Keir Starmer

[metalblue]

I've just dipped back into this thread and so apologies if what I'm about to say is irrelevant or already covered.

I don't know where the £500m number has come from but let's just take it on it's merit. I know at one level it's a drop in the ocean compared to our needs but another way of looking at it is this...

By my fag packet calculations £500m would fund approx 18-20k TA's fully loaded exc initial training (which is obvs an issue). There are about 16.5k primary schools in England. So in simplistic terms that equates to an additional TA in every school. Might not seem much but if I take the school I'm a governor at I know the SLT would bite your hand off. Post the damage covid did to our schools (partly nothing we could have done and partly absolutely crap strategy and execution by DfE/gov) most schools remain very challenged. The number of interventions required for pupils, whether taking to the toilet children who aren't toilet trained, through to targeted group sessions to get writing back up to standard means that any additional bandwidth to create a bit of flexibility to allow some of those interventions to take place will make a huge impact on the life chances of the kids in question. It is a drop in the ocean but it's enough to make a difference to some children and shouldn't imo be sniffed at.

For the next few years everything is going to be about the art of the possible and making every quid make a difference. I cant tell you how much time and money has been wasted in education in the last few years on ideological bollocks from the centre but we can't turn back the clock we need to move forward. I know my school is more than capable of making a few quid go a long way and whilst we wait for the great leap forward and better strategy and sustainable funding models, putting a bit in their hands would change some kids lives.

I’m 1000% behind you in education needing more money, it’s the fairness of how that funding occurs that rankles me the most - tax should always be seen to be fair by those paying it else these people will be motivated to avoid it.

Education should not be subject to taxation in principle. We know we need more money, so let us just do it properly. It’s an investment that benefits us all, so let us all pay for it - unfortunately Labour are so welded to not raising income taxes over course of next parliament even where a solid case can be made.

 

[meltonblue]

That footprint isn’t about opening schools overseas but having campuses to attract students to the UK for education - that’s a good thing as it brings foreign money in to UK. Certainly not something to be sniffed at.

The schools themselves will certainly wear some of the 20% as they will be able to offset their existing costs which they cannot do today. They are under no obligation to apply it to fees and I imagine will look very carefully at not adding it to kids in their final year and those in 6th form. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that fees increasing over a decade versus going up by double digit % in a single hit is very different.

Regarding Sam Friedmans he also states how great state schools are and how they’d have no issue absorbing kids from private schools - that’s at odds with labour’s justification for this .. saying sometimes kids are taught math by the PE teacher so he’s either chatting shit or Starmer is. Which one is it??

Anyway it already looks like it’s been booted in to 2025 and I suspect will get forgotten about as they are talking about making SEND kids with EHCP exempt from the VAT. Good luck getting that to not be discriminatory unless you create an entirely new type of school for those kids and exempt them that way. They tried this approach of excluding certain people from thresholds with pensions and doctors and had to back track on that one- this already looks a cluster fuck likely to go the same way.

No it isn’t, it’s satellite academies in different countries, it’s not about getting them to the U.K.

On Freedman’s point on state schools, his argument is around their capacity to absorb the potential additional places on the worst case estimates, which we’ve proven can be done already. What he also says is he doesn’t think anywhere near the amount would drop out.

He doesn’t make the argument that state schools are the same either, he says that in plenty of areas the state schools have improved to the point local private schools have already had to close. That and the sector as a whole will benefit more from the additional money going into the state schools.

Gove was in favour of it too remember.

 

[meltonblue]

I’m 1000% behind you in education needing more money, it’s the fairness of how that funding occurs that rankles me the most - tax should always be seen to be fair by those paying it else these people will be motivated to avoid it.

Education should not be subject to taxation in principle. We know we need more money, so let us just do it properly. It’s an investment that benefits us all, so let us all pay for it - unfortunately Labour are so welded to not raising income taxes over course of next parliament even where a solid case can be made.

The right answer to that is overhaul VAT in general though. We don’t apply to it to things that clearly aren’t in the public good either, it’s been all over the place for a while now.

 

[Chris in London]

The tables will turn when Labour are in the hot seat though - there will be anger and scandals thrown at Labour all the time, especially in todays social media world where everyone can get easily whipped up into a frenzy over anything.

Almost certainly. You only have to look at the attention Starmer got after he had a takeaway and the grief Raynor got for possibly paying the wrong amount of tax a decade ago.

