RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I am terrified Badenoch will win. She is consistently polling highest among Conservative members, so if she gets to the final 2, she'll wipe the floor with her opponent, and I'm worried that MPs are looking at that polling and might think they shouldn't go against it.

She is an earnest, honest, true-believer, and a lot of the things that she believes are utterly fucking horrifying.

Puja

Agreed. Nut job. I think they all are, bar maybe Rishi and possibly Two-hats. Mordaunt is an empty vessel. I can't see anyway Rishi will win- he will get to the last two, and lose to either Truss or Mordaunt. Which would be a disaster for the country short term, but ushers in minority Labour govt I think.

Mordaunt vs Starmer would be a hell of a thing for the country. Neither of them with a principle they wouldn't run over if it got them a vote, utterly without belief or commitment, being as bland and anodyne as possible. It'd be the most vacuous election ever.

Puja

Yep, though in fairness Labour need do nothing other than snipe from the sidelines at the moment. I do wonder how long that will last though- saw someone questioning Emily Reeves on tax strategy, and she pretty much said we will decide that when we get into government. The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues). So if that's the big idea, its not big, though may help keep teachers in the state sector; she also indicates rises on taxing dividends, which has already happened in Nov 21, and whilst will raise some tax, will also hit pension funds. So I think they do need to come up with something....but not yet, in fairness.

Banquo wrote:The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

My answer would be to fix the state system first, and you won't do that by shutting down private schools- as I've just said, it would likely crucify them in the short term- I'd also add that you should be thanking me for paying the taxes that help educate your child whilst not burdening the state with my own children's education (a joke, for the avoidance of doubt). As I said, I wouldn't start from here. And I wouldn't be quoting Blair as the architect of our disastrous higher education system.
Without an economy, you don't have good education; that's not even chicken and egg. Unless you want to rebase all that.

Anyway, in classic fashion the debate has turned away from the real point- Labour don't have a position on taxation.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

So overcrowded state schools become even more overcrowded? Children with parents in the military now very disadvantaged due to changing schools every 2 years.

Couple of things that spring to mind

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:The only thing she did say was removing charitable status from private schools, which while kinda popular raises c £1.7bn pa in theory, but even the teaching unions say it will actually have precious little real benefit per state school pupil head, as a lot of kids will leave the private school system (small private schools will have to close, and fees will drive more pupils/parents away; plus they will lose some of the above tax revenues).

A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

So overcrowded state schools become even more overcrowded? Children with parents in the military now very disadvantaged due to changing schools every 2 years.

Couple of things that spring to mind

Boarding can only be provided by private schools?

Puja

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote: There are plenty, its not even zero sum as indicated above- after five years or less it would cost the state money. But then I'm a fan of the private school system for lots of reasons. And its not a plan, its a tactic; the plan would involve how to provide the places for the 'displaced' kids. To be clear, I wouldn't start from here in an ideal world, but there are much bigger priorities in the economy.

I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

My answer would be to fix the state system first, and you won't do that by shutting down private schools- as I've just said, it would likely crucify them in the short term- I'd also add that you should be thanking me for paying the taxes that help educate your child whilst not burdening the state with my own children's education (a joke, for the avoidance of doubt). As I said, I wouldn't start from here. And I wouldn't be quoting Blair as the architect of our disastrous higher education system.
Without an economy, you don't have good education; that's not even chicken and egg. Unless you want to rebase all that.

Anyway, in classic fashion the debate has turned away from the real point- Labour don't have a position on taxation.

Say what you like about Blair and New Labour (and I do), they improved primary and secondary school attainment no end and made a massive difference to social mobility with their policies aiding accessibility.

Also, I think you carried on for two superfluous words on your last sentence.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

My answer would be to fix the state system first, and you won't do that by shutting down private schools- as I've just said, it would likely crucify them in the short term- I'd also add that you should be thanking me for paying the taxes that help educate your child whilst not burdening the state with my own children's education (a joke, for the avoidance of doubt). As I said, I wouldn't start from here. And I wouldn't be quoting Blair as the architect of our disastrous higher education system.
Without an economy, you don't have good education; that's not even chicken and egg. Unless you want to rebase all that.

