Rishi Sunak - Prime Minister
Discussion
isaldiri said:
everyone else.
93% of school children.isaldiri said:
but this next group is probably the far more satisfying target after all for those that the policy is targeted to appease......
93% of schoolchildren's parents crying out for investment in sevrely underfunded for a decade schools.Noted that all the guys weeping over this never mention austerity which disproportionately penalised already vulnerable people, led to, amongst other things, massive increases in mental health crises, food banks & homelessness, But sure, characterise it as envy politics, on the doorsteps they talk of little else.
p1stonhead said:
Sway said:
p1stonhead said:
What other private businesses don’t have to charge VAT?
That’s all they are. They charge for a service.
Food shops. Kids clothes stores. Bookshops. That’s all they are. They charge for a service.
Sway said:
p1stonhead said:
Sway said:
p1stonhead said:
What other private businesses don’t have to charge VAT?
That’s all they are. They charge for a service.
Food shops. Kids clothes stores. Bookshops. That’s all they are. They charge for a service.
President Merkin said:
isaldiri said:
everyone else.
93% of school children.isaldiri said:
but this next group is probably the far more satisfying target after all for those that the policy is targeted to appease......
93% of schoolchildren's parents crying out for investment in sevrely underfunded for a decade schools.Noted that all the guys weeping over this never mention austerity which disproportionately penalised already vulnerable people, led to, amongst other things, massive increases in mental health crises, food banks & homelessness, But sure, characterise it as envy politics, on the doorsteps they talk of little else.
The middle classes sending their kids to private schools however simply can't afford to cut back so it's all unfair and mean.
p1stonhead said:
Sway said:
p1stonhead said:
Sway said:
p1stonhead said:
What other private businesses don’t have to charge VAT?
That’s all they are. They charge for a service.
Food shops. Kids clothes stores. Bookshops. That’s all they are. They charge for a service.
They're not all Aldi and Primark.
OzzyR1 said:
otolith said:
I dislike the private schools policy because it’s essentially spiteful - it’s not about the money, it’s not about making anyone’s life better, it’s just red meat for the troops. File with Tory policies to kick people their core doesn’t like. But it’s not going to lose Labour many votes.
People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.
It's a "f**k you" gesture to those perceived as rich because they send their kid to private school.People who can afford to spend that much money improving their kids’ life chances will just find another way to do it. It won’t level down as intended.
Issue is a large percentage of those parents actually are rich; 95% of kids who attend old public schools (Eton, Harrow, Stowe etc) are absolutely minted. The majority of those with kids at private schools are financially OK too.
That's the rub with this policy; a 20% increase will not even register to these folks, it's insignificant in the scheme of things.
What will be celebrated as sticking two fingers up to "the rich" won't even be noticed by most of them.
Biggest effect will be on the minority of parents who earn slightly above average & choose to send their kid to a private school rather than spend on other things & are already stretched
Edited by OzzyR1 on Thursday 23 May 03:39
Sway said:
True though.
They're not all Aldi and Primark.
YesThey're not all Aldi and Primark.
The point some seem to be missing is that VAT is not applied to some goods and services, or charged at a reduced rate on others, because they are seen as serving a social objective. There isn't differentiation on the grounds that most of the purchasers are "rich bast*rds". Children's clothing from Armani is still free from VAT.
valiant said:
The middle classes sending their kids to private schools however simply can't afford to cut back so it's all unfair and mean.
Whether or not it's unfair or mean, it's a policy that will likely result in little if any new net funding for education overall and whose main reason to exist is red meat to a faction of labour voters in the way stuff like scrapping the ECHR or whatever tory b
ks is red meat to some tory voters. Which is par for the course given politics is what it is but labour doing so rather than the tories doesn't suddenly making this kind of thing any less grubby. Chicken Chaser said:
Tax it, redistribute the money to the state system. Cut your cloth accordingly and if you can't afford it then there's a perfectly good state system you can transfer across. That is unless there's a stigma attached to state schooling in your circle..
You really think people only pay for public school for social kudos? VAT on school fees is one Labour policy I agree with. I am going to look at more of them. I'm pretty sure I won't agree with a lot but who knows. I'm likely to be attracted to more adventurous policies than 'safe and stable' stuff. Re nationalising or billion pound fines for polluting water companies for example, something the Tories would never contemplate. Trouble is, my trust for politicians is at an all time low so my suspicion is that we'll just hear more false promises from all of them.
isaldiri said:
valiant said:
The middle classes sending their kids to private schools however simply can't afford to cut back so it's all unfair and mean.
Whether or not it's unfair or mean, it's a policy that will likely result in little if any new net funding for education overall and whose main reason to exist is red meat to a faction of labour voters in the way stuff like scrapping the ECHR or whatever tory bks is red meat to some tory voters. Which is par for the course given politics is what it is but labour doing so rather than the tories doesn't suddenly making this kind of thing any less grubby. Just like the arguments that instead of cracking skulls to deal with youth crime in inner cities, the argument is to provide opportunities and positive experiences.
I worked with a couple of run of the mill private schools between 15 to 20 years ago, there were independent schools closing at the time all over the place, pupil numbers were dropping.
Luckily the school I was working with managed to turn it around but it was very close to closing down at one point.
At the time the average parent there was doing ok but not what I would call rich, they were certainly making sacrifices to pay for the fees.
Also, the school never made any money, and not because they didn’t try. Overseas students really helped.
Yeah sure it’s probably different at the top schools.
Luckily the school I was working with managed to turn it around but it was very close to closing down at one point.
At the time the average parent there was doing ok but not what I would call rich, they were certainly making sacrifices to pay for the fees.
Also, the school never made any money, and not because they didn’t try. Overseas students really helped.
Yeah sure it’s probably different at the top schools.
Sway said:
isaldiri said:
valiant said:
The middle classes sending their kids to private schools however simply can't afford to cut back so it's all unfair and mean.
Whether or not it's unfair or mean, it's a policy that will likely result in little if any new net funding for education overall and whose main reason to exist is red meat to a faction of labour voters in the way stuff like scrapping the ECHR or whatever tory bks is red meat to some tory voters. Which is par for the course given politics is what it is but labour doing so rather than the tories doesn't suddenly making this kind of thing any less grubby. Just like the arguments that instead of cracking skulls to deal with youth crime in inner cities, the argument is to provide opportunities and positive experiences.
Sway said:
Chicken Chaser said:
Tax it, redistribute the money to the state system. Cut your cloth accordingly and if you can't afford it then there's a perfectly good state system you can transfer across. That is unless there's a stigma attached to state schooling in your circle..
You really think people only pay for public school for social kudos? But I don’t doubt for a second that one of the main oppositions to this is the fear of what it might look like down the golf club if you could no longer afford it.
Anyway, let’s see if it’s even on Labours manifesto, because I don’t think it even will be.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff