will be employed on the. basis of the VAT receipts. So 20% of the supposed financial returns will be lost from the outset.The VAT charge is a nasty and destructive initiative devised by individuals who think that socialism means ‘sticking it to the rich ’.

Steven Rose ● 46d

"Some will have just paid up, some made sacrifices elsewhere in their household budgets."Exactly as predicted then and zero effect on the state school system.

Michael Brigo ● 46d

Mr Brigo'oh look, despite warnings of the apocalypse....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENED'.You have absolutely no idea of how individual parents who chose to pay to send their children to the school of their choice actually responded.Some will have just paid up, some made sacrifices elsewhere in their household budgets.I assume you believe in the right of parents to send their children to whatever school they can afford to pay for ?What would you have done ?

John Hawkes ● 46d

Mr CarterIt's always the same: some reform is hyped as the end of the world, only for its supposed effect to be minuscule. Remember the introduction of the minimum wage? It would destroy businesses wholesale and bring about the collapse of the world as we know it (and that's only a slight exaggeration) it was claimed, but now it's accepted as completely normal. And, inevitably, it's occurring over the government's suggested changes in employment law to stop vicious exploitation of employees, and the same apocalyptic warnings are being bleated by the usual suspects. Don't believe a word of it!'What examples of 'vicious exploitation of employees' can you quote ?The imposition of VAT on private schools, making the UK the only country in the world to place a sales tax on education,  is well recognised as simply a bone thrown to leftist, classist and envious Labour voters .Seems to have been received with jubilation by many on this Forum such as you no doubt !Perhaps the minimum wage did not destroy the economy but Chancellor Reeves herself is quoted as saying to the BBC -  "it's likely her tax-raising Budget may affect wage growth for workers, as businesses will have to absorb the costs of paying more National Insurance or give out smaller pay rises.Asked about the impact of increasing NI contributions for employers by 1.2% from April 2025, she says: "I said that it will have consequences"The government says it will raise £25bn from the measure - but the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank claims it will raise just £16bn, because businesses will scale back wage rises'.However to the Labour Government's credit the Chancellor and  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Liz Kendall are determined to cut down the UK's ever expanding welfare bill by axing £5billion from its budget as the government scrambles to balance the books.'Labour MPs have been warning of 'deep concern' over 'draconian' curbs with details expected to be announced as soon as tomorrow.Liz Kendall is set to declare that workers who lose their jobs should get more than long-term claimants. Check-ups on those who are getting sickness payments are also due to be bolstered'.Many long term claimants are citing 'mental health issues' as the reason they can't work.Almost impossible of course to verify or counter.So the Government seems to be enforcing novel schemes such as interviewing these people and giving them coaching on how to get a job.A reform in practice surely ?

John Hawkes ● 46d

It's always the same: some reform is hyped as the end of the world, only for its supposed effect to be minuscule. Remember the introduction of the minimum wage? It would destroy businesses wholesale and bring about the collapse of the world as we know it (and that's only a slight exaggeration) it was claimed, but now it's accepted as completely normal. And, inevitably, it's occurring over the government's suggested changes in employment law to stop vicious exploitation of employees, and the same apocalyptic warnings are being bleated by the usual suspects. Don't believe a word of it!

Richard Carter ● 46d

oh look, despite warnings of the apocalypse....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENEDPredictions that adding VAT to private school fees would set off a wave of parents moving children to the state sector have been proved wrong at their first key test, according to figures from councils in England.While critics including the former chancellor Jeremy Hunt had predicted that up to 90,000 children could flood the state sector if VAT of 20% was charged, most councils say they have seen no impact from the policy in applications to start at state secondary schools later this year.Forecasts of widespread shortages of school places have also fallen flat, based on application figures for places in year 7, the first year of secondary school, that show more families receiving their first choice of school this year.https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/10/no-exodus-to-state-sector-after-vat-added-to-private-school-fees-say-english-councils

Michael Brigo ● 47d

On illegal migrants, it is not your job to come up with a viable alternative to the Rwanda scheme, but it is certainly Keir Starmer’s job, which he has signally failed to do. His plan to ‘smash the smuggling gangs’ is pie in the sky. The combined police forces of several European nations, including the UK, have failed to stop the traffickers up to now and there is no reason to believe they will succeed in future. Indeed a country like France has little incentive to stop migrants setting out to cross the Channel, since once they are in the water, they  are no longer France’s problem and become Britain’s problem.At the moment the smuggling gangs are able to tell their paying customers (who are not stupid) that once they reach Britain, there is little or no chance of their being removed even if their claims for asylum are rejected since countries like France will never agree to take them back. The only solution is to deter migrants from making the crossing by making it clear that those who enter Britain illegally will not be allowed to stay and will be removed to a (safe) third country. Unfortunately Labour (for whom anti-racism seems to have replaced socialism as their credo) consider any proposal to limit immigration as inherently racist. (Keir Starmer actually said this). As a result they are unwilling to tackle the problem of illegal migration seriously.My prediction is that the number of migrants attempting to cross the Channel in small boats will increase under Labour. Having no alternative, a Labour government will then be forced to grant an amnesty to those whose asylum claims have failed, creating an even greater incentive for others to make the crossing.