Anyway, in classic fashion the debate has turned away from the real point- Labour don't have a position on taxation.

Say what you like about Blair and New Labour (and I do), they improved primary and secondary school attainment no end and made a massive difference to social mobility with their policies aiding accessibility.

Also, I think you carried on for two superfluous words on your last sentence.

Puja

They fckd up higher education royally, if thats what you mean by social mobility. I dont have attainment figures so will take your word on that.
....and lol, fair play.

Tom Tugendhat has been knocked out of the Tory leadership race after only receiving 31 votes in the third round of the vote.

The results for the other candidates are as follows: Kemi Badenoch received 58, Penny Mordaunt got 82, Rishi Sunak got 115 and Liz Truss received 71.

Previous round: Braverman 27 votes, Tugendhat 32, Badenoch 49 votes, Truss 64, Mordaunt 83, and Sunak 101.

Tugendhat out, but Truss didn't get much of the Braverman vote (Sunak got half of them), despite Braverman backing Truss.

Tugendhat's vote will mostly go to Sunak and Mordaunt, so it's extremely likely that Badenoch will (thank god) go out in the next round.

So that will leave the question of whether the combination of Tugendhat and Badenoch's votes will leave Truss ahead of Mordaunt. I'd guess it would, but if Sunak vacuums up too much of them, Mordaunt will make the last two.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Tom Tugendhat has been knocked out of the Tory leadership race after only receiving 31 votes in the third round of the vote.

The results for the other candidates are as follows: Kemi Badenoch received 58, Penny Mordaunt got 82, Rishi Sunak got 115 and Liz Truss received 71.

Previous round: Braverman 27 votes, Tugendhat 32, Badenoch 49 votes, Truss 64, Mordaunt 83, and Sunak 101.

Tugendhat out, but Truss didn't get much of the Braverman vote (Sunak got half of them), despite Braverman backing Truss.

Tugendhat's vote will mostly go to Sunak and Mordaunt, so it's extremely likely that Badenoch will (thank god) go out in the next round.

So that will leave the question of whether the combination of Tugendhat and Badenoch's votes will leave Truss ahead of Mordaunt. I'd guess it would, but if Sunak vacuums up too much of them, Mordaunt will make the last two.

Was coming here to thank fuck about that. Badenoch needed to be in third with momentum after this round - she won't get many if any of Tugendhat's, given he was the sanest and she's the most unhinged, so it would require a mass defection from Truss or Mordaunt to keep her in.

On a separate note, Boris Johnson actually used the words, "the Deep State" in Parliament today:

"Some people will say as I leave office that this is the end of Brexit, and the Leader of the Opposition and the deep state will prevail in its plot to haul us back into alignment with the EU as a prelude to our eventual return, and we on this side of the House will prove them wrong, won't we?"

Off you fuck, you conspiracy-spreading shitehawk. Go off to your inevitable job as a pundit on Fox News, spreading this kind of manure to con people into cheering for you, you grade-A sociopathic, soulless, morality-free, fuck-trombone. Prick.

Apart from anything else, he knows full well how grotesque a misleading of parliament it is to imply that Kier Starmer has a plan of any kind (other than winning power).

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
A plan with no drawbacks, you say?

Puja

So overcrowded state schools become even more overcrowded? Children with parents in the military now very disadvantaged due to changing schools every 2 years.

Couple of things that spring to mind

Boarding can only be provided by private schools?

Puja

How many state schools do it at the moment? I can think of none although there might be the odd one here and there.

I've no emotional attachment to public schools but a manifesto commitment or just vague promise to make life harder for them seems daft when the better option is to ensure that state education is meeting the same level first, and can meet all the requirements, before looking to hammer a sector.

Puja wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I am manifestly not, which explains our differing views on the matter. To me, private schools create an awful lot of value to a small number of people and a detriment to the rest.

Much as I hate to paraphrase Blair, but what bigger priority is there than education? Surely it's the bedrock upon which everything else rests?

Puja

My answer would be to fix the state system first, and you won't do that by shutting down private schools- as I've just said, it would likely crucify them in the short term- I'd also add that you should be thanking me for paying the taxes that help educate your child whilst not burdening the state with my own children's education (a joke, for the avoidance of doubt). As I said, I wouldn't start from here. And I wouldn't be quoting Blair as the architect of our disastrous higher education system.
Without an economy, you don't have good education; that's not even chicken and egg. Unless you want to rebase all that.

Anyway, in classic fashion the debate has turned away from the real point- Labour don't have a position on taxation.

Say what you like about Blair and New Labour (and I do), they improved primary and secondary school attainment no end and made a massive difference to social mobility with their policies aiding accessibility.

Also, I think you carried on for two superfluous words on your last sentence.

Puja

Did they really make attainment that much better? The dominance of public school and Oxbridge graduates in our senior echelons might suggest otherwise and whilst it takes a long time for people to filter up to those levels, look at the big beats of the establishment and I don't see that filtering happening at all.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Tom Tugendhat has been knocked out of the Tory leadership race after only receiving 31 votes in the third round of the vote.

The results for the other candidates are as follows: Kemi Badenoch received 58, Penny Mordaunt got 82, Rishi Sunak got 115 and Liz Truss received 71.

Previous round: Braverman 27 votes, Tugendhat 32, Badenoch 49 votes, Truss 64, Mordaunt 83, and Sunak 101.

Tugendhat out, but Truss didn't get much of the Braverman vote (Sunak got half of them), despite Braverman backing Truss.

Tugendhat's vote will mostly go to Sunak and Mordaunt, so it's extremely likely that Badenoch will (thank god) go out in the next round.

So that will leave the question of whether the combination of Tugendhat and Badenoch's votes will leave Truss ahead of Mordaunt. I'd guess it would, but if Sunak vacuums up too much of them, Mordaunt will make the last two.

Was coming here to thank fuck about that. Badenoch needed to be in third with momentum after this round - she won't get many if any of Tugendhat's, given he was the sanest and she's the most unhinged, so it would require a mass defection from Truss or Mordaunt to keep her in.

On a separate note, Boris Johnson actually used the words, "the Deep State" in Parliament today:

"Some people will say as I leave office that this is the end of Brexit, and the Leader of the Opposition and the deep state will prevail in its plot to haul us back into alignment with the EU as a prelude to our eventual return, and we on this side of the House will prove them wrong, won't we?"

Off you fuck, you conspiracy-spreading shitehawk. Go off to your inevitable job as a pundit on Fox News, spreading this kind of manure to con people into cheering for you, you grade-A sociopathic, soulless, morality-free, fuck-trombone. Prick.

Apart from anything else, he knows full well how grotesque a misleading of parliament it is to imply that Kier Starmer has a plan of any kind (other than winning power).

Puja

The Americans have the deep state, we have the blob. Anyone who disagrees is automatically a member.

Puja wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Tom Tugendhat has been knocked out of the Tory leadership race after only receiving 31 votes in the third round of the vote.

The results for the other candidates are as follows: Kemi Badenoch received 58, Penny Mordaunt got 82, Rishi Sunak got 115 and Liz Truss received 71.

Previous round: Braverman 27 votes, Tugendhat 32, Badenoch 49 votes, Truss 64, Mordaunt 83, and Sunak 101.

Tugendhat out, but Truss didn't get much of the Braverman vote (Sunak got half of them), despite Braverman backing Truss.

Tugendhat's vote will mostly go to Sunak and Mordaunt, so it's extremely likely that Badenoch will (thank god) go out in the next round.

So that will leave the question of whether the combination of Tugendhat and Badenoch's votes will leave Truss ahead of Mordaunt. I'd guess it would, but if Sunak vacuums up too much of them, Mordaunt will make the last two.

Was coming here to thank fuck about that. Badenoch needed to be in third with momentum after this round - she won't get many if any of Tugendhat's, given he was the sanest and she's the most unhinged, so it would require a mass defection from Truss or Mordaunt to keep her in.

On a separate note, Boris Johnson actually used the words, "the Deep State" in Parliament today:

"Some people will say as I leave office that this is the end of Brexit, and the Leader of the Opposition and the deep state will prevail in its plot to haul us back into alignment with the EU as a prelude to our eventual return, and we on this side of the House will prove them wrong, won't we?"

Off you fuck, you conspiracy-spreading shitehawk. Go off to your inevitable job as a pundit on Fox News, spreading this kind of manure to con people into cheering for you, you grade-A sociopathic, soulless, morality-free, fuck-trombone. Prick.

Apart from anything else, he knows full well how grotesque a misleading of parliament it is to imply that Kier Starmer has a plan of any kind (other than winning power).

Puja

Deep State for fuck's sake. No Boris, you were the only kind of state we had for the last three years. Starting as he means to go on for the next few decades of highly paid, far right, totally bullshit punditry. Hopefully that means I'll be able to avoid him completely in future, but I wouldn't put it past the BBC making him permanent host of Have I Got New For You.

Like any kind of Deep State in the UK would be anything other than conservative, monarchists, and probably sitting in the house of lords

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: So overcrowded state schools become even more overcrowded? Children with parents in the military now very disadvantaged due to changing schools every 2 years.

Couple of things that spring to mind

Boarding can only be provided by private schools?

Puja

How many state schools do it at the moment? I can think of none although there might be the odd one here and there.

I've no emotional attachment to public schools but a manifesto commitment or just vague promise to make life harder for them seems daft when the better option is to ensure that state education is meeting the same level first, and can meet all the requirements, before looking to hammer a sector.

I will confess that I have no idea on the numbers, but the fact that I went to a state school that did boarding (although didn't board myself) means that there's at least one and probably a fair few unless I'm just statistically very lucky.

ETA. A google tells me there's 41, pretty evenly spread around the country. That would need to be expanded if private schools were instantly to collapse under the weight of a slight bit of taxation, but I don't see that happening anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. Boarding is clearly possible without private schools though.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
Boarding can only be provided by private schools?

Puja

How many state schools do it at the moment? I can think of none although there might be the odd one here and there.

I've no emotional attachment to public schools but a manifesto commitment or just vague promise to make life harder for them seems daft when the better option is to ensure that state education is meeting the same level first, and can meet all the requirements, before looking to hammer a sector.

I will confess that I have no idea on the numbers, but the fact that I went to a state school that did boarding (although didn't board myself) means that there's at least one and probably a fair few unless I'm just statistically very lucky.

ETA. A google tells me there's 41, pretty evenly spread around the country. That would need to be expanded if private schools were instantly to collapse under the weight of a slight bit of taxation, but I don't see that happening anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. Boarding is clearly possible without private schools though.

Puja

Ye, it would be. But for state schools to take that on they would need a reason to invest in facilities and staff for which they would need to know the demand. In other words this needs some thought across the board before making policy statements to appease any class warriors out there.

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
How many state schools do it at the moment? I can think of none although there might be the odd one here and there.

I've no emotional attachment to public schools but a manifesto commitment or just vague promise to make life harder for them seems daft when the better option is to ensure that state education is meeting the same level first, and can meet all the requirements, before looking to hammer a sector.

I will confess that I have no idea on the numbers, but the fact that I went to a state school that did boarding (although didn't board myself) means that there's at least one and probably a fair few unless I'm just statistically very lucky.

ETA. A google tells me there's 41, pretty evenly spread around the country. That would need to be expanded if private schools were instantly to collapse under the weight of a slight bit of taxation, but I don't see that happening anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. Boarding is clearly possible without private schools though.

Puja

Ye, it would be. But for state schools to take that on they would need a reason to invest in facilities and staff for which they would need to know the demand. In other words this needs some thought across the board before making policy statements to appease any class warriors out there.

If they were calling for the banning of all public schools, then I'd definitely agree. Since it's just charging them tax, I can't say that I do - any that do fold, under the crippling pressure of [checks notes] being treated like other businesses, wouldn't do so instantaneously and there would be more than enough time to adapt, if the desire was there, for further boarding at state level.

