Appeasing the far-right won't placate them — they'll just want the next cruelty
Their concerns are not about society, the economy or public safety, they’re an ever-moving target of fear and hatred that cannot be sated, it has to be challenged
Appeasing the far-right won't placate them — they'll just want the next cruelty
Their concerns are not about society, the economy or public safety, they’re an ever-moving target of fear and hatred that cannot be sated, it has to be challenged
All true. But not on immigration. You lose. What is the next cruelty? I know they lose anyway, on taxing work, and they might as well open the borders. But they'll never be back if they do.
That's nothing! Do you know Wes Streeting, Anas Sarwar, Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves and worst of all Keir Starmer, have been claiming to be Labour politicians? What a swizz!
That's nothing! Do you know Wes Streeting, Anas Sarwar, Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves and worst of all Keir Starmer, have been claiming to be Labour politicians? What a swizz!
On what basis? Thy are living in ( A new phrase, courtesy Selensky (commenting on Trump) a 'Disinformation Space'.
That's nothing! Do you know Wes Streeting, Anas Sarwar, Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves and worst of all Keir Starmer, have been claiming to be Labour politicians?
That's nothing! Do you know Wes Streeting, Anas Sarwar, Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves and worst of all Keir Starmer, have been claiming to be Labour politicians?
That's nothing! Do you know Wes Streeting, Anas Sarwar, Liz Kendall and Rachel Reeves and worst of all Keir Starmer, have been claiming to be Labour politicians?
"On AI, where Europe is on course to over-regulate, Starmer is keen to get closer to the US. “The UK needs to move forward and seize the opportunity of not being Europe,” a source familiar with Mandelson’s letter explained. The prize, Downing Street believes, is a big one that could ease Rachel Reeves’s problems in balancing the books. “AI is transformational,” the Starmer aide said. “What you’re talking about is a level of productivity growth that means everybody in the world, in ten years’ time, is going to be more productive than the most productive person in the world today. We have to make sure that we are in a position to quickly take advantage of it.”"
Don't worry, the Finance Minister is betting on magic beans.
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
There are costs to remote work as well, and it depends a lot on exactly how you work. It's a bit like going to a conference - the benefit of going to a conference is usually the conversations you have in the hallway rather than the plenary talk you hear. Collaboration is much easier if you've got people to reach out and touch.
It's not impossible to have good collaboration remotely, but it takes more effort, and doesn't just happen organically.
There are also issues with mentoring new employees - again it's possible with remote work, but it's less natural, and you need to be much more deliberate about how you do it.
I'm a big fan of managing by walking around, and that's much harder virtually.
On the cost savings front, the costs (both time and financial) of commuting are borne by the employee rather than the employer, and I'm going to guess it's difficult to restructure public pay scales to pay less for remote work. Office costs do accrue to the employer, of course, but you've usually got to eliminate whole buildings to save the taxpayer any money.
All in all, I'm not surprised that a lot of people want to stick with what they know.
It is not that long ago that government bodies were encouraging people to work from home more as they (government) were not renewing leases on buildings or closing buildings down. They made sure there were not enough desks for everyone to be able to work in the office, this hot desking became a thing. The problem is one of the previous government’s own making. This Labour government is not really any different in this case. They need to justify the use of public money on the building. As far as I can tell, not working in the sector or indeed in an office, the structure of the departments doesn’t help. The workers are spread around the country. They are not in one office any more. Those who go into an office may not even be working with the others in it. They may be somewhere different.
On the cost savings front, the costs (both time and financial) of commuting are borne by the employee rather than the employer, and I'm going to guess it's difficult to restructure public pay scales to pay less for remote work.
On the face of it, yes, but you wouldn't have to pay London weighting if the job no longer requires you to be in London, and that could cut costs quite substantially. There's also the fact that you won't need to raise pay as quickly if the alternative jobs people might take require being in the office. Decent working conditions will offset lower pay to an extent.
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
There are costs to remote work as well, and it depends a lot on exactly how you work. It's a bit like going to a conference - the benefit of going to a conference is usually the conversations you have in the hallway rather than the plenary talk you hear. Collaboration is much easier if you've got people to reach out and touch.
It's not impossible to have good collaboration remotely, but it takes more effort, and doesn't just happen organically.
There are also issues with mentoring new employees - again it's possible with remote work, but it's less natural, and you need to be much more deliberate about how you do it.
I'm a big fan of managing by walking around, and that's much harder virtually.
On the cost savings front, the costs (both time and financial) of commuting are borne by the employee rather than the employer, and I'm going to guess it's difficult to restructure public pay scales to pay less for remote work. Office costs do accrue to the employer, of course, but you've usually got to eliminate whole buildings to save the taxpayer any money.
All in all, I'm not surprised that a lot of people want to stick with what they know.
That's a very neuronormative view. Some of us don't have "conversations in the hallways" - or not easily. I find collaboration easier and more natural virtually via chat and email; face to face conversations generally have me wishing I'd said a load of things after the event whereas when typing I have time for the things I want to say to come to mind. I'm also not geographically limited in my collaboration.
I’ve worked from home since 2007, in the days when my university still did correspondence tuition rather than online tuition, the latter of which we have been doing for well over a decade. I entirely work from home and do not have a physical workplace. My role is a teaching one and the university only employs experienced lecturers to it, consequently we quickly learn the ropes and work independently, whilst our work is monitored from a distance. We have occasional meetings online which are usually optional. So my job is an example of one that is done entirely online with great success and has been so since long before the pandemic.
However, the main downside is that we are often forgotten about because we are not visible to the management, despite being the ones who actually do all the undergraduate teaching. For instance, I regularly get emails inviting me to take part in wellbeing initiatives for academic staff which are clearly planned with and for the central academic staff and are impossible to integrate into my role. Out of sight is out of mind.
I'm a big fan of managing by walking around, and that's much harder virtually.
Having worked in a variety of environments that used Lean my observation would be that the environment in which gemba (or even the degraded MBWA form) is likely to be useful is rarely going to be replicated in a Civil Service. With knowledge workers in particular it's going to irritate and cause them to lose large amounts of contextual information per interaction.
It's a bit like going to a conference - the benefit of going to a conference is usually the conversations you have in the hallway rather than the plenary talk you hear. Collaboration is much easier if you've got people to reach out and touch.
Neuro-diverse issues aside, my understanding is that a lot of Civil Service recruitment over the last few years was premised on the basis that teams could be dispersed around the country - this was both linked to remote working and an effort to solve the skills gap.
It's not impossible to have good collaboration remotely, but it takes more effort, and doesn't just happen organically.
It absolutely can happen organically, just not with the kinds of IT systems that most corporates roll out (and cynically my view is that most companies talk a lot about organic collaboration, but wouldn't actually want it to happen for various compliance and other reasons).
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
The real reason why government wants people back in offices is the knock-on impact of remote working on other city centre businesses. Fewer people working in a city centre means fewer people buying lunches from city centre shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants, fewer people socialising after work or popping into city centre shops on their way home, fewer people paying fares for public transport to and from city centres and/or fewer people paying for parking and paying duty on the fuel they use commuting in private cars. Not to mention considerably reduced incomes for the property companies who actually own all those now-empty office buildings (not that they'll get much sympathy round here, but it's still reduced economic activity). And when those shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants/transport providers/car parking companies/property developers/etc close or downsize through lack of custom, the tax take decreases and more people end up claiming welfare.
This is, of course, happening in a context where the internet was already starting to do to big, concentrated shopping centres and department stores what those places did to local high streets forty or so years ago.
And it's not necessarily the case that all that economic activity is simply relocated to the suburbs or dormitory towns. Someone who would previously have bought a lunchtime sandwich, snack and drink for £5 or £6 in the city centre might well, on starting to work from home, just make themselves a sandwich from items bought during their weekly shop at a fraction of the cost, and from a multinational supermarket that won't need to hire any extra staff as a result of people adding one or two items to their baskets every week. Instead of buying things from a shop they're walking or driving past anyway on their way home, most people who are already at home in their slippers will just buy them online rather than venturing out - especially if they're going to be at home all day to receive parcels.
