Scrapping VAT and removing charitable schools - Labour policy - do you agree with it ?

[halfmist]

That sounds like it's a sticking plaster (and a very small one), for a broken system.

The extra money this generates will go to the most disadvantaged, and could make a significant difference to their education.

If we're then looking at replacing that sticking plaster with something more substantial, why not ensure that the % of privately educated students going to the top universities, or into publicly funded professions, matches the 7% who attend private school at secondary level. That would bring a lot more less wealthy people into positions of influence than a few more scholarships.

And dumb down the excellent reputation that our Universities have, which could affect the recruitment of overseas Students that pay substantial funds to held run them

 

[bluenova]

It doesnt work. Look at the FTSE 100 CEOs 26% were privately educated, thats against a figure of only 7% attending public school. Its even worse when you look at the the media which has some of the highest numbers of privately educated people. Of the 100 most influential news editors and broadcasters, 43% went to fee-paying schools. Similarly, 44% of newspaper columnists were privately educated, with a third - 33% - attending both an independent school and Oxbridge.

Whilst some of the power is in publicly funded professions, the real power is in banking and private multinationals. They influence policy decisions and the media decide what narrative to play.

If I look at the company I work for, its a multinational business and the higher you go up the tree, the more privately educated people there are, to the extent that at board level there is only one person who didn't go to a public school.

Whilst state schools are clearly underfunded, one of the biggest costs is providing support for kids being brought up in poverty and the problems that it brings. Reducing poverty is the solution to better schools as it is for most of the issues with society. More could be done by increasing taxation on wealth and/or income, but of course nobody wants to talk about that as it wont win votes. Surely on that basis taxing public schools is the token gesture or sticking plaster and an ineffective one at that.

Isn't this policy exactly that?

It's an increase on taxation, aimed at the wealthy, raising up to £1.5 billion, which is then targeted at the most disadvantaged students.

As for the scholarship issue, less than 1% of private school kids get their fees paid - about 6000 pupils across the whole country. Those kids are then brought up inside the same system that perpetuates the privilege, and so when they reach those positions of power, they're less likely to want to create a fairer society. Those kids are almost certainly not from the poorest backgrounds either (any school with selection policies tends to result in discrimination, even when money isn't directly involved).

I agree that businesses with the power are tough to change, but then there have been major strides over the years in the number of women on private boards, and I'd argue that a little social engineering will have much greater impact than letting a few token kids inside the system.

 

[bluenova]

And dumb down the excellent reputation that our Universities have, which could affect the recruitment of overseas Students that pay substantial funds to held run them

Exactly the opposite.

State school kids with the same entrance qualifications, tend to do better in university than privately educated kids.

The quality of students in our top universities won't be dragged down by less intelligent kids who are over-educated because their parents are wealthy.

 

[bluenova]

Why don’t we go the whole hog and just live in a dictatorship, where the state decides whether you’re allowed to go to university, what sort of job you do, what you’re allowed to spend your money on and indeed whether it’s actually worth getting out of bed in the morning?

But the society we already live in is closer to a dictatorship than the one I would advocate.

If the "state" is already run by people who are there because of who their parents are, then your path through life is decided long before you get out of bed in the morning.

If you're left wing, then creating a fairer society should appeal. If you're right wing, then ensuring the capitalist system is based on a meritocratic system should appeal. Win/win across the political spectrum ;)

 

[Kompany Car]

Isn't this policy exactly that?

It's an increase on taxation, aimed at the wealthy, raising up to £1.5 billion, which is then targeted at the most disadvantaged students.

As for the scholarship issue, less than 1% of private school kids get their fees paid - about 6000 pupils across the whole country. Those kids are then brought up inside the same system that perpetuates the privilege, and so when they reach those positions of power, they're less likely to want to create a fairer society. Those kids are almost certainly not from the poorest backgrounds either (any school with selection policies tends to result in discrimination, even when money isn't directly involved).

I agree that businesses with the power are tough to change, but then there have been major strides over the years in the number of women on private boards, and I'd argue that a little social engineering will have much greater impact than letting a few token kids inside the system.

Its not that is it though, its a tax but not exactly the big fish they should be going for, as it only targets the wealthy with kids, which is a subset.

