Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)

When you based your argument on them they became "your" figures.

And to quote him directly

"Our best judgement is that it would be reasonable to assume that an effective VAT rate of 15% would lead to a 3–7% reduction in private school attendance. "

So its an assumption based on an estimate, based on a net VAT rate of 15%, (with no supporting evidence visible).

He also goes on to state that "There is still lots of uncertainty around these estimates"

....but you would have us believe they are Gospel?

He also states: "As can be seen, our assumed elasticity range of 0.2–0.5 would generate falls of about 20,000–40,000. If the true elasticity is larger, then the fall in attendance would clearly be larger. Any falls would be spread over time, rather than happening immediately.

The key word is "assumed" - pick a figure, any figure.

I'd also take issue with his notion that numbers will fall gradually over time. He seems to fail to allow for decisions being made now as to whether pupils enter the sector at all or whether they leave the sector earlier than originally planned at natural break points when otherwise they might not have.

A final humdinger that I picked out was this:

"Tax revenues are unlikely to change if pupils switch to the state sector as a result of any rise in post-tax fees. This is because any money saved on private school fees would likely be spent on other goods and services, with any reduction in VAT revenues from private school fees effectively cancelled out by increased revenues from VAT on other goods and services. "

A massive assumption. Personally I'd be sticking most of it in my pension (and claiming some more tax relief).

Finally, this report only addresses theoretical issues relating to tax revenues and its theoretical effects on pupil numbers. Its assumptions appear to be more or less linear.

It also makes no mention of the economic and social impacts of related unemployment/redundancy because it makes no reference to the sustainability or viability of schools that might lose even 7% of their headcount. When schools become non-viable, what happens to the staff and the remaining pupils in that school? 7% dropping out because they can't afford the fees may cause 100% to need to find a new school and 100% of staff looking for new jobs.

It also does not reference effects on educational standards or the disruption to the education of thousands of children through the transitional period and what the long term costs of those things might be.

It is therefore an incomplete work full of caveats and estimates and not one I would base anything on - but clearly it suits your ill-informed narrative.

What's also "classic" is defending a policy that has highly questionable outcomes based on (apparently) no direct experience and dogma.

I'm happy to stand by the assertion that it is fkwittery of the highest order.

As you say, too easy.

Points well made.

While its not too difficult to count the number of kids that leave the sector immediately because parents can no longer afford the fees, its somewhat more difficult to determine the numbers of those that will duck out earlier than originally planned (at say the transition fo 6th form) and impossible to measure the number of those that decide never to start.

Its a snowball which, I suspect, will move much faster than they imagine (in terms of some schools becoming non-viable).

Some effect will be felt before Labour even get into Government with reduced applications for this September's intake. The shortfall in those numbers will never be recovered. They are messing with a relatively fragile eco system and they appear to not even know it.

And as you say, the wider effects on things like house prices in some areas (pricing other people out of houses and school catchment areas) does not even figure in their equation.

...and then the biggest joke is that (unless they ban it altogether) the overall effect will just be to make private education even more elitest whilst also depriving some state sector kids access to facilities which may no longer be available to them (because the private schools either close or choose not to make facilities available any more).

The laws of unintended consequences at work. Classic Labour politics.

Didn’t Starmer go to a fee paying school?

It was a state grammar which became private while he was there. In any case, children don't choose their schools and there would be no hypocrisy if he did.

Combing through an IFS report at 11pm on a Thursday night belies your prior assertion that you don't have a dog in the fight, wouldn't you agree?

As ever with you, the slipperiness is off the charts. In this case, it's deployed in two ways. One is to latch on to the IFS's observation that their data is limited (well duh, the vat exemption has been in place for over 50 years) and use that to characterise it heavily as guesswork & then later to rely on it to make the same point again. Your sins of omission are amusing too, Cherry picking lines from a report you've denigrated as guessing is classic bad faith. Great example here:

"Our best judgement is that it would be reasonable to assume that an effective VAT rate of 15% would lead to a 3–7% reduction in private school attendance. This would likely generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending per year in the medium to long run."

Odd you should omit the last sentence, I can only assume you did so because it undermines the whole edifice of your own flowering, foundation free argument veering of into vague fluffery on social & economic impacts.

In the end, you're free to denigrate the IFS but it's typical of the right to do so. One observable manifestation of the populism wrecking this country is a freewheeling willingness to trash institutions. Doesn't matter who, judges, NHS, National Trust. the BBC, IFS, anyone contradicting the ideology is fair game. But if you're going to do it in this context, then it's for you to offer countervailing evidence which probably needs to be a little heftier than 'I'd stick it in my pension & claim tax relief'. And Tufton street stink tanks are a bad idea.

And floating above all of that is the reality that we're still talking about a complete non issue in the scheme of things. It's a tiny proportion of people affected, the electorate if it notices at all won't have it anywhere near their list of priorities & private schools remain an engine of discrimination,

Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.

Finland effectively abolished private education decades ago. It made the clearly correct assumption that, if the rich and powerful knew their own children were likely to attend state-maintained schools, they would be keen to ensure that such schools were well funded. Finland is among Europe’s most educationally successful countries. Therein lies a truism, you're either in society or you aren't. Perpetuating social division for personal advantage gives a clear answer where some stand.

Spoken like a bitter under achiever full of envy that others are free to make choices that don’t align with your own

Can't be innocence of youth

Netflix with a carpark.