Widespread remote working is one of those things that's great for the individuals who can do it (who often tend to be better-paid and more comfortable), but terrible for the wider economy and those whose jobs are reliant on actual people being actually present and buying stuff (who often tend to be lower paid and more precarious). In terms of government budgets it's at best a modest short-term cost cutting that leads to a significant long-term reduction in revenue.
It's been said in the past that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers. If that's true, then it's now a nation that's looking with apprehension at the dearth of potential customers passing by its front door and wondering how long it can manage to cover its costs. I have confidence that the country will eventually find a new equilibrium - possibly involving city centres becoming purely hubs of evening and weekend socialisation and cultural activities rather than daytime business - but the path to get there will be long, expensive and socially disruptive. Accelerating the negative aspects of the process without first putting something in place to make up the difference by pushing for remote working in order to save public services a few office costs is, at best, robbing Peter of a tenner so that you can pay Paul a couple of quid.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
The real reason why government wants people back in offices is the knock-on impact of remote working on other city centre businesses. Fewer people working in a city centre means fewer people buying lunches from city centre shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants, fewer people socialising after work or popping into city centre shops on their way home
I tend to disagree about the motivation. It started under the previous government, and if they had been inclined this way it would be the first time the Tory Party were interested in industrial policy; the areas affected were - by the nature of the jobs involved - more likely to be the larger cities in which they didn't have much of a constituency, and the only concerted campaign as such things go was being run in the pages of the Daily Mail (who when they aren't screaming about civil servants working at home, are screaming about any initiative aiming at making government offices pleasant and modern workplaces).
So I think it's indirect pressure which is partly down to material interests and part culture war.
If you are looking for economic solutions; they'd be complex, and not rely on coerced consumption provided by government mandated Universal Basic Commuter (and the economic benefits of nightlife relies on the continued existence of late night venues which are under a constant squeeze from the new residential developments)
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
I just did a bit of googling, and from one of the possible closures I see this:
"The foundation, which is also the proprietor of Aldenham School, Aldenham Prep School, and Bluebird Nursery, added that “the ever-declining pupil roll combined with significant external economic pressures now make this a necessity”.
Expert analysis apparently advised closing the school in 2021, but it tried to keep going at that time. "
As @Arethosemyfeet says above, there are falling school rolls across the board at the primary level - as the latest cohort is much smaller than the previous one, and it looks like the school should have been closed a while ago but tried kicking the can down the road.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
The real reason why government wants people back in offices is the knock-on impact of remote working on other city centre businesses. Fewer people working in a city centre means fewer people buying lunches from city centre shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants, fewer people socialising after work or popping into city centre shops on their way home
I tend to disagree about the motivation. It started under the previous government, and if they had been inclined this way it would be the first time the Tory Party were interested in industrial policy; the areas affected were - by the nature of the jobs involved - more likely to be the larger cities in which they didn't have much of a constituency, and the only concerted campaign as such things go was being run in the pages of the Daily Mail (who when they aren't screaming about civil servants working at home, are screaming about any initiative aiming at making government offices pleasant and modern workplaces).
You’re forgetting that a lot of Tory MP’s mates and/or future job prospects are in those rentier-class property ownership companies I mentioned.
An obvious saving for public services is to promote remote working and thereby drastically lower the spend on travel expenses and office space. It is happening to some extent - but for some reason people don’t want to promote this.
The real reason why government wants people back in offices is the knock-on impact of remote working on other city centre businesses. Fewer people working in a city centre means fewer people buying lunches from city centre shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants, fewer people socialising after work or popping into city centre shops on their way home
I tend to disagree about the motivation. It started under the previous government, and if they had been inclined this way it would be the first time the Tory Party were interested in industrial policy; the areas affected were - by the nature of the jobs involved - more likely to be the larger cities in which they didn't have much of a constituency, and the only concerted campaign as such things go was being run in the pages of the Daily Mail (who when they aren't screaming about civil servants working at home, are screaming about any initiative aiming at making government offices pleasant and modern workplaces).