They will need to be whiter than white.

 

[metalblue]

No it isn’t, it’s satellite academies in different countries, it’s not about getting them to the U.K.

On Freedman’s point on state schools, his argument is around their capacity to absorb the potential additional places on the worst case estimates, which we’ve proven can be done already. What he also says is he doesn’t think anywhere near the amount would drop out.

He doesn’t make the argument that state schools are the same either, he says that in plenty of areas the state schools have improved to the point local private schools have already had to close. That and the sector as a whole will benefit more from the additional money going into the state schools.

Gove was in favour of it too remember.

Yes you are correct, a handful do run franchise schemes. Never knew that - every day is a school day ;)

Gove being in favour or not is not my benchmark, it shouldn’t be anyone’s benchmark!!

 

[metalblue]

The right answer to that is overhaul VAT in general though. We don’t apply to it to things that clearly aren’t in the public good either, it’s been all over the place for a while now.

Absolutely agree.

 

[meltonblue]

Yes you are correct, a handful do run franchise schemes. Never knew that - every day is a school day ;)

Gove being in favour or not is not my benchmark, it shouldn’t be anyone’s benchmark!!

True! Was just making the point that I don’t think people would think it’s a policy that would have had some conservative support.

 

[threespires]

I’m 1000% behind you in education needing more money, it’s the fairness of how that funding occurs that rankles me the most - tax should always be seen to be fair by those paying it else these people will be motivated to avoid it.

Education should not be subject to taxation in principle. We know we need more money, so let us just do it properly. It’s an investment that benefits us all, so let us all pay for it - unfortunately Labour are so welded to not raising income taxes over course of next parliament even where a solid case can be made.

I understand your point but if we are going to talk about fundamental fairness and principles in an educational context, i'm probably of the view that a significant chunk of the private education sector shouldn't exist at all.

In buying an education, people are in effect using economic capital to increase social and cultural capital which in turn delivers a further increase in economic capital. It's a virtuous circle for a small proportion of society at the expense of perpetuating and entrenching societal inequality, which is in turn suboptimal for the economy as a whole and causes other significant issues.

I understand people's natural desire to help their kids and I'm not against parents spending their hard earned on certain types of private tutoring etc to maximise their potential . However we should be looking to remove structural inequalities rather than embed them so I would be inclined to first abolish the upper tiers of the private education sector and then as a minimum look at significant reform of the rest but again probably removal of significant chunks.

That might sound a bit out there but I think we have a massive problem with the lack of social mobility in the UK. We first stagnated and then went into reverse in what is a critical measure of a healthy society. There's an increasing body of research that populism is actually linked more heavily to lack of social mobility than the absolute level of inequality per se. It flourishes when people feel that the dice is, and more importantly will always be, loaded against them.

Clearly at the point I announced my plan to close the likes of Eton and Winchester I'd meet with a mysterious and sticky end. So it's a good thing I don't intend to run on this platform any time soon!

 

[pirate]

A person can afford it on £40k if they have a partner on a similar salary. It depends what sacrifices they are prepared to make, like fucking off sky tv ;)

It’s gesture politics because it’s singling out private schools and it will barely raise £500m or so. Seriously what good is that going to do to our state system? Tax the wealthy and fix our education system properly - which I agree is underfunded.

I know you and I are never going to agree so I will finish by saying your argument makes no sense to me just as my argument makes no sense to you.
so is it worth discussing it further?

 

[bluethrunthru]

Almost certainly. You only have to look at the attention Starmer got after he had a takeaway and the grief Raynor got for possibly paying the wrong amount of tax a decade ago.

They will need to be whiter than white.

I think it helps that he was previously a Barrister and then DPP. It was clear to see how his experience snared Johnson that time with " We'll leave it there for now " comment. He had goaded a gobshite into saying something that would eventually have him and it did. Likewise over currygate he had read and knew the rules so knew legally they had nothing on him and he didn't comment on the Rayner affair because despite that Bury Bell ends referral to the Police he knew it was not a matter for the Police to investigate.

Its called reading shit and being across your brief which is something Tory Ministers have not done hence they get humiliated day after day in interviews. I mean even today Chris Heaton-Harris was interviewed and denounced the war on the motorist and ULEZ charges. He didn't know what the day rate was and offered up in his defence that he gets driven around in a chauffeur driven car so doesn't pay it - I mean how out of touch can you fucking be?