Steven Rose ● 307d

> On votes for 16 year olds, I don’t think the brief list of things this age group is allowed or partially allowed to do proves that they should be given the vote.No, but nor does a list of things they can't do until 18 prove they shouldn't be given the vote.Did you read the information on the Electoral Reform Society link I included or just dismiss it out of hand?> It is obvious that Labour’ simply intends to gerrymander future elections by enfranchising an age cohort likely to vote for left wing parties.. I am amazed that there has not been more discussion of this issue.And it is obvious that the right-of-centre parties will object to it on for the same reasons.Doesn't really matter as it's in the Labour manifesto, they'll be elected and they'll enact it.> RwandaWe've done this before. You disagree, I get it. Plenty of human rights organisations believe it's awful.> If ‘some form of deterrent may be required’, what deterrent are Labour proposing? It's not my job to come up with Labour's policies or the implementation details.> ManifestosTake it up with the parties. No point whining to me about it. The Conservatives manifesto is equally vague.> As I have tried to say on many occasions, Keir Starmer is completely out of his depth as a politician.I think most of the current set of politicians are. Maybe a period of stability will encourage people with a longer term vision to come through the ranks (of all parties).> As a radical lawyer ...Do you copy and paste this stuff from some form of Daily Mail anti-Starmer playbook?He may now privately regret doing some work for that organisation but, as he's pointed out several times, it's a fundamental concept of the UK law system that everyone is entitled to representation, and he's represented both sides of the system at numerous points in his career. For every serious crime someone is representing the defendant but no huge fuss is made about the lawyers/solicitors/barristers that represented Myra Hindley / Ian Brady, Peter Sutcliffe, Rolf Harris, etc. Many of those people have been ill whilst in prison, do you also castigate the nurses and doctors who treated them?Reminds me of the "Enemies of the people" headline about the judges who were doing their job and interpreting the law. The "wrong decision" and suddenly there are ad hominem attacks. No wonder the Conservatives want to opt out of the ECHR and build their own, that way they can stuff it full of their own appointees to get the outcomes they would prefer. Be damned with impartiality. Unlike the ECHR which was specifically designed to stop this by ensuring issues were not interpreted by judges from the litigating countries.As for the rest of the character assassination on Starmer, as I've said, the current crop of politicians don't really seem up to it but it's all we have at the moment, and the red lot seem a lot less worse than the blue lots. An equivalent analysis of Cameron/May/Johnson/Truss/Sunak doesn't have any of them coming out particularly well.

John Kettlekey ● 308d

Mr Hawkes. An interesting observation. I don't see it as particularly rude describing something as a rant: I thought it was an apt description of the flowing from VAT on private schools, to votes for 16 year olds to Rwanda, etc ... it was actually intended a little tongue in cheek. I'm sure intelligent 16 year olds would be more insulted by Steven's description of Labour's plans to give them the vote as "stupid"? When I get passionate describing something I sometimes apologise for my own rants! Perhaps I view the meaning of RANTs slightly differently; I attend an industry forum called the RANT where one's encouranged to rant against problems in the IT security, cyber and data protection industry! (Often against suppliers who are present and sponsoring the event ... I guess they find paying for some sustenance is a cheap way of getting direct honest, useful marketing feedback? RANT forum: Risk And Network Threat forum.)Hence, in my opinion I don't think describing something as a rant as being aggressive, just acknowledging a number of loosely connected events expressed passionately that, yes, in this instance, I disagree with.

Michael Ixer ● 308d

Mr Rose'Keir Starmer recently derided Rishi Sunak’s plans  as ‘a Corbyn  style manifesto’. Yet in 2019 Starmer fully supported Corbyn’s programme. A contradiction, no?'In the main, key to Starmer's election strategy is to say and commit to as little as possible so as not to fall into a bear trap.His previous and most hilarious gaff was when he claimed "0.1% of women have a penis".That's 30,000.Said of course to gain favour with the trans tendency in the Labour Party.But he is also a touch shifty when it comes to changes he has made over time to his views on other issues.https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/06/13/slippery-starmer/Well worth a read.Of course the Conservatives have blown the election and could have also blown themselves up.Perhaps the one after this will be fought between a centre right Reform Party and a leftist Labour Party with few economic and social policies distinct from the Conservatives but undoubtedly far more wokish.

John Hawkes ● 308d

Mr Ixer 'Thanks for an excellent response to Steven's rant'Why are posts that are at variance to your views 'rants' ?Is that not rude and aggressive and against the spirit of posting on this Forum ?

John Hawkes ● 308d

Keir Starmer recently derided Rishi Sunak’s plans  as ‘a Corbyn  style manifesto’. Yet in 2019 Starmer fully supported Corbyn’s programme. A contradiction, no?

Steven Rose ● 308d

On votes for 16 year olds, I don’t think the brief list of things this age group is allowed or partially allowed to do proves that they should be given the vote. They are not considered mature enough to purchase alcohol, fireworks or cigarettes, take out a mortgage, get married in England without parental permission or serve on the front line in the armed services. Why should they be allowed to vote for the legislators who make the laws on these issues. It is obvious that Labour’ simply intends to gerrymander future elections by enfranchising an age cohort likely to vote for left wing parties.. I am amazed that there has not been more discussion of this issue.Why is it cruel to send migrants to Rwanda? The UNHCR evidently believes Rwanda is a safe place because it agreed a plan with the African Union to send migrants from Libya to Rwanda. The first flight took place in 2022 when 119 vulnerable asylum seekers were transported to Rwanda . If ‘some form of deterrent may be required’, what deterrent are Labour proposing? The problems facing the country are immense, particularly as regards the NHS and housing. What are Labour’s plans to deal with these issues? First we were told, ‘wait for the manifesto’. Well the manifesto has been published and we still don’t know.The list of issues on which Keir Starmer has backtracked the last election include:1) Jeremy Corbyn’s suitability to be the next PM2) renationalisation of the utilities3) abolition of tuition fees4) higher rate of tax for the top 5% of earners5) freedom of movement for EU citizens6) scrapping universal credit7) scrapping the two child limit on benefits8) £28 billion green prosperity plan9) abolition of the House of Lords.As I have tried to say on many occasions, Keir Starmer is completely out of his depth as a politician. As a student he was a utopian Marxist, believing  that it was possible to create a society that would have no need of the police and where production would be for use, not for profit. As a radical lawyer he took up the cause of the Muslim Brotherhood, a dangerous Islamist organisation, arguing against a ban by the German authorities. And as a Labour MP he spouted a lot of the fashionable stuff listed above, gaining a reputation as a being on the left of his party. But once he became leader and had to think seriously about politics, he realised that a lot of what he believed, or thought he believed, was impractical or just plain daft. Now he has no convictions at all, just a vague sympathy for ‘working people’.The landslide predicted is not evidence of massive confidence in Labour, still less confidence in Keir Starmer. It is evidence of a split in the Right.The Conservatives and Reform are on around 36% and Labour on around 43%.