You’re forgetting that a lot of Tory MP’s mates and/or future job prospects are in those rentier-class property ownership companies I mentioned.
They tend to either have direct interests in residential property or links to development firms, rather than commercial property - any case a less lucrative market, which is why I think most of the pressure is indirect.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
The piece that's missing here is how many available primary school places there are, and how many children of primary age (or younger, because that's your future school population) there are. By itself, saying "they're reducing primary school places and there might be some extra kids needing places" doesn't tell you much. You need to know current and projected future utilization.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
Do you think that they were charitable enough to justify VAT exemption?
Do you think that they were charitable enough to justify VAT exemption?
Education costs were VAT-exempt because they were education, and not because the school was a charity. Some, but not all, private schools are registered charities.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
Do you think that they were charitable enough to justify VAT exemption?
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
I'd sooner the money spent on education as a whole be more evenly spread than concentrated unfairly on the children of the wealthy.
Personally I'd abolish private education altogether. Those with the power to do so would ensure the state system was a lot better than it is if they couldn't opt out of using it. Call me a commie bastard if you like, but this has always been my conviction.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Both schools have polled parents and the increase in VAT is overwhelmingly the reason given. The former is a Jewish school with fees of £13,632 per year. One of the reeasons parents choose the school is that they can be sure that all catering is kosher - something not guarranteed at any of the state primaries in the area. The latter is a girls' primary and mixed nursery; at £17,272 for years 3-6 this is not a "school for the rich".
The latter is a girls' primary and mixed nursery; at £17,272 for years 3-6 this is not a "school for the rich".
" The Government putting VAT on private school fees, increasing employer national insurance contributions, and the removal of business rates relief were also cited as factors for an expected loss of £235k over the next financial year, after a £165k loss for this one. "
"Expert analysis apparently advised closing the school in 2021, but it tried to keep going at that time. "
So the picture here is that it's been making a loss for some time (and probably eating into reserves to do so).
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Both schools have polled parents and the increase in VAT is overwhelmingly the reason given. The former is a Jewish school with fees of £13,632 per year. One of the reeasons parents choose the school is that they can be sure that all catering is kosher - something not guarranteed at any of the state primaries in the area. The latter is a girls' primary and mixed nursery; at £17,272 for years 3-6 this is not a "school for the rich".
Anyone who has a spare 13 or 17 grand available per year for school fees is pretty darned rich by my reckoning. Especially if they have more than one child. I don't know what world you're living in when a "not rich" income would allow that but it sure isn't the one I inhabit where most people don't have that much once they've paid for their rent or mortgage - never mind eating!
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Both schools have polled parents and the increase in VAT is overwhelmingly the reason given. The former is a Jewish school with fees of £13,632 per year. One of the reeasons parents choose the school is that they can be sure that all catering is kosher - something not guarranteed at any of the state primaries in the area. The latter is a girls' primary and mixed nursery; at £17,272 for years 3-6 this is not a "school for the rich".
Anyone who has a spare 13 or 17 grand available per year for school fees is pretty darned rich by my reckoning. Especially if they have more than one child. I don't know what world you're living in when a "not rich" income would allow that but it sure isn't the one I inhabit where most people don't have that much once they've paid for their rent or mortgage - never mind eating!
Precisely. If you can spend 17k a year sending an 8 year old to school you're rich. I'm sure someone will jump in about cheap holidays and old cars, but if you can spend 17k a year and still afford a roof over your head, any holiday and any car, guess what? You. Are. Rich.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Both schools have polled parents and the increase in VAT is overwhelmingly the reason given. The former is a Jewish school with fees of £13,632 per year. One of the reeasons parents choose the school is that they can be sure that all catering is kosher - something not guarranteed at any of the state primaries in the area. The latter is a girls' primary and mixed nursery; at £17,272 for years 3-6 this is not a "school for the rich".