This also strikes me as somewhat of a niche case. How many private school students are boarders who are there because their parents live peripatetic lives in the military? Are we talking thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Surely not every army person can afford private school and boarding fees and must already be using state schools?

Puja

Badenoch is out. The country is slightly safer tonight.
Surprisingly (well to me, anyway), Truss gained the most after Tugendhat was KO'd, and is now just 6 behind Mordaunt.
Surely much more of Badenoch's vote should end up with Truss, allowing her to KO Mordaunt next round?
So it should be Sunak and Truss at the end.

Sunak won 118 MPs’ votes, Badenoch came fourth on 59 votes, exiting the contest to replace Boris Johnson. Mordaunt won 92 MPs’ votes, Truss won 86.

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Puja wrote:
I will confess that I have no idea on the numbers, but the fact that I went to a state school that did boarding (although didn't board myself) means that there's at least one and probably a fair few unless I'm just statistically very lucky.

ETA. A google tells me there's 41, pretty evenly spread around the country. That would need to be expanded if private schools were instantly to collapse under the weight of a slight bit of taxation, but I don't see that happening anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. Boarding is clearly possible without private schools though.

Puja

Ye, it would be. But for state schools to take that on they would need a reason to invest in facilities and staff for which they would need to know the demand. In other words this needs some thought across the board before making policy statements to appease any class warriors out there.

If they were calling for the banning of all public schools, then I'd definitely agree. Since it's just charging them tax, I can't say that I do - any that do fold, under the crippling pressure of [checks notes] being treated like other businesses, wouldn't do so instantaneously and there would be more than enough time to adapt, if the desire was there, for further boarding at state level.

This also strikes me as somewhat of a niche case. How many private school students are boarders who are there because their parents live peripatetic lives in the military? Are we talking thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Surely not every army person can afford private school and boarding fees and must already be using state schools?

Puja

I don't think you understand that 'just charging them tax' (ie VAT) would mean a vat size increase in 80% of their non pay costs; the smaller schools become immediately uneconomic and would close quickly, as putting fees up would drive parents away. The larger schools would similarly have to put fees up by c 15%, and inevitably would both lose pupils and bursaries, which are significant. Now if its about ideology, then you don't care.....until the extra cost to the taxpayer becomes clear- £416m pa at least after 5 years from conservative (:)) estimates.

just a few facts- sector already pays £4.1 bn in tax, and saves the taxpayer £3.5bn in pupil costs. The effect of removing charitable status will impact both those numbers. So the economic case is bolony (£1.7bn to reinvest in the state education system is based on all students remaining in private education going forward), and it would be better to admit that, and show the plan for how the extra pupils would be accomodated- if only 10% of pupils went to the state sector, thats £384m (plus any new building cost). As I said, I wouldn't start from here, and you are sceptical about the negative impact of adding VAT to their costs, but most of these schools run on very marginal profits; I don't expect you to cry for them, but the knock of the policy, will be significant. Priority should be given to raising the standards of state schools, and that will be tricky if you set them back in numbers terms before you even start.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Badenoch is out. The country is slightly safer tonight.
Surprisingly (well to me, anyway), Truss gained the most after Tugendhat was KO'd, and is now just 6 behind Mordaunt.
Surely much more of Badenoch's vote should end up with Truss, allowing her to KO Mordaunt next round?
So it should be Sunak and Truss at the end.

Sunak won 118 MPs’ votes, Badenoch came fourth on 59 votes, exiting the contest to replace Boris Johnson. Mordaunt won 92 MPs’ votes, Truss won 86.

Looks like we will be Trussed up soon them. Gawd.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Ye, it would be. But for state schools to take that on they would need a reason to invest in facilities and staff for which they would need to know the demand. In other words this needs some thought across the board before making policy statements to appease any class warriors out there.

If they were calling for the banning of all public schools, then I'd definitely agree. Since it's just charging them tax, I can't say that I do - any that do fold, under the crippling pressure of [checks notes] being treated like other businesses, wouldn't do so instantaneously and there would be more than enough time to adapt, if the desire was there, for further boarding at state level.