Steven Rose ● 308d

Thanks for an excellent response to Steven's rant, John. Just to pick up on several of Steven's points.So, Steven, you're saying the current Conservative government has created another waiting list; one where 90,000 children are waiting to have their Education and Health Care Plans assessed? That sounds appalling. Yes, the Conservatives are quite rightly blamed for Brexit. They instigated the referendum, colluded in lying about the benefits of it, then Johnson also lied about having an "oven ready" plan before overseeing a rushed agreement that has disadvantaged the fishing industry, small businesses exporting to Europe, musicians wanting to travel to Europe, added costs to imported goods from the EU, created more bureaucracy travelling to the EU, etc without any noticeable benefits. So far Conservative plans haven't stopped illegal immigration while Sir Kier does have plans to target the bosses of the illegal gangs facilitating the unsafe boat travel.I'm not aware of Sir Kier mocking Mr Corbyn, perhaps enlighten us? Remember, Jeremy Corbyn was democratically elected as leader by Labour party members. Sir Kier obviously respected that decision by the members and it was therefore his duty to support Mr Corbyn in that position. Obviously, after the last election changes had to be made, in a similar way the Conservative party needed to replace Johnson and Truss.

Michael Ixer ● 308d

> It is almost a waste of time making these points.We've found some common ground! Hopefully we can build on this in future discussions.> But I don’t imagine that the objections to Labour’s ill-conceived VAT raid are likely to dissuade anyone from voting for Labour.Yep. I disagree with the cliff-edge implementation of the plan but agree with the general principle.> Nor will the stupidity of Labour’s plan to give 16 year olds the vote, allowing young people who are not considered mature enough to buy alcohol to vote on the licensing laws for everyone elseWe've done this before. 16 year olds can ride 50cc motorbikes on the road. 17 year olds can drive a car. 16 year olds can vote in some elections in parts of the union already. They can get married in some parts of the union (without parental permission) already. It's a well researched topic (earlier enfranchisement) and backed by the Electoral Reform Society (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/could-this-be-the-last-general-election-that-excludes-16-and-17-year-olds/).> Nor the complete absence of a plan to deal with illegal immigration, having promised to scrap the deterrent intended by the Rwanda scheme.Because they believe it's a terrible scheme and smacks of performative cruelty. The Conservative's plan seemed to be to do as little as possible in terms of processing asylum seekers in order to generate as inhumane conditions as possible ("temporarily" housed in disused army barracks, on the Bibby Stockholm, etc). All of this has cost millions if not billions.Some for of a deterrent may be required (given that we can't accept each and every asylum seeker) but the only thing the scheme has sent to Rwanda is significant sums of money. It's another example of absolutely terrible (bordering on criminal) deal negotiation. Paying hundreds of millions up front for a scheme they was unlikely to succeed from the very beginning.> Nor the fact that Labour’s manifesto contains no concrete information on how they intend to build more houses or reduce NHS waiting lists or grow the economy.Manifestos rarely contain concrete (nice pun) plans. The Conservative manifest looks equally bereft of details on these subjects. The proof of the pudding of Labour's statements will be in their results over the next 5 years (if it lasts that long before another election). People have had enough of the Conservative promises to fix all of these things - which is fair enough given they've actually had the power to do things for the last 14 years and not only not fixed them but actually made many things worse. Even long standing Conservative supporters have run out of patience with "I promise we'll fix it this time, I know we said we'd do it the last two times but this time is different."> Nor the fact that Keir Starmer has repudiated virtually every policy which he advocated just five years ago. It is almost a waste of time making these points.By "virtually every policy" do you mean "some"? Otherwise this just sounds like the usual Daily Mail style "Look! A politician changed his mind about something!" Although if the current Government does it it's because the situation has changed and it's the right thing to do, if the opposition do it it's because they're weak and have no political backbone. A search for "Sunak u-turns" brings up a reasonable list if you want to do your own research.> Such individuals simply cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative, no how many deficiencies they see in Labour’s programme. It's interesting that you see that as the basis for the choice. I'd say that it's not "that they can't bring themselves to vote Conservative, no matter how many deficiencies they see in Labour's programme"; but more "they can't bring themselves to vote Conservative because the Conservative's programme has far more deficiencies than Labour's."In many people's eyes Labour are the "least worst" credible option which is a damning indictment of UK's politics right now. Hopefully this is the start of some proper long-term decision making rather than short-term popularist policies/politcs.There's also an element of naivety in the assumption that supporting a political party means supporting all of its policies. People have different viewpoints so it's no great surprise that ~50 million people in the UK able to vote don't fit neatly and exactly into the 5 or 6 different political buckets that exist. If everyone could only vote for a party where they agreed with every single policy of that party turnout would be frighteningly low. Life is a compromise.You've got to ask yourself why, if Labour's plans are so terrible, why they are set for such a monumental landslide. You've touched on many of the reasons (revenge, Brexit, pendulum effect, etc) but the absolute single most obvious thing you've not mentioned is that the Conservative party had everything they needed (majority, support, etc) and completely and utterly threw it away with infighting, power games, incompetency and staggering rapacity. That succession of prime ministers (Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak) will haunt the Tory party for generations.As for the jibe about Corbyn, Labour could probably replace Starmer with Corbyn right now and they'd still win a landslide in the General Election. That's how far the right has sunk.