Anyone who has a spare 13 or 17 grand available per year for school fees is pretty darned rich by my reckoning. Especially if they have more than one child. I don't know what world you're living in when a "not rich" income would allow that but it sure isn't the one I inhabit where most people don't have that much once they've paid for their rent or mortgage - never mind eating!
Precisely. If you can spend 17k a year sending an 8 year old to school you're rich. I'm sure someone will jump in about cheap holidays and old cars, but if you can spend 17k a year and still afford a roof over your head, any holiday and any car, guess what? You. Are. Rich.
What @chrisstiles wrote here is the most important point. VAT is not the reason. That is a classic example of a manipulative poll.
However, as others have noted only the rich can afford these fees.
Here the ONS are using 'disposable income' to mean take home pay. How much you have after taxes.
The median is £34,500 per household.
Mortgage costs / rents vary enormously across the country (and by circumstances) but the average is around £1,300 per month: around 15k per year.
So, even on an average income, even if you didn't heat your home, buy clothes or food or anything else, you'll already -2k is you'll gonna pay those kind of school fees for one child.
Realistically, even with significant sacrifices, one needs a household income approaching 100k to be able to consider such school fees.
The vast majority of parents cannot even get close to considering private schooling.
Realistically, even with significant sacrifices, one needs a household income approaching 100k to be able to consider such school fees.
That’s only £50k each - doing ok, sure, but not rich.
Most of us would consider one £50k income to be doing well, two is, yes, rich.
My wife and I both have salaries in the £40-£50k range* (me in Higher Education, she in the NHS), and I'm pretty sure we're not rich, or even close to it. We live in an ex-council house in an area where more than half of households are considered deprived according to the ONS (based on 2021 census data). Once we've paid the mortgage, energy, heating, insurance, food, nursery, TV, mobile phone, transport etc costs there's not much left each month - we certainly couldn't find a spare £17k for private schooling! There are loads of jobs that need doing in the house and garden, but we can't afford to get them all done - if we were truly rich then they'd all have been dealt with by now.
I mean, I know we're not poor by any definition. But we're not rich either.
.
*= for another few weeks, anyway. Then I get made redundant.
Realistically, even with significant sacrifices, one needs a household income approaching 100k to be able to consider such school fees.
That’s only £50k each - doing ok, sure, but not rich.
Most of us would consider one £50k income to be doing well, two is, yes, rich.
Given that the median household income is £35k. It is reasonable, I think to consider three times the median,* rich.
Moreover, many of the people who claim that non-rich people are all sending their kids to private education if they make the effort and sacrifices are often the same people claiming that there's no such thing as poor people in this country. I will remind you here, that £35k is the median household income; i.e. HALF of the population live in households with less than that. I don't think that applies to anyone on this thread but it is ubiquitous in certain media circles. You cannot have it both ways.
AFZ
*There are some important caveats here to do with the big difference between income and wealth. I earn 100k** I have no issue with people therefore considering me rich. However, I am not as well off as many people who bought their houses 20 years ago and earn half what I do. Because of various professional and other necessities, we have been renting for 4 and half years and this had made a big difference to our long-term outcome. Note here I am not complaining, just acknowledging the complexities. But it remains the case that at least 90% of the population could not even think about sending their kids to a private school, no matter what striving and sacrificing their were prepared to do.
**I sort of do, but I'm still waiting for a permanent job. I have been employed since January and things are great at the moment, but I have no clear employment beyond April so I do not really know how much I am earning...
The current school fees issue has given rise to the curious phenomenon of Schrödingers School Fees - simultaneously affordable to anyone willing to make the sacrifices necessary and also too expensive for upper middle class families who are struggling to afford them.
The current school fees issue has given rise to the curious phenomenon of Schrödingers School Fees - simultaneously affordable to anyone willing to make the sacrifices necessary and also too expensive for upper middle class families who are struggling to afford them.
