One thing I don't like about the policy is that it's a regressive policy on top of an already regressive tax, in that Meekul is correct that the people who'll end up paying the price are the middle class stretching their means to send children to a better education rather than anyone who can really afford it - and indeed from knowing a few private schools on the lower end of such, they are panicking about that.

 

Of course it's an exemption that should have been closed years ago, and as you've all indicated, state schools are in a far more dire state and greatly in need of funding to make it more equal with a much greater payoff for society in the long run - my line has been when discussing it that it's a step towards making state schools an education fit for everyone, including both those whose families could never afford private school and those whose families are currently sacrificing nearly everything they have to ensure their kids have a good education.

The money can also be put into the woefully underfunded Further Education sector, the amount of students with Education Health Care Plans coming out of school rises every year with increasingly complex needs, students whose needs we are just not funded enough to meet. This can help get those that don't have the advantage of wealthy backgrounds get a chance in life. It doesn't matter how you look at it, free schools and colleges are in a dark place. However marginal difference it makes, it's a step in the right direction promoting education for all. Of all the things to pick on Labour about...this?

It’s even worse than that. I work with students who have been denied an EHCP for reasons that are impossible to understand. It has been reported that the outsourced companies who make the decisions are now expected to do all they can to turn down an application for an EHCP. The system is deliberately failing large numbers of children/

Wrong. The additional revenue will be more than the cost of some children moving into state schools. Even if the extra revenue os marginal, surely the principle is right. As I said above, why ahold private school fees be free of tax when all adults have to pay VAT on their clothes?

 

Again, ir id the OPPOSITE of ewuality. By pricing more people out of private schools, you do norhing to actuslly combat the inewual educstion sydtem, or challenge the old, landed money, who 2ill surely nor be sffected by an extra 20%... The way Finland did it: banning private schoold and investing HESVILY in public education worked and made everyone equal. This half messure, with no actual added investment in education, will do nothing but price working people out of private schools, and when the Toried get back in in 5/10 ywars, rhe inewuality will continue, but with the richest being the ONLY ones in the private sector. This will not create any new revenue foe rhe education system at all. It will literslly just go into covering the new stufents moving from privste schools, so... what's the point? Some analysts even ssy the policy will end up costing more money than it saves, and ir won't qffect the upper classes. At all. To me, without actusl, proper reform, something like this just creates even more inequality.

But the whole idea of paying for a ‘better’ education is absurd and extremely archaic. People from state schools can still be successful and there shouldn’t be panic from anyone. I know this is an issue that will never be sorted out but I take such issue at the suggestion that the education I deliver is subpar because I work in a state school. Yes, there are bigger challenges but if the focus was shifted on to tackling them rather than subsidising places at private schools, maybe there would be a difference.

 

A child having to go to a state school over a private school should not be treated as a life or death issue. If it is for you, then that means your problems are minuscule in comparison to most people.

Im generally quite against private schools as a concept tbh and I don’t see how someone who flounces about this site throwing around accusations about landed gentry and pretending to be the most liberal person on here can be so heavily in favour of private schooling.

 

But then again we all knew that this was a joke act anyway right?

 

Regardless, closing the VAT gap is great, let’s close other loopholes too!

And yet the vat system will NOT bring in any extra money!! It won't. It will all go on the extra influx of new students. Plus, it does NOTHING to ACTUALLY addresd inequality, as, for the elite, it will be chump change. The people this affects are working people, who aren't the mega rich.

VAT is actually the single largest source of Revenue the government has. It raises more than any other form of taxation. By levying VAT on something that previously had no VAT on it you, by default, bring in additional money. That’s primary school level mathematics.

 

You could argue that the impact is overall neutral due to additional expenditure on the state school system but I would counter that that’s the entire f***ing point of this. To raise additional revenue to support an increase in the department for educations budget. Neither having a neutral impact on the bottom line nor your financial illiteracy make this a bad policy.

Im generally quite against private schools as a concept tbh and I don’t see how someone who flounces about this site throwing around accusations about landed gentry and pretending to be the most liberal person on here can be so heavily in favour of private schooling.