John Kettlekey ● 309d

An estimated 90 000 children are currently waiting for Education and Health Care Plans, so their parents will either have to pay the additional fees or withdraw their children from their private school.and put them into the state sector where help for special educational needs is not always available.But I don’t imagine that the objections to Labour’s ill-conceived VAT raid are likely to dissuade anyone from voting for Labour. Nor will the stupidity of Labour’s plan to give 16 year olds the vote, allowing young people who are not considered mature enough to buy alcohol to vote on the licensing laws for everyone else. Nor the complete absence of a plan to deal with illegal immigration, having promised to scrap the deterrent intended by the Rwanda  scheme.  Nor the fact that Labour’s manifesto contains no concrete information on how they intend to build more houses or reduce NHS waiting  lists or grow the economy. Nor the fact that Keir Starmer has repudiated virtually every policy which he advocated just five years ago. It is almost a waste of time making these points.My impression is that people generally don’t cast their vote on the basis of rational consideration of what would be in the best interests of the country. They are more likely to be swayed by other factors, notably tribal loyalty, economic self-interest, the swing of the pendulum, revenge and self-image.I don’t think the first two factors are particularly important in Putney. Putney, unlike some Norther constituencies,  does not have a long standing Labour tradition characterised by a Labour tribe. The tax plans of the two main parties are similar, so I don’t think economic self- interest will influence the vote to any great extent. But the swing of the pendulum  is important. All governments end in failure, the current one with 7 million people on NHS waiting lists more than most, so people tend to think it is time to give the other lot a go. Revenge cannot be discounted as a motive. Many people are still angry about Brexit, for which  they blame the Conservatives. As for self-image, Putney has a number of voters who can be described as ‘urban professionals with a social conscience’, people who automatically associate the Left with moral virtue and the Right with a selfish disregard for others. Such individuals simply cannot bring themselves to vote Conservative, no how many deficiencies they see in Labour’s programme. Many of them  even voted last time for Jeremy Corbyn, an absurd figure now mocked by his former friend and colleague, Keir Starmer. The most they will do is vote Lib Dem or Green, parties whose main function is virtue signalling.

Steven Rose ● 309d

There is no VAT on childrens' clothes.Starmer on LBC confirmed that SEN placements would not be exempt only those holding Education and Health Care Plans will.Will this policy put immediate additional strain on the system, already under pressure to obtain Education and Health Care Plans?Tax should be well thought out and should avoid creating such sudden deadlines.I hope the Labour supporters realise that this is a so-called Brexit benefit - perhaps not the benefit that Brexiteers were looking for.

Ed Robinson ● 310d

I don’t think we should have to pay VAT on clothes, especially we would probably get arrested if we walked around naked.But we do

Emma Blackwell ● 312d

Points very well made.

Steven Rose ● 312d

First of all the Labour party are not going to change the charitable status of private schools. That means they escape corporation tax and benefit from tax on gifts.Now if they are not really charities they should not be entitled to such status or tax breaks.Re what is a business and what is a charity is not a joke question at all and I do not say that they do mainly charitable work. What I said was, which is a fact, is that the main private schools are registered charities.All charities have to act like a business with regard to tax and other government legislation. Being a charity doesn't mean you do not charge for services or goods. No doubt private schools consider providing education to their students as being their main purpose.The question concerning most people is where is Labour's detail on the policy? Without such detail concerning SEN students and along with allowing privilege private schools existing tax breaks it really just looks like someone has done their homework on the way to school.Either Labour is going to rush through changes which may possibly impact SEN students or it will take longer in which case improve to state and state funded schools will be delayed.IMO it is silly to link taxing private schools with additional resources for state and state funded schools. There is no such ring fence with general taxation. It was purely done for self political promotion.

Ed Robinson ● 312d

Edhttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/special-needs-children-labour-tax-raid-private-schools/#:~:text=Labour%20has%20said%20children%20with,and%20care%20(EHC)%20plans.Re what is a business and what is a charity? Is this a joke question? Maybe you should explain your interpretation also?A charities main objective is to provide charitable services, and, is the bulk of what they do. Which is why it is reflected in the business rates (80%) discountSo you say that private schools mainly do charitable work? Sorry, I thought they charged for their services and donated a small percentage of charitable work in what they do; which is similar to many businessesI do understand how VAT works thank you

Emma Blackwell ● 312d

Quite right Michael the government would need to quantify what constitutes a SEN service.Have Labour done this, no mention of what I can find in the manifesto??Also maintaining charitable status still gives them tax advantages. If indeed they are not charities should the government allow this? It seems Labour are saying they are charities for one tax and not another.

Ed Robinson ● 313d

Mister Carter hasn’t answered my question. Did he go to an ‘independent’  Or ‘public’ school. I would put at least a fiver on it that he definitely did.

Freddie Francis ● 313d

Ed. Businesses charge output VAT on the products and services they provide and can claim back the input VAT on services they purchase so what the business pay to HMRC  is the value of the output VAT less the input VAT.  The SEN services would either be zero VAT rated or exempt - the difference being that input VAT can't be claimed against the proportion of goods that are exempt; any good accounting software should be able to calculate that - it's simply arithmetic. What's interesting is that if all one's VAT outputs are zero rated then the HMRC pays you the value of the input VAT. (I guess that's what financial services are VAT exempt,  not zero rated!)Anyway,  as Emma said, because the schools would be paying input VAT on goods and services they purchase they're unlikely to be paying the full 20% output VAT to HMRC. 

Michael Ixer ● 313d

"Labour have said a few times that the VAT will not apply to SEN children"Emma that's not in the manifesto or if it is I have missed it, do you have a link?"as a business the school can"Sorry I'm still not following. These are registered charities which Labour will not change. It is allowing them to keep charitable status. What do you mean by business?How do you determine which are indeed charities and which and which are businesses as you say?VAT is quite a blunt tax and levied on the service or goods provided not the consumer. Consumers can claim back VAT in certain instances but that is post payment. The service would have to be quantified in some way as to providing a SEN service as opposed to a normal private education. I imagine that would take some time. Will they take that time or just impose a blanket tax??

Ed Robinson ● 313d

Labour may give exemption from VAT to pupils with Education and Health Care Plans but only around 7000 of the estimated 100 000 children with special needs have such certificates at present. The smaller schools lack the resources to absorb the VAT charge and will be forced to pass on the cost to the parents. Parents of modest means will be unable to pay additional fees and will be obliged to withdraw their children, with a consequent cruel and unnecessary disruption to their education.While Labour’s VAT raid is misconceived, their  plan to give 16 year olds the vote is insidious. The motive is simply to enfranchise an age cohort overwhelmingly likely to vote Labour. There is no justification for this change.  16 year olds are not allowed to buy fireworks, serve on a jury, shop for wine, purchase cigarettes, get a  mortgage or get married without their parents’ permission, yet Labour wishes to allow them to vote for the legislators who make these laws.

Steven Rose ● 313d

Labour have said a few times that the VAT will not apply to SEN childrenAnd as I said before, as a business the school can decide whether to pass on the full 20% or swallow some themselvesThey could, for example, pass on the full 20% to parents that could afford it, and, for example pass on just 10% to families less able to (with the school swallowing the other 10%)Don’t forget it is the school that will no longer be VAT excempt, so it’s down to them to decide if they want to p pass on that charge or absorb it. It also means they will be able to get VAT back on things they pay out forSoo they will actually pay less than the full 20% I’m the end

Emma Blackwell ● 313d

Sorry I'm confused, unfortunately I'm easily so.Eton, Harrow and Westminster are all registered charities.I do not think many people care about the high end private schools but as with any sector the range is huge and with no details in the manifesto the question of unintended consequences arises.Clearly the figures used applies to all private schools including SEN schools. That I can not agree with.Labour have had years being paid in opposition to come up with a sensible detailed policy on education and it hasn't done so. It's been playing around instead of doing it's homework.

Ed Robinson ● 313d

YesBut these are state schools, who don’t charge anythingMy point is  that In order to register as a charity and for the building to get the discounted rates, most of the business needs to be a charity, and not a business which donates a small amount to the local communityIn reality, many businesses make charitable donations either locally or nationally, they don’t get any reduction in bushes ratesI’m not saying I agree fully with the vat issue, but for a business to be exempt from VAT as well as get an 80% reduction in business rates, I think, needs to be altered in some wayI don’t believe many of the private schools can justify full charitable statusAlso, the full 20% does not need to be passed on, the school can take some of the hitI’m just not worried that the result will end up being just the very rich going to private school,

Emma Blackwell ● 313d

This link seems to outline the current process. Which seems to indicate that  other schools are not at a disadvantage regarding business rates."Local authorities receive funding for business rates through the national funding formula, to meet the full costs of schools’ business rates. This means the costs for local authority-maintained schools’ and academies’ business rates are currently covered by the department and there is no disadvantage to state-funded schools from paying full rates, or advantage from receiving rates relief. The department will pay business rates bills directly to 122 billing authorities on behalf of more than half of local authority maintained schools and academies from April 2022."https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/145043/schools-non-domestic-rates

Ed Robinson ● 313d

Private schools also benefit from an 80% reduction in business rates due to their charity status, yet state schools that are not academies have to pay the full 100%Regular charities have to demonstrate that their charitable work makes up the vast business of what they do to justify the 80% reduction in ratesI am not sure that anyone could safely say that private schools provide mainly charitable work to justify this reduction? Or even, 20% to equal the zero VAT?Personally I don’t think any school should have to pay any business rates, but if they get a reduction then the charity work should match that reduction shouldn’t it?Please see this link and highlighted section for guidelines to qualify for rates relief, can you say private schools comply fully?https://www.merton.gov.uk/business-and-consumers/business-rates/business-rates-discounts-and-relief/charitable-and-discretionary-rate-relief-business-rates#:~:text=If%20your%20organisation%20is%20a,to%20receive%2080%25%20mandatory%20relief.