This also strikes me as somewhat of a niche case. How many private school students are boarders who are there because their parents live peripatetic lives in the military? Are we talking thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Surely not every army person can afford private school and boarding fees and must already be using state schools?

Puja

I don't think you understand that 'just charging them tax' (ie VAT) would mean a vat size increase in 80% of their non pay costs; the smaller schools become immediately uneconomic and would close quickly, as putting fees up would drive parents away. The larger schools would similarly have to put fees up by c 15%, and inevitably would both lose pupils and bursaries, which are significant. Now if its about ideology, then you don't care.....until the extra cost to the taxpayer becomes clear- £416m pa at least after 5 years from conservative (:)) estimates.

just a few facts- sector already pays £4.1 bn in tax, and saves the taxpayer £3.5bn in pupil costs. The effect of removing charitable status will impact both those numbers. So the economic case is bolony (£1.7bn to reinvest in the state education system is based on all students remaining in private education going forward), and it would be better to admit that, and show the plan for how the extra pupils would be accomodated- if only 10% of pupils went to the state sector, thats £384m (plus any new building cost). As I said, I wouldn't start from here, and you are sceptical about the negative impact of adding VAT to their costs, but most of these schools run on very marginal profits; I don't expect you to cry for them, but the knock of the policy, will be significant. Priority should be given to raising the standards of state schools, and that will be tricky if you set them back in numbers terms before you even start.

Can't face googling that - could we have the sources for all those figures?

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Badenoch is out. The country is slightly safer tonight.
Surprisingly (well to me, anyway), Truss gained the most after Tugendhat was KO'd, and is now just 6 behind Mordaunt.
Surely much more of Badenoch's vote should end up with Truss, allowing her to KO Mordaunt next round?
So it should be Sunak and Truss at the end.

Sunak won 118 MPs’ votes, Badenoch came fourth on 59 votes, exiting the contest to replace Boris Johnson. Mordaunt won 92 MPs’ votes, Truss won 86.

Looks like we will be Trussed up soon them. Gawd.

Better than having Bad Enoch on our case.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
If they were calling for the banning of all public schools, then I'd definitely agree. Since it's just charging them tax, I can't say that I do - any that do fold, under the crippling pressure of [checks notes] being treated like other businesses, wouldn't do so instantaneously and there would be more than enough time to adapt, if the desire was there, for further boarding at state level.

This also strikes me as somewhat of a niche case. How many private school students are boarders who are there because their parents live peripatetic lives in the military? Are we talking thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Surely not every army person can afford private school and boarding fees and must already be using state schools?

Puja

I don't think you understand that 'just charging them tax' (ie VAT) would mean a vat size increase in 80% of their non pay costs; the smaller schools become immediately uneconomic and would close quickly, as putting fees up would drive parents away. The larger schools would similarly have to put fees up by c 15%, and inevitably would both lose pupils and bursaries, which are significant. Now if its about ideology, then you don't care.....until the extra cost to the taxpayer becomes clear- £416m pa at least after 5 years from conservative (:)) estimates.

just a few facts- sector already pays £4.1 bn in tax, and saves the taxpayer £3.5bn in pupil costs. The effect of removing charitable status will impact both those numbers. So the economic case is bolony (£1.7bn to reinvest in the state education system is based on all students remaining in private education going forward), and it would be better to admit that, and show the plan for how the extra pupils would be accomodated- if only 10% of pupils went to the state sector, thats £384m (plus any new building cost). As I said, I wouldn't start from here, and you are sceptical about the negative impact of adding VAT to their costs, but most of these schools run on very marginal profits; I don't expect you to cry for them, but the knock of the policy, will be significant. Priority should be given to raising the standards of state schools, and that will be tricky if you set them back in numbers terms before you even start.

Can't face googling that - could we have the sources for all those figures?

Well I did, so you can! I made them up obvs.
ISC website, Keir Starmer, cost per pupil is standard. Its quite simple really. The economics don't work, but Labour should be honest and say that's not the point (and fair enough, its a political question) and then how they will absorb a proportion of the 620000 kids ongoing.