As I said previously, 15% should be the minimum figure for scholarships and I do disagree with your comment regarding selective policies result in discrimination. It only discriminates in the same way as any other exam does, if you're smart enough then you pass, if you're not then you dont.

Ultimately I think "most of us" want the same thing, which is a fairer society, the only thing that differs is the path we should take to get there.

 

[bluenova]

Its not that is it though, its a tax but not exactly the big fish they should be going for, as it only targets the wealthy with kids, which is a subset.

As I said previously, 15% should be the minimum figure for scholarships and I do disagree with your comment regarding selective policies result in discrimination. It only discriminates in the same way as any other exam does, if you're smart enough then you pass, if you're not then you dont.

Ultimately I think "most of us" want the same thing, which is a fairer society, the only thing that differs is the path we should take to get there.

Sadly that isn't the case.

Exam based selections indirectly discriminate by wealth, but even with schools that have no exam based selection, there is discrimination.

The most popular free school in my local authority is a CofE school. They get the best results, but also have unusually low levels of kids on free school meals.

They are not actively deciding to discriminate against poorer kids, yet that link is there. The reason? Because they have a selection criteria - you need to attend church, or live in certain areas, volunteer at events, fill out longer forms. All things that may seem fair, but tend to discriminate in favour of those kids whose parents are comfortable, with stable home lives, and who can plan years in advance which schools they plan to apply to.

That pattern is repeated in pretty much every school where there are selection criteria - no matter how meritocratic is seems.

 

[lloydie]

Its not that is it though, its a tax but not exactly the big fish they should be going for, as it only targets the wealthy with kids, which is a subset.

As I said previously, 15% should be the minimum figure for scholarships and I do disagree with your comment regarding selective policies result in discrimination. It only discriminates in the same way as any other exam does, if you're smart enough then you pass, if you're not then you dont.

Ultimately I think "most of us" want the same thing, which is a fairer society, the only thing that differs is the path we should take to get there.

I seem to recall that Independents use a less demanding/rigorous exam system that is, for some reason, regarded on a par with the obligatory, superior and more demanding system the state sector is subject to.

 

[Kompany Car]

I seem to recall that Independents use a less demanding/rigorous exam system that is, for some reason, regarded on a par with the obligatory, superior and more demanding system the state sector is subject to.

Some use the iGCSE which is much more flexible and generally seen as easier. Many however use the same AQA, OCR and Edexcel (which is arguably the hardest) that state schools use.

 

[Rascal]

I certainly do. Why do the kids of the super rich already a couple of rungs up the ladder of life get a further boost at the expense of funding for the less well off schools. Research shows that on a small %age would have to drop out on the grounds of affordability.

Fees have been rising fast over the last 15 years - out stripping inflation - but they have all hung in there. The idea its removing opportunities from loads of kids is for the birds. The schools - especially the top ones - are attended by the kids of the very rich from around the globe. It does not surprise me that Patel was greatly concerned about students coming from China to UK universities because they might over stay once their course is done. There no shortage of Visa's for kids of rich Chinese families to attend Eton and Harrow.

The days of a chartered accountant or a local solicitor being able to afford to send their kids to public schools has long gone - maybe if more kids from wealthier backgrounds go into local state schools maybe their parent will lobby their MP when the meet in the Con Club for a drink to ask them to drive up the quality of state schooling.

Meanwhile the oiks who have no choice are more and more deciding how best to feed their kids to stave off malnutrition and rickets and are thanking god you can buy a school uniform for a fiver in Lidl

I have a very simple idea, anybody that attends a fee paying school is barred from public office. Only state educated people can become MPs, be part of the Judiciary, have the highest ranks in the armed forces, be representatives in local government and be civil servants. Those who still want to send their kids to these schools can, the overseas pupils will still get educated and this country does not end up with a clown show of over educated unintelligent morons believing they have a right to run our country. fuck em, fuck the lot of the fuckers.

That we trust a small monied elite to produce the people who actually run the country is abhorrent, it is a waste of so much talent that is barred from their elitist clubs. There are people on here I would trust to run the country more than i do fucking halfwits like 50p Lee, Bridgen, Mogg etc etc. Imagine Zen's compassion and understanding of the world being our PM , that would be a great start but we need is MPs who represent our interests, who understand our lives, who understand poverty, not who lived in a bubble of wealth induced superiority. Look at Johnson, a prime example of everything wrong with our country.