Emma Blackwell ● 314d

PFI is back under Labour's school, NHS & energy policies."said the trust would be saddled with “significant” capital costs as the “PFI hasn’t always been able to ensure lifecycle investment has been made”. “We’re essentially paying for a repair and reactive service, as opposed to ensuring the building is maintained with lifecycle investment.” https://schoolsweek.co.uk/pfi-expiry-warning-as-stoke-schools-hit-with-20-fee-rise/

Ed Robinson ● 314d

What about cathedral schools? I believe David Lammy attended one.

Elizabeth Balsom ● 315d

> There does not seem to be the problem you describe.Yes, medical student places are limited and oversubscribed.Surely the capitalist Tory ethos would be to lower the wages  until there's a balance between supply and demand. Let the free market do its thing!But what you'll find is that whilst all of the medical student places are being used there are more and more doctors leaving the UK after qualifying, as the wages in other countries are better. Something that won't show up in the medical school places stats.Maybe I should have said "the problem if incentivising people to become doctors in the UK in the first place".

John Kettlekey ● 315d

Mr Kettlekey'the problem of incentivising people to become doctors in the first place'.There does not seem to be the problem you describe."Medical schools are still oversubscribed with, on average, eight applications from suitable students being rejected for every application accepted"https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/news-and-features/news/rcpsych-brief_med-school-places-%28sept2019%29.pdf?sfvrsn=14c41f59_2Unfortunately all university graduates are subject to paying their teaching fees and some paying back loans.Is the abolition of such fees in the Labour Manifesto ?

John Hawkes ● 315d

> Perhaps those supporting Labour’s policy might like to say whether they themselves or their children have benefited from attending independent schools. I'm a supporter of the general idea but not a cliff-edge implementation of it going straight to 20% from September (if that is what they are doing, couldn't determine the details from their manifesto). It should probably be phased in over a 5 year period. Something like VAT of 0% for the first year, then 5% second, 10% third, 15% fourth and finally 20% fifth.I've heard from friends of friends that there is a reasonable clamour for state school places in the borough as people try and pre-empt the upcoming changes but obviously don't have any specific numbers.All state schooling for myself and offspring. None of us have attended any fee paying schools at any time.Not a traditional Labour voter but I've never voted Conservative and I'll definitely be voting Labour in Putney to do my bit to help ensure the Conservatives don't take the seat back. If we had PR I'd be voting differently (more than likely Green but I'd spend a lot more time researching manifestos and policies if this was the case). It's a shame Putney was the only constituency in the country to go from Conservative to Labour in the 2019 General Election. Justine Greening was a good constituency MP but she was still a Conservative.I also wouldn't object to the wealthier end of the spectrum having to pay more tax (and that includes myself) but then I'm in the lucky position that I'm good at what I do and have a good income and am not "just managing".

John Kettlekey ● 316d

> 1) for the first 2 years after graduation with a BM or BSur a junior doctor will earn £32-37K paIndeed, now look what junior doctors earned 15 years ago and adjust that for inflation since then. I'll save you the hassle as Channel 4 have already done it: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-much-has-junior-doctors-pay-fallen-and-what-pay-rise-do-they-want"The BMA says that junior doctors’ pay in England has fallen by 26 per cent since 2008/09, once you account for inflation."Obviously a junior doctor does not remain a junior doctor for more than 2 years (usually) and so their salary will increase over time, but it highlights the problem of incentivising people to become doctors in the first place. Couple the stagnated starting salary with the added bonus of £90k+ of debt from university fees/loans and you can see why junior doctors aren't happy.And, yes, the NHS pension scheme is very generous but quite rightly so. All of that clapping on a Thursday night during Covid doesn't go very far in paying for retirement.

John Kettlekey ● 316d

Mr Ixer'my state education at one of the first schools in Essex to become comprehensive was excellent and enabled me to attend one of the best universities for STEM subjects in the country'.You have just described my educational pathway !Might I ask what was the name of your school ?

John Hawkes ● 316d

Mr KettlekeyMy investigation on the BBC News website found that currently -1) for the first 2 years after graduation with a BM or BSur a junior doctor will earn £32-37K pa2) in years 3-8 the salary will be £40-£63K pa.3) extra payments for working unsocial hours or doing additional work can raise these salaries by 25-30%4) junior doctors and consultants are beneficiaries of a generous pension scheme whereby retirement at 60 will entitle them to £43K pa for life plus a £135K lump sum payment5) consultants salaries start at £99k pa and rise to £131K pa after 14 years.I am not saying any of this is undeserved.Some of my best friends are consultants !

John Hawkes ● 316d

Michael, I don’t believe that independent schools are necessarily better in academic terms than state schools, though some can offer specialist provision which is not always available in the state system. But the inverted snobs who devised Labour’s policy evidently do believe that private education is a privilege reserved for the few, who deserve to be taxed in order to help the many (to use the terms favoured by Labour at the last election).The policy is misconceived for a number of reasons, many of which have been set out by other contributors to the Forum:1) it undermines the important principle that the provision of education and health in our society are benefits which should be free of tax2)  VAT is a regressive tax which will unfairly impact parents of modest means3) it will cruelly disrupt the education of children, many of them with special needs, whose parents cannot pay the additional fees4) there are insufficient places in the school system in many areas to accommodate the numbers of children who are likely to be withdrawn from the private schools5) the cost of educating these children in the state system will  severely offset any revenue raised by the tax6) many teachers and support staff in the independent sector will lose their jobs7) independent schools will become the preserve of the rich and the very rich.In short, a damaging policy motivated by a perverse ideology. I should like to add that I personally was educated and have always taught in the state system. But I question the integrity of those like Keir Starmer who have personally benefited from private education and now wish to make it more difficult for other people.

Steven Rose ● 317d

Charging VAT on educational services may actually be one of those obscure Brexit benefits as it is not permitted in the EU.Will other educational suppliers other than private schools have to charge VAT? Seems like there is an opportunity for scope creep.

Ed Robinson ● 317d

Mister Carter - for the record, did you go to an independent school? Or even, God forbid, a PUBLIC school? Or are you a good old comprehensive/secondary modern (council house, labour voting father) kid like me? Would hate to find out you're a hypocrite. Champaign socialist and all that.For the record, horror of horrors, I happen to believe this VAT grab is an out-and-out load of 'class-warfare' cheap vote-seeking tripe.Have you considered that far from 'sticking it' to these schools and the wealthy it will turn them into ultra-elite establishments for the EXTREMELY rich? Many of them are already heavily attended by eastern europeans and asians and that's not going to change any time soon. This will leave room for more.It's so simple to bring down the expectations of education rather than raise them up isn't it? Lazy socialist idealism is what this is. I, a former Thatcherite, was going to vote for Labour. Not with this load of cobblers I'm not. And rest assured it certainly will not be the train-wreck that's the Tory party.

Freddie Francis ● 317d

I suspect Labour costings have assumed that all private schools will be taxed at the full rate immediately.The £1.7bn apparently will be used for state education including additional nursery places and new schools.What they don't say is that we are likely to see the return of new PFI contracts in both education and the NHS.Conservatives getting rid of PFI is one of the few things I agree with. The Audit Office said it delivered poor value for taxpayers. “We have a dialogue with [Labour] and they have been very open to us,” Hutton said, adding that PFIs had been wrongly maligned and that there was a “misunderstanding over whether they were value for money”.https://www.ft.com/content/d94ff449-e81a-4585-a2bb-dc8618b9bfa4

Ed Robinson ● 317d

Steven. I nor any of my relatives or their children have benefitted from a private education (although one did go to a grant aided school with minimal fees several decades ago). I don't have children but I have contributed a large amount of tax that should have benefitted other people's children's state education. I've no issue with that; others will have contributed to my university grant in previous years - what comes around goes around, and I'm sure my technical skills will have contributed to the UK's GDP over the past 4 to 5 decades!To be honest my state education at one of the first schools in Essex to become comprehensive was excellent and enabled me to attend one of the best universities for STEM subjects in the country. Your post seems to imply that education at private schools is superior to state schools as you say those attending them benefit from it (unlike my excellent education at a comprehensive school in the 1960s); obviously another area suffering from 14 years of Tory mismanagement! My experience from working in financial services is that private/public schools give some mediocre achievers the contacts, arrogance and privileged position to believe they're better than the state educated support staff who have the technical skills needed to really operate the organisation. 

Michael Ixer ● 317d

Well said, Sue. Perhaps those supporting Labour’s policy might like to say whether they themselves or their children have benefited from attending independent schools. If so, maybe in the event of a Labour victory they would like to make an ex gratia payment equivalent to 20% of the cost of their schooling (adjusted for inflation) to the Department of Education in  order a) to atone for the privilege they and their families have enjoyed and b) to make a contribution to the costs of employing the 6000 additional  teachers promised by Labour. Keir Starmer could lead the way, having attended Reigate Grammar School, which went independent while he was a pupil.  He himself benefited from a bursary, so that his parents did not have to pay any fees. It is unlikely that Reigate Grammar, once faced with VAT, will be able to offer bursaries in future. So perhaps Sir Keir should refund the whole cost of his education (now 21 595 per year) to the school. Surely he would not wish to benefit from a privilege which he is denying to others.

Steven Rose ● 317d

I do not agree with adding VAT to public schools at all.It is utopia to think they are all at the same level as Stowe, Eaton, Gordonstoun, Harrow, etc.Many parents, who are not in that league, are struggling to pay the school fees.  It may be a choice for some but for others who have children under the umbrella of SEN, it is a must as state schools can only offer limited support.I am not too sure Labour are playing politics of envy.  Certainly, those with enticing soundbites which is really inappropriate.

Ivonne Holliday ● 317d

I am not in agreement with slapping VAT on independent school fees because there will definitely be a significant number of parents who will have to remove their children as a result. The general assumption that all parents who send their children to independent schools are filthy rich is misguided; many are of course, but a large number of middle income earners scrimp and save in order to achieve their ambition to give their offspring the best start possible. An additional 20% on fees will make this untenable for many and will be the deal breaker that shatters that dream. I doubt that Bridget Phillipson has factored in the huge emotional upset her plan will cause to the children who would be affected. These unfortunate children will suddenly be taken away from everything they are familiar with; the school building itself, the teachers they are used to and who understand them, all their classmates and friends they may have bonded with. These losses could be hugely detrimental to their emotional wellbeing and may even damage them academically. For Labour to say there will not be extra pressure put upon state schools when they have to absorb possibly thousands of displaced students is either incredibly naive or incredibly dishonest. Or simply the politics of envy?

Sue Hammond ● 317d

I am not sure what is meant by the phrase ‘private schools … dressed up as charities’. In order to obtain charitable status private schools must not be run for profit and must show benefit to the community (e.g. by sharing their facilities with state schools).There is no ‘loophole’ that needs to be addressed here. Labour’s policy is simply an act of class warfare devised by a bunch of virtue signallers who are attempting to fill the vacuum at the heart of their political philosophy. They hope to convince the public that they are helping to make society more equal when in fact all they are doing is slapping an average tax bill of £3000 upon hundreds of thousands of parents, many of them people of modest means.

