[Politics] The Labour Government

[Is it PotG?]

That would be a minority then, Shirley?

Blimey.

I always thought of a minority as 1%.

Still, there you go.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

really? maybe state funded sector cannot. there's an small industry around English schools, then various other specialist training schools that are very much run as profit making businesses.

I do not know the exact details. I was under the impression that what we would call 'regular' schools cannot be for profit.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child

Jeez.

Like private schools, I'm feeling charitable today. Would you like a lesson in critical thinking? I am relatively free today, so am happy to help.

 

[carlzeiss]

1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child

A Poll here would be interesting ?

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

Jeez.

Like private schools, I'm feeling charitable today. Would you like a lesson in critical thinking? I am relatively free today, so am happy to help.

Indeed. Most universities are considered part of the private sector.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Jeez.

Like private schools, I'm feeling charitable today. Would you like a lesson in critical thinking? I am relatively free today, so am happy to help.

I wouldn't want to interrupt your lunch.

 

[pb21]

1 in 5 adults in the UK has attended a private school as a child

Also on that website.

Around 5.9% of all children at school in the UK are attending private schools

 

[abc]

Thanks for this. I just looked and Eton has half a billion of reserves. What does reserves mean? Is it just cash?

At least CoE benefits more than just a select few but Iget your point.

Reserves are essentially cash and/or liquid assets such as equities and other investments that can be relatively quickly realised. What I would call 'proper' charities are expected (by the Charity commission rules) to have a minimum of 3 months of costs as reserves. This is becoming increasingly difficult for many charities (albeit my knowledge is confined to the social care sector) who are being forced to use reserves to balance funding cuts. This is clearly not sustainable but not a problem Eton or the C of E are likely to encounter.

Leaving aside the question as to whether religious organisations should have charitable status at all, your point about the C of E might stand if it wasn't for the fact that they do not use their tax free billions for more than a select few. Parishioners are expected to fund their own church or the Church commissioners (the business department of the C of E) threaten to close them and sell the the churches for housing. Our parish (4 C of E churches) has just been told it will no longer have a resident full time vicar because the Church Commissioners need to sell the vicarage to raise money! Vicars are payed appallingly. Furthermore, whilst the communities of almost all churches (whatever their faith) get very involved in supporting those in need in their local community, not a penny comes from the Church Commissioners themselves.

'Charity' (or Christianity for that matter) are not concepts that the Church Commissioners recognise.

 

[mwrpoole]

Thanks for this. I just looked and Eton has half a billion of reserves. What does reserves mean? Is it just cash?

At least CoE benefits more than just a select few but Iget your point.

I'm involved with a couple of private schools, smallish about 400 pupils each. They are both going to charge parents 12% VAT as they have worked out they can claim back the other 8% using the VAT system. They use companies for catering & cleaning which charge them VAT which they can now claim back, plus normal VAT expenditure. Eton on the other hand, despite all their reserves, are going to charge the full 20%.!

If we assume Eton are an exception, if most schools are charging only 12% then the revenue the Govt are hoping to collect is a fair bit lower than they suggested.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Reserves are essentially cash and/or liquid assets such as equities and other investments that can be relatively quickly realised. What I would call 'proper' charities are expected (by the Charity commission rules) to have a minimum of 3 months of costs as reserves. This is becoming increasingly difficult for many charities (albeit my knowledge is confined to the social care sector) who are being forced to use reserves to balance funding cuts. This is clearly not sustainable but not a problem Eton or the C of E are likely to encounter.

Leaving aside the question as to whether religious organisations should have charitable status at all, your point about the C of E might stand if it wasn't for the fact that they do not use their tax free billions for more than a select few. Parishioners are expected to fund their own church or the Church commissioners (the business department of the C of E) threaten to close them and sell the the churches for housing. Our parish (4 C of E churches) has just been told it will no longer have a resident full time vicar because the Church Commissioners need to sell the vicarage to raise money! Vicars are payed appallingly. Furthermore, whilst the communities of almost all churches (whatever their faith) get very involved in supporting those in need in their local community, not a penny comes from the Church Commissioners themselves.

'Charity' (or Christianity for that matter) are not concepts that the Church Commissioners recognise.

Thank you. Interesting post. The funding for churches here is by an 'opt out' tax of 7%; surprisingly Germany is a very religous nation. I remember when we moved here, my wife registered here a few months before I did, in January. We started letters, an Easter card, and even a visit from the local church. We're not religerous and was a bit puzzled until someone told us the tax was opt-out. It was a right palava to opt out as well. Thankfully, when I tegistered I checked the opt-out box.

At 7% there are few whip rounds for leaky roofs.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm involved with a couple of private schools, smallish about 400 pupils each. They are both going to charge parents 12% VAT as they have worked out they can claim back the other 8% using the VAT system. They use companies for catering & cleaning which charge them VAT which they can now claim back, plus normal VAT expenditure. Eton on the other hand, despite all their reserves, are going to charge the full 20%.!