As for VAT, it is regressive taxation at its worst, it affects those with least the most and is one of the reasons leaving the EU was the correct move as I would hope a Labour government gets rid of this tax on spending power and replaces it with a tax on wealth.

 

[Kompany Car]

Sadly that isn't the case.

Exam based selections indirectly discriminate by wealth, but even with schools that have no exam based selection, there is discrimination.

The most popular free school in my local authority is a CofE school. They get the best results, but also have unusually low levels of kids on free school meals.

They are not actively deciding to discriminate against poorer kids, yet that link is there. The reason? Because they have a selection criteria - you need to attend church, or live in certain areas, volunteer at events, fill out longer forms. All things that may seem fair, but tend to discriminate in favour of those kids whose parents are comfortable, with stable home lives, and who can plan years in advance which schools they plan to apply to.

That pattern is repeated in pretty much every school where there are selection criteria - no matter how meritocratic is seems.

Look, i must say that I am an advocate of streaming kids in the same way as the 11 plus used to do, albeit 11 seems a bit too young. The tests should not be factual tests but instead based on intelligence, so abstract reasoning and everyone should have a chance to take it, the top 15% being offered places.

You're never going to get a perfectly level playing field, the only way you will do that is by removing people from poverty, but its at least more level than what there is at the moment.

Change has to be achieved in steps not giant leaps, particularly when inequality is as ingrained as it is in the UK.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Private schools and the tax breaks attached to them certainly compound the unfairness of our society, but I can't help thinking labour have bigger fish to fry and higher priorities when they get in. This policy is a fig leaf to cover what will be a general Tory lite austerity package. Throwing a few crumbs to the masses in the same way that Boris gave the NHS a clap every Thursday night instead of decent pay and conditions.
There again, having had the benefit of selective/ private education I'm sure Sir Keir will be all over the issue.

 

[Kompany Car]

I have a very simple idea, anybody that attends a fee paying school is barred from public office. Only state educated people can become MPs, be part of the Judiciary, have the highest ranks in the armed forces, be representatives in local government and be civil servants. Those who still want to send their kids to these schools can, the overseas pupils will still get educated and this country does not end up with a clown show of over educated unintelligent morons believing they have a right to run our country. fuck em, fuck the lot of the fuckers.

That we trust a small monied elite to produce the people who actually run the country is abhorrent, it is a waste of so much talent that is barred from their elitist clubs. There are people on here I would trust to run the country more than i do fucking halfwits like 50p Lee, Bridgen, Mogg etc etc. Imagine Zen's compassion and understanding of the world being our PM , that would be a great start but we need is MPs who represent our interests, who understand our lives, who understand poverty, not who lived in a bubble of wealth induced superiority. Look at Johnson, a prime example of everything wrong with our country.

As for VAT, it is regressive taxation at its worst, it affects those with least the most and is one of the reasons leaving the EU was the correct move as I would hope a Labour government gets rid of this tax on spending power and replaces it with a tax on wealth.

Dont know about leaving the EU and to be fair I'm not well versed enough to know if we could get rid of VAT and still remain in the EU. But all in all the rest seems pretty sensible.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Dont know about leaving the EU and to be fair I'm not well versed enough to know if we could get rid of VAT and still remain in the EU. But all in all the rest seems pretty sensible.

Prior to VAT we had sales taxes - like most places in the world do. If you get rid of VAT and don't use another purchase tax or taxes you lose out on I think I have read over £150bn of tax revenues

 

[Rascal]

Dont know about leaving the EU and to be fair I'm not well versed enough to know if we could get rid of VAT and still remain in the EU. But all in all the rest seems pretty sensible.

As far as i was aware VAT being harmonised by the EU, they supported a tax on the least well off, they are a neo liberal club mind.

Now we are out if the political will is there it could be scrapped and everyone in effect would get a pay rise.

 

[bluethrunthru]

As far as i was aware VAT being harmonised by the EU, they supported a tax on the least well off, they are a neo liberal club mind.

Now we are out if the political will is there it could be scrapped and everyone in effect would get a pay rise.

and the exchequer would make further cuts without a replacement sales tax

 

[PragueBlue]

Some use the iGCSE which is much more flexible and generally seen as easier. Many however use the same AQA, OCR and Edexcel (which is arguably the hardest) that state schools use.

