Vat on Independent school fees?

[metalblue]

Completely agree and I don’t think people should underestimate the importance of the emotional and social growth of a child as part of that overall education.

The other aspect is what people want it to lead to. A lot where I went were privately educated in order to try and get into the grammar school. When it got to the 11 plus, the private school effectively did tutoring to ensure the pupils could pass it. As soon as they got to the grammar school, plenty couldn’t cope as they’d essentially fudged the academic attainment part of it and ended up not getting decent qualifications as as soon as you were left behind in a subject, that was it.

They’d have been much better off either remaining in private or switching to the state.

Social justice doesn’t trump the preservation of the democratic society

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I just don’t see how VAT passes the ECHR plurality of choice test.

Explicitly impairing the existence of private schools is incompatible with article 2. The only argument I see that needs to be won by the private schools is VAT may cause schools to close.

Just as an economic downturn, or an increase in regulation could.

It’s not explicitly impairing the existence of private schools - it’s simply requiring them to pay tax as (presumably) mandated by statute.

 

[metalblue]

Just as an economic downturn, or an increase in regulation could.

It’s not explicitly impairing the existence of private schools - it’s simply requiring them to pay tax as (presumably) mandated by statute.

The argument will be specific government policy may deny the right to access a pre existing school thus is incompatible with A2 of ECHR. It’s strange in the sense that right is only given to those who can afford it but the right for private schools to exist is guaranteed under ECHR - for the 93% it guarantees the right to an effective education.

The key is pre existing and the governments defence would have to be that VAT does not present a risk to any existing school which I can’t see how they can successfully argue that.

I guess we will get a sense of how the government really feels about the policy and the strength of their case when it gets to the High Court. I’d not be surprised if the government withdraws at that point which would tell us they had no real belief in it.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I just don’t see how VAT passes the ECHR plurality of choice test.

Explicitly impairing the existence of private schools is incompatible with article 2. The only argument I see that needs to be won by the private schools is VAT may cause schools to close.

I suppose Labour could a) withdraw us from the ECHR to get it through or b) lose the case with good grace and a few words about how we tried dear comrades. I’m inclined to think (b) was their plan all along.

Article 2 is

Right to life

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No oneshall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution ofa sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for whichthis penalty is provided by law.

So I think you must be thinking of something else, no-one is suggesting executing private schoolkids AFAIK.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

I wouldn't support it, no. I think people should be encouraged to not be dependent the state, like people are encouraged to pay for their own pension, for example. Seems entirely illogical to me to ask people to pay for the state education of their child, even if the state is not educating their child. It's bad enough people have to pay the full fees, without having VAT added on top.

They're not being asked to pay for the education of their child though, are they? Otherwise anyone without children would get a tax rebate for education. They're being asked to pay for the education of children in general, just like they're being asked to pay for the healthcare of people in general.

If you really want to get philosophical, you could argue that they're actually paying back the social debt incurred in the first 18 years of their life as a sponging, whining little shit who lived exclusively off the proceeds of other people's work and taxes. There are plenty of people who don't have kids educated by the state. There are far fewer who can claim that they went through the first eighteen years of their life without using public services they didn't pay a penny for.

 

[metalblue]

Article 2 is

Right to life

Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No oneshall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution ofa sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for whichthis penalty is provided by law.

So I think you must be thinking of something else, no-one is suggesting executing private schoolkids AFAIK.

Lol, I think a few wouldn’t object!!!!

Sorry mate, my poor referencing. Article 2, protocol 1, within Schedule 1 HRA 98. Aka A2P1.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Lol, I think a few wouldn’t object!!!!

Sorry mate, my poor referencing. Article 2, protocol 1, within Schedule 1 HRA 98. Aka A2P1.

ah, so the act, not the convention. You're referring to this?

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Anyway, impressive as your confidence in your own legal expertise is, I don't think that'll be overturning a tax change any time soon. We'll see.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Fuck me, we’re now leaving the ECHRs because little Tarquin’s ma and pa have to pay VAT on private schooling.

Some people need to get out more, I wonder what faux indignation will they bestow on us tomorrow?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

ah, so the act, not the convention. You're referring to this?

No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

Anyway, impressive as your confidence in your own legal expertise is, I don't think that'll be overturning a tax change any time soon. We'll see.

It won't be, plenty of religious schools with places for them to take up.

Reminds me of the legal argument against making tobacco products plain packaging on the basis that it infringed copyright. It was bunkem and always based on a political position rather than law.

The courts can't rule a law is invalid in relation to the HRA anyway. Merely make a declaration that is incompatible and then it is up to parliament to change it.

 

[stonerblue]

Yes, I think the significance on the positives and negatives depends on the kid, their personal characteristics and qualities, and of course the particular school. I think a good comprehensive education is as good as a standard private one, but there are huge disparities within the state sector.

My old Ma, who knew a thing or two about teaching kids, always said that if the kid was bright enough they'd do well whichever school they went to.