Why should those who pay school fees also pay the cost of those who don't?

This is a nonsense stance, mainly because the VAT take won't come anywhere near close to 'paying for the cost of those who don't'.

Private schools have ridden the questionable charity wave for too long.

I repeat again, sending kids to private school is a lifestyle choice. It's a luxury. If certain parents are now panicking because suddenly they can't afford it, or it means dropping one of their three holidays a year, making other non-essential adjustments... cry me a river. Seriously.

It's silly to want someone to be able to explain why they think a policy is a good idea? Cmon...

It's not about penalising anyone - that's a childish framing.

It's applying the same tax that everyone else pays for services, to a service predominantly used by the rich - that's literally it, and you don't seem able to offer a proper argument as to why it should be subsidised to begin with.

Private education is a luxury. Fact.

In reply to the different point you're making...

A utopia where all state schools have the same facilities as the private sector and compete accordingly for parents attention is pure fantasy, even if the education system was properly funded this wouldn't happen. Amusing that there is a distinct socialist and or communist tinge to your musings.

It would be great to pay teachers more and recruit more of them (and train them properly) as that would be the main route to improved standards. Any suggestion from Labour that the VAT increase will solve this is also fantasy... that's a big number, several orders of magnitude larger than 1.5bn. No party can afford that.

Also the performance of grammar schools is way overstated if you actually look into how the system worked, and the irony is that they created a two tier selective system within the state system anyway, that had its fair share of problem creation.

Instead of paying fees, parents that could afford it paid for private tutoring to get little middle class johnny in through the door. That plus being able to pay for a more expensive house to get closer to prime catchment areas. In other words, very similar to the private system vs state system now. The social mobility and educational accessibility argument with regard to grammars is totally flawed. Private schools, increased state funding or otherwise, ultimately those that earn more will always have better opportunities.

Doesn't mean people shouldn't try to make the approach better, but solving it is a fantasy.

The whole pining for grammar thing is mainly rose tinted nonsense.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 3.46pm)

Edited by SW19 CPFC (17 Jun 2024 5.16pm)

Not fact. Your opinion.

Do you also think that private health care is a luxury?

What about private housing?

It is a rubbish argument. Private does not mean luxury. It is simply paying for a better standard than the state currently provides.

Americans have to pay for health care. Is that luxury?

Since you claim that the amount of revenue raised will go nowhere near paying for improved state education, then what is the point? Why pick on private education?

Answer. Because people who pay for private education probably don't vote Labour. Also because Labour have always had a bee in their bonnet about elitism, despite most of those hypocrites sending their kids to private schools.

Typical Lefties.

Vote Reform.

I fear that you have completely misunderstood my post - perhaps that was my fault. I was making the point that parents of children at fee-paying schools not only pay those fees but through their taxes pay towards (i.e., subsidise) the education of other people's children. VAT has nothing to do with my point.

Many years ago I was chatting (sorry for name-dropping) with Lord Adonis, at that time a Labour junior minister in the Education Department, and he said that he would have no problem with a system under which governement would provide parents not using the state system with a cash voucher equivalent to the cost of a state education. Seems unbelievable now.