Comments
https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle-columnists/arid-41575048.html
All true. But not on immigration. You lose. What is the next cruelty? I know they lose anyway, on taxing work, and they might as well open the borders. But they'll never be back if they do.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2016305/Jonathan-Reynolds-Labour-Keir-Starmer
On what basis? Thy are living in ( A new phrase, courtesy Selensky (commenting on Trump) a 'Disinformation Space'.
Sarwar, claiming to be a Labour politician, while taking his lead from the worst of the US Republicans: https://www.thenational.scot/news/24954153.anas-sarwar-copies-tory-plan-elon-musk-style-doge-scotland/
Labour are no longer favourite to form a government in Scotland
And not considering that taxing online sales will predominantly impact the disabled and those of us in rural areas.
The kicker comes near the end:
"On AI, where Europe is on course to over-regulate, Starmer is keen to get closer to the US. “The UK needs to move forward and seize the opportunity of not being Europe,” a source familiar with Mandelson’s letter explained. The prize, Downing Street believes, is a big one that could ease Rachel Reeves’s problems in balancing the books. “AI is transformational,” the Starmer aide said. “What you’re talking about is a level of productivity growth that means everybody in the world, in ten years’ time, is going to be more productive than the most productive person in the world today. We have to make sure that we are in a position to quickly take advantage of it.”"
Don't worry, the Finance Minister is betting on magic beans.
There are costs to remote work as well, and it depends a lot on exactly how you work. It's a bit like going to a conference - the benefit of going to a conference is usually the conversations you have in the hallway rather than the plenary talk you hear. Collaboration is much easier if you've got people to reach out and touch.
It's not impossible to have good collaboration remotely, but it takes more effort, and doesn't just happen organically.
There are also issues with mentoring new employees - again it's possible with remote work, but it's less natural, and you need to be much more deliberate about how you do it.
I'm a big fan of managing by walking around, and that's much harder virtually.
On the cost savings front, the costs (both time and financial) of commuting are borne by the employee rather than the employer, and I'm going to guess it's difficult to restructure public pay scales to pay less for remote work. Office costs do accrue to the employer, of course, but you've usually got to eliminate whole buildings to save the taxpayer any money.
All in all, I'm not surprised that a lot of people want to stick with what they know.
On the face of it, yes, but you wouldn't have to pay London weighting if the job no longer requires you to be in London, and that could cut costs quite substantially. There's also the fact that you won't need to raise pay as quickly if the alternative jobs people might take require being in the office. Decent working conditions will offset lower pay to an extent.
That's a very neuronormative view. Some of us don't have "conversations in the hallways" - or not easily. I find collaboration easier and more natural virtually via chat and email; face to face conversations generally have me wishing I'd said a load of things after the event whereas when typing I have time for the things I want to say to come to mind. I'm also not geographically limited in my collaboration.
However, the main downside is that we are often forgotten about because we are not visible to the management, despite being the ones who actually do all the undergraduate teaching. For instance, I regularly get emails inviting me to take part in wellbeing initiatives for academic staff which are clearly planned with and for the central academic staff and are impossible to integrate into my role. Out of sight is out of mind.
Having worked in a variety of environments that used Lean my observation would be that the environment in which gemba (or even the degraded MBWA form) is likely to be useful is rarely going to be replicated in a Civil Service. With knowledge workers in particular it's going to irritate and cause them to lose large amounts of contextual information per interaction.
Neuro-diverse issues aside, my understanding is that a lot of Civil Service recruitment over the last few years was premised on the basis that teams could be dispersed around the country - this was both linked to remote working and an effort to solve the skills gap.
It absolutely can happen organically, just not with the kinds of IT systems that most corporates roll out (and cynically my view is that most companies talk a lot about organic collaboration, but wouldn't actually want it to happen for various compliance and other reasons).