If we assume Eton are an exception, if most schools are charging only 12% then the revenue the Govt are hoping to collect is a fair bit lower than they suggested.

Good point, if you charge VAT you can claim back. So Eton could/will be making money on this if they charge an extra 20%

 

[The Clamp]

Blimey.

I always thought of a minority as 1%.

Still, there you go.

You say tomato, I say tomato.

How did you land upon 1% as the definition of a minority?

 

[The Clamp]

Also on that website.

So 94.1% aren’t attending private schools?

 

[keaton]

I'm involved with a couple of private schools, smallish about 400 pupils each. They are both going to charge parents 12% VAT as they have worked out they can claim back the other 8% using the VAT system. They use companies for catering & cleaning which charge them VAT which they can now claim back, plus normal VAT expenditure. Eton on the other hand, despite all their reserves, are going to charge the full 20%.!

If we assume Eton are an exception, if most schools are charging only 12% then the revenue the Govt are hoping to collect is a fair bit lower than they suggested.

I would assume the government understood how VAT worked

 

[beorhthelm]

I would assume the government understood how VAT worked

i'd assume the Treasury understands VAT; i wouldn't make such assumptions of the politicans. they'll just make promises, ignore unintended consequences.

 

[Seagull58]

Tony Blair discusses immigration.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Great news, well done chaps.

Parents have been asked to provide evidence they can no longer afford private school fees to secure a place at a state school.

An email sent out by Buckinghamshire council, seen by The Telegraph, showed a mother being told her daughter had been rejected by two local secondary schools because “they are full”.

She was then asked to prove her financial situation in order for her daughter to be considered for another school in the area.

The Government has leant on estimates drawn up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicting that up to 40,000 private school children could be forced out under the plans.

However, education figures have warned that there will likely be stark regional variations, and that councils with a range of top grammar schools will likely see the sharpest rise in inquiries for places.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Great news, well done chaps.

Parents have been asked to provide evidence they can no longer afford private school fees to secure a place at a state school.

An email sent out by Buckinghamshire council, seen by The Telegraph, showed a mother being told her daughter had been rejected by two local secondary schools because “they are full”.

She was then asked to prove her financial situation in order for her daughter to be considered for another school in the area.

The Government has leant on estimates drawn up by the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicting that up to 40,000 private school children could be forced out under the plans.

However, education figures have warned that there will likely be stark regional variations, and that councils with a range of top grammar schools will likely see the sharpest rise in inquiries for places.

I wonder why you just quoted a few statements and didn't provide a link

If you actually read beyond the Telegraph's normal tirade for the terminally naive, you'll find the actual story

The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid. The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.

The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/06/parents-asked-prove-afford-private-fees-buckinghamshire/

Pretty standard stuff for anyone wanting to move schools mid year

 

[dsr-burnley]

I wonder why you just quoted a few statements and didn't provide a link

If you actually read beyond the Telegraph's normal tirade for the terminally naive, you'll find the actual story

The mother, who asked not to be named, had applied for a place at two schools via the council’s online portal amid fears she could be priced out of her daughter’s private school by the Government’s VAT raid. The email from Buckinghamshire council said: “Unfortunately we cannot offer any places at your preferred school/s as they are full”.

The email continued: “In this circumstance, we would normally advocate that [the child] should remain at their current school. However, if you can provide evidence that you can no longer finance the independent school fees, please advise and we can make a local authority non-preference allocation.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/06/parents-asked-prove-afford-private-fees-buckinghamshire/

Pretty standard stuff for anyone wanting to move schools mid year

Actually it's not standard stuff to ask for proof of parental income for children to be given a place at a state school. Free education is an absolute right. They should never be asked to prove income.

If you'd read the story yet further you would have seen that the council apologised for cocking up and said they won't make that mistake again.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Actually it's not standard stuff to ask for proof of parental income for children to be given a place at a state school. Free education is an absolute right. They should never be asked to prove income.

If you'd read the story yet further you would have seen that the council apologised for cocking up and said they won't make that mistake again.

Education is free, and indeed it was a cock up with the wording as explained here

A spokesman for Buckinghamshire council said they wanted to “apologise for the choice of language” and insisted it did not reflect any formal policy. Anita Cranmer, the council’s cabinet member for education and children’s services, said: “We believe this wording was taken from an individual correspondence rather than being a formal policy and we apologise for the choice of language; we are happy to confirm this direct with the family and will not be seeking personal financial information from them or any other Buckinghamshire family.

“The intention was to seek confirmation in this case as to whether the family was relinquishing the child’s current school place and would definitely be seeking an ‘in year’ school place even though their preferred school is full, or whether they would be staying at their current school which is often the case when families aren’t able to get a place at a preferred school.”

But never let facts get in the way of a good headline

And my favourite bit of it all, who would post all this on a thread titled 'The Labour Government' to complain about something done by a Conservative council