I believe iGCSE is generally viewed as slightly more difficult. Certainly used to be as IGCSEs were pretty much all exam based, though I think GCSEs are heading that way too now.

One of my daughters did GCSEs and the other IGCSEs. I found the IGCSE quite a bit more demanding when helping them both with their studies.

Probably isn't much to choose between them in reality though.

 

[threespires]

Of course it is to obtain a competitive advantage otherwise they wouldn’t bother.
Let’s be frank here State Schools don’t attract the same quality of Teachers, pushy parents wanting value for money, competitive environment for the pupils, better learning environment, less disruption from the kids, discipline, choice of subjects, preparation for exams etc,need I go on.

Any parents wanting the best for their kids would opt for them to be privately education.

None of this nonsense of taking their kids out of school in Term time to save a few quid on the holiday using the excuse it will broaden the kids lifeexperience.
Fact, parents put their kids through private education to get the best possible exam results given their kids ability, of course that’s going to give them the best choice in terms of Uni and Career.

My point wasn't that private schools are a competitive advantage which they clearly are intended to be but that the tax break was an added advantage over and above.

 

[bluethrunthru]

So what you're saying is its mismanaged by the local authority.

No - I am saying that central Govt to local authority funding is deliberately structured to reduce what they pay as they take into account a local authority can hold some money back from the VAT reclaim - thats the sort of thing Hunt was alluding to last nigh when he said pay rises had to be funded from "savings" in existing budgets

 

[meltonblue]

Of course it is to obtain a competitive advantage otherwise they wouldn’t bother.
Let’s be frank here State Schools don’t attract the same quality of Teachers, pushy parents wanting value for money, competitive environment for the pupils, better learning environment, less disruption from the kids, discipline, choice of subjects, preparation for exams etc,need I go on.
Any parents wanting the best for their kids would opt for them to be privately education.
None of this nonsense of taking their kids out of school in Term time to save a few quid on the holiday using the excuse it will broaden the kids lifeexperience.
Fact, parents put their kids through private education to get the best possible exam results given their kids ability, of course that’s going to give them the best choice in terms of Uni and Career.

It’s personal experience but I disagree with this. I went to an all boys selective grammar school that also allowed fee paying borders that didn’t have to take the exams. Most of the people that were privately educated at primary school or paid for entry via the border route were thick as pig shit as they’d either been heavily tutored on top of their education to pass the eleven plus or just paid to bypass it and then really struggled to keep up due to the different teaching methods in those schools at secondary level. Some of them were also socially inept as they struggled to equate to anyone from a different background. I’d also add the teachers that were bad at the grammar school, although admittedly very clever, had had no teacher training or PGCE, which was a fair few of them, ditto in the private schools.

Parents choose private school because of the name of it and they’ve got the money to afford it. If their children have the aptitude and are lucky to have decent teachers (as that can happen in either) then they’ll thrive regardless and will more often end up much more rounded individuals. What they won’t have is the connections made or the influence of the name of a private or grammar school and that does open doors that it really shouldn’t.

Either way though, those people that did send their children to private school, it’s a very low percentage that choose to make proper sacrifices to their life in order to do it, as per the research I posted earlier. The sacrifices people make are more often downgrading their property in order to get into a decent catchment area for a very good state school or do something to afford to do that rather than pay thousands for private education. The vast majority that do choose private education for their children is because they can very very comfortably afford to do it and know very little of if the teaching provision is actually any good or not, particularly at primary, the importance is their child gets the name of that school and the association.

 

[PragueBlue]

The vast majority that do choose private education for their children is because they can very very comfortably afford to do it and know very little of if the teaching provision is actually any good or not, particularly at primary, the importance is their child gets the name of that school and the association.

I would disagree with that on the whole, though perhaps true at some of the 'elite' schools like Harrow and Eton.

My children have all been to both private and state schools at various times. The majority of parents at the different private schools they attended would fall more into the middle class bracket such as small business owners, estate agents, solicitors, accountants etc.

I don't really feel the names of the schools they attended would give them any great advantage or contacts going forward either. I also suspect that the parents do check out the school, Ofsted reports and exam results etc before deciding to send their children there, just like I did.