Steven Rose ● 317d

I'm not Mr Carter but...> Do you believe that people have the right to pay for their child's education outside of the state system that they are also paying for via taxation ?Yes, they are free to choose not to use the system they are paying for via general taxation (they could home school the children), and also free to choose to pay extra on top to have their children educated privately. Much like people who don't have a car still contribute to the upkeep of the road system as that is also funded from general taxation.In a similar way they're free to pay for private healthcare despite them also paying for the NHS (which they may never use) through general taxation.We could go through a huge list of things that are paid for out of general taxation and find things that any one of us doesn't use, will never use, and no-one in our family would use, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all pay for them as part of being a member of society.The administrative burden associated with means-testing and allowing/validating exemptions/refunds often costs more than the money that would be "saved".What I personally object to is for private schools (which are commercial businesses, many of the times "for profit") to be dressed up as charities in order to avoid the need for paying VAT. It's a loophole that has long needed closing but the Tories were never going to grasp that nettle.Personally I think that it may be a mistake to suddenly end the VAT exemption for all private schools as a cliff-edge, but we'll eventually see what Labour's plans are for phasing it in, maybe they'll do it gradually. There's also the SEND aspect which I touched on in a different reply.

John Kettlekey ● 317d

Some details on NHS doctor salary bands can be found here:https://www.healthcareers.nhs.uk/explore-roles/doctors/pay-doctorsJunior Doctor salaries are between £32k and £37k.It's the consultants who earn £90k+ but you have to have a good numbers of years of service (10+?) to get to that level.

John Kettlekey ● 317d

Mr Carter,Do you believe that people have the right to pay for their child's education outside of the state system that they are also paying for via taxation ?

John Hawkes ● 317d

Mr Carter'This is the best bit: she currently earns £90,000 a year in the NHS! I never knew Lidl staff were paid so much; I'm off straightaway to apply for a job there....'That can't be our NHS surely as we are told by many on the left and by the striking junior doctors how badly paid the staff are and how they are all flying of to work near Bondi Beach ?

John Hawkes ● 317d

Ah, the weaselly phrase "up to" appears  conveniently.  The IFS estimated that betwee 3 and 7 per cent of children might be taken out of private schools,  which meant that the actual number is between 17,000 and 40,000. But "up to 40,000" sounds so much more threatening, doesn't it? But then that's the inevitable problem with believing what you read in the Telegraph...But the IFS report also  added that "Even that reduction would have limited impact on tax revenues as money not spent on school fees would likely be spent on other goods and services on which VAT would be payable. If some pupils do move to the state sector, extra school spending of about £100–300 million per year is likely to be required in the medium to long run. But it should be remembered that pupil numbers in the state sector are expected to fall dramatically over the next decade and state schools might therefore welcome extra pupils moving from the private sector."https://ifs.org.uk/news/removing-tax-exemptions-private-schools-likely-have-little-effect-numbers-private-sector

Richard Carter ● 317d

> What is forgotten is that such taxes often affect those who are ‘just managing’.That is the case for any tax rise, or any stealth tax rise such as wage stagnation accompanied by roaring inflation caused by the inept Truss premiership. Such things always affect the "just managing" it's just in previous times the groups of people who were affected weren't towards the richer end of the spectrum. Now that it is suddenly affecting people with £90k/year jobs (as per the article linked before) it's making newspapers like The Telegraph that would rarely report on the "just managing".Sunak's comment today about "going without Sky TV" so that his parents could afford private school fees is yet another tone-deaf statement. It's as if he either has no media team or he is just ignoring them. The saga of the Paul Brand interview (which he left the D-Day commemorations to record, and will be aired tonight) just keeps on giving.It will be interesting to see the details of the "VAT raid" once the Labour manifesto is published (assuming the manifesto goes into enough details).They have said that SEND pupils with ECHPs will continue to be fully funded by the state, but they only account for about 7% of those pupils that receive SEND support in private schools.We'll find out if there is more protection for non-ECHP funded SEND pupils (such as a suspension of the VAT increase for pupils with appropriate diagnoses). Also if the VAT increase is going to come into force for all schools, all pupils, all at once, or whether it will be phased in over a number of years.What's certain is that the SEND provision in state schools needs a huge boost too, it's been massively underfunded/underprovisioned for years. This is a perfect opportunity to fix that at the same time.

John Kettlekey ● 317d

People are often in favour of a tax increase as long as they don’t have to pay  it themselves. For that reason taxes on the ‘rich’ are popular. What is forgotten is that such taxes often affect those who are ‘just managing’.The IFS have estimated that up to 40 000 children (many of them with special needs) may be withdraw from private schools by parents unable to afford to pay the VAT charge of 20% in addition to the fees. Another survey has suggested that as many as 200 000 children could be forced out. In many areas there are insufficient places in the state system to accommodate these children. Various members of Labour’s shadow cabinet, who have been interviewed on the VAT raid, have been unable to explain how they would resolve this problem.The policy is also opposed by teaching unions, including the NEU (hardly a friend of the present government), who fear that hundreds of teachers could lose their jobs in schools forced to close because of falling rolls.Any tax raised by the VAT charge is likely to be largely negated by the expense of incorporating increased numbers of children within the state system, to say nothing of the disruption  caused by the change. The policy is typical of the modern Labour Party, who, having lost their belief in socialism, seek to demonstrate their left wing credentials by a senseless attack on so-called privilege.

Steven Rose ● 317d

There was an interesting item on R4's More or Less programme indicating that putting tax on private schools is unlikely to cause a problem with state schools because of falling birth rated. Lot's of scare mongering. 

Michael Ixer ● 317d

Richard Carter ● 317d