 

But then again we all knew that this was a joke act anyway right?

 

Regardless, closing the VAT gap is great, let’s close other loopholes too!

 

VAT is actually the single largest source of Revenue the government has. It raises more than any other form of taxation. By levying VAT on something that previously had no VAT on it you, by default, bring in additional money. That’s primary school level mathematics.

 

You could argue that the impact is overall neutral due to additional expenditure on the state school system but I would counter that that’s the entire f***ing point of this. To raise additional revenue to support an increase in the department for educations budget. Neither having a neutral impact on the bottom line nor your financial illiteracy make this a bad policy.

 

Lol but surely if it WERE an act, I'd just stay quiet or pretend to support evrey single policy?? The fact that there's some I don't like shows that it's real? In a perfect world, I'd have the Finland system every single day. But no chance of thst under Starmer...

 

So let's say it had a neutral, as most economists I've read have said. The question, again, is: what is rhe point?! All it does is impact working families who are sending their kids to those schools, and not the uber rich. The ACTUAL landed gentry will not be affected by this. At all. It does very little to combat inequality, and will just add to the strained school system, which has a shortage of teachers due to Tory chronic underinvestment, which means ... no net financial benefit, but larger class sizes.

 

Also, I know someone who sent their kids to a private school to avoid the religious state schools! 31% of all UK state schools are overtly religious. My state school was not OFFICIALLY religious ... but, believe me, it forced it down our throats all the same. I'm gonna guess yours was the same. Christian assemblies, preachers coming into the assemblies, "give me oil in my heart, keep me burning..." ... ring any bells? In my area, a lot of the state schools are roman catholic... and you have to put your kid on a waiting list for them, and then get your kid baptised, or they move lower down said list. Both my junior and secondary school were unofficially religious, but... The local sixth form, Roman Catholic, was even worse, with preaching and praying in assemblies you had to go to. At 6th form.

 

So, the policy is HALF BAKED. It doesn't go far enough, like in Finland, with major funding changes and actual systemic changes, and doesn't even look at the major Christian influence on UK state schools, which is anethema to non-religious people, or people of other faiths. It to me is screaming that, when Tories get in, they'll just continue massively underfunding state schools anyway. It does nothing to address inequality in education, and will allow the Tories to go back to business as usual when they inevitably get back in. This policy incresses the chances of a future Tory government too, as it's not a vote winner. It's just another half measure from the neolib Blairites. Is it a MAJOR problem or policy? No. But I think I've explained well enough why I don't like it. It makes no major change and basically increases rhe chances of a futuee Tory government, whilst removing choice from people who aren't the landed gentŕy.

The fees are extremely high even without VAT-it’s highly likely pretty much everyone sending their kids to a private school can afford it. As usual with the rich though, they just don’t want to pay it.

 

The illusion that people who send their kids to private schools care more about their child’s education than those who go to state schools makes me sick. They’re not buying an education, they’re buying their child’s way to an easy life through connections. Yes, the policy doesn’t go far enough for my liking but it sure is a start.

It’s revenue raising. End of. It’s closing a loophole that only the wealthy benefit from. All other forms of privately provided education is subject to VAT. This is a specific and weird carve out to the VAT law that is now being corrected

 

 

Unless you’re happy to continue to subsidise the consumption of the upper classes

Seven Labour MPs have been suspended from the Labour party for 'a period of time' (not permanent) for voting for an SNP motion to scrap the two-child benefit cap.

 

It's exactly who you think it is, McDonnell, Sultana, Burgon, Begum, Long Bailey and Imran Hussain and Ian Byrne, all people I'd far rather see in the governing party than out of it and definitely voting with their morals (country before party anyone?) rather than because they were told to. Definitely keeping up the media furore to get this cap specifically eventually removed.

Labour majority collapses from 180 to 166 - fastest fall in a working majority ever?

 

Far from demonstrating strength, removing the whip from 7 MPs actually further highlights the inate weakness and insecurity at the heart of Starmer's team. Petty games played out on a cruel policy but this all is 'turning the page' and 'country first, party second' of course.

 

The seeds of failure being sown quite early it seems.

 

Petition for the thread to be renamed: 'STARMERGEDDON: SON OF A TOOLMAKER'

The MPs who've previously campaigned against the cap and abstained to avoid getting suspended should be ashamed of themselves.

Just don’t see the point. Why force people to vote for things they don’t support. Bizarre

Just don’t see the point. Why force people to vote for things they don’t support. Bizarre

 

It's not being forced to vote for it - abstaining was an option to not get suspended - it's not supporting them voting against the government. The reasons are fairly obvious, to govern effectively you need a united party and this sort of small-scale becoming a regular thing would damage the government. These guys will possibly get kicked out the party at some point.

It's not being forced to vote for it - abstaining was an option to not get suspended - it's not supporting them voting against the government. The reasons are fairly obvious, to govern effectively you need a united party and this sort of small-scale becoming a regular thing would damage the government. These guys will possibly get kicked out the party at some point.

 

It makes it harder for the party in the long run if its left is not being given sufficient assurances that in the long run important subjects like this will be tackled. So far I'm hearing that it may possibly be in the next budget but that was clearly not enough for this group to abstain and instead vote against a King's Speech, something they surely knew would lead to this. I'm honestly genuinely surprised that the main part of the party couldn't negotiate with these 7 to say 'look, the cap is clearly being removed as soon as it seems economically possible and there's close to zero chance it makes it to the end of this parliament, vote with us on our government programme and we can bring it in later'. To not be able to do that seems a failure.

Jeeeezus, that's really not a good look at all :/

Tony Blair had a similar rebellion in 1997 just after they'd won a landslide, no MP lost the whip there, so this is pretty extreme. I suppose it's effectiveness remains to be seen whether it works in the long run and stops future rebellions, but this is the first time in this government I've raised my eyebrows concerningly.

Bit of an extreme response from Starmer, but likely trying to create a fairly stern image. I forsee the cap being removed sometime in the next couple years as it doesn't make sense. I also wish the costings were a bit more nauanced as well. For instance, removal of the cap is said to cost the government £3.4 billion/year. However, that £3.4 billion is likely to be put directly back into the economy through families spending on food, toileteries, bills etc. And so the the economic benefit would somewhat "reduce" the cost as well as having the long-term benefit of helping millions of children.

 

In more positive news, so happy to see people like Rachel Reeves in parliament:

 

Edited July 23, 2024Jul 23 by Envoirment

Daft bunch of idiots, I don’t know what their intention is. Just got in to power and go against the whip straight away? Theres plenty of time to influence politics and ultimately I think the 2 cap will be abolished, but there’s only a finite amount of money and only so many things can be done. I personally think it should be abolished too, but what a daft move. This wasn’t even a policy or amendment was it tho, it was something on the Kings Speech? They’ve jumped too early and shot themselves in the foot here imo. It’s what 18 days of government and they’ve already rebelled..

The two party cap is cruel and is an active and key driver of poverty and is the cause of major crisis for families across the country. It should’ve been immediately scrapped. They talk about wanting to take action on poverty, this is the easiest and quickest lever there is to make an immediate difference to millions

 

And yes, this would generally be a huge net positive for the country and economy as it would be fed almost entirely directly back into the economy by those families paying for the essentials to sustain themselves

Daft bunch of idiots, I don’t know what their intention is. Just got in to power and go against the whip straight away? Theres plenty of time to influence politics and ultimately I think the 2 cap will be abolished, but there’s only a finite amount of money and only so many things can be done. I personally think it should be abolished too, but what a daft move. This wasn’t even a policy or amendment was it tho, it was something on the Kings Speech? They’ve jumped too early and shot themselves in the foot here imo. It’s what 18 days of government and they’ve already rebelled..

 

The Starmerite NEC tried to deselect many of them so not sure why you think they’d have any loyalty to the leader of the Labour Party!