The real reason why government wants people back in offices is the knock-on impact of remote working on other city centre businesses. Fewer people working in a city centre means fewer people buying lunches from city centre shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants, fewer people socialising after work or popping into city centre shops on their way home, fewer people paying fares for public transport to and from city centres and/or fewer people paying for parking and paying duty on the fuel they use commuting in private cars. Not to mention considerably reduced incomes for the property companies who actually own all those now-empty office buildings (not that they'll get much sympathy round here, but it's still reduced economic activity). And when those shops/pubs/cafes/restaurants/transport providers/car parking companies/property developers/etc close or downsize through lack of custom, the tax take decreases and more people end up claiming welfare.
This is, of course, happening in a context where the internet was already starting to do to big, concentrated shopping centres and department stores what those places did to local high streets forty or so years ago.
And it's not necessarily the case that all that economic activity is simply relocated to the suburbs or dormitory towns. Someone who would previously have bought a lunchtime sandwich, snack and drink for £5 or £6 in the city centre might well, on starting to work from home, just make themselves a sandwich from items bought during their weekly shop at a fraction of the cost, and from a multinational supermarket that won't need to hire any extra staff as a result of people adding one or two items to their baskets every week. Instead of buying things from a shop they're walking or driving past anyway on their way home, most people who are already at home in their slippers will just buy them online rather than venturing out - especially if they're going to be at home all day to receive parcels.
Widespread remote working is one of those things that's great for the individuals who can do it (who often tend to be better-paid and more comfortable), but terrible for the wider economy and those whose jobs are reliant on actual people being actually present and buying stuff (who often tend to be lower paid and more precarious). In terms of government budgets it's at best a modest short-term cost cutting that leads to a significant long-term reduction in revenue.
It's been said in the past that Britain is a nation of shopkeepers. If that's true, then it's now a nation that's looking with apprehension at the dearth of potential customers passing by its front door and wondering how long it can manage to cover its costs. I have confidence that the country will eventually find a new equilibrium - possibly involving city centres becoming purely hubs of evening and weekend socialisation and cultural activities rather than daytime business - but the path to get there will be long, expensive and socially disruptive. Accelerating the negative aspects of the process without first putting something in place to make up the difference by pushing for remote working in order to save public services a few office costs is, at best, robbing Peter of a tenner so that you can pay Paul a couple of quid.
That's my $0.02, anyway.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
I tend to disagree about the motivation. It started under the previous government, and if they had been inclined this way it would be the first time the Tory Party were interested in industrial policy; the areas affected were - by the nature of the jobs involved - more likely to be the larger cities in which they didn't have much of a constituency, and the only concerted campaign as such things go was being run in the pages of the Daily Mail (who when they aren't screaming about civil servants working at home, are screaming about any initiative aiming at making government offices pleasant and modern workplaces).
So I think it's indirect pressure which is partly down to material interests and part culture war.
If you are looking for economic solutions; they'd be complex, and not rely on coerced consumption provided by government mandated Universal Basic Commuter (and the economic benefits of nightlife relies on the continued existence of late night venues which are under a constant squeeze from the new residential developments)
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I just did a bit of googling, and from one of the possible closures I see this:
"The foundation, which is also the proprietor of Aldenham School, Aldenham Prep School, and Bluebird Nursery, added that “the ever-declining pupil roll combined with significant external economic pressures now make this a necessity”.
Expert analysis apparently advised closing the school in 2021, but it tried to keep going at that time. "
As @Arethosemyfeet says above, there are falling school rolls across the board at the primary level - as the latest cohort is much smaller than the previous one, and it looks like the school should have been closed a while ago but tried kicking the can down the road.
You’re forgetting that a lot of Tory MP’s mates and/or future job prospects are in those rentier-class property ownership companies I mentioned.
They tend to either have direct interests in residential property or links to development firms, rather than commercial property - any case a less lucrative market, which is why I think most of the pressure is indirect.
The piece that's missing here is how many available primary school places there are, and how many children of primary age (or younger, because that's your future school population) there are. By itself, saying "they're reducing primary school places and there might be some extra kids needing places" doesn't tell you much. You need to know current and projected future utilization.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that they were charitable enough to justify VAT exemption?
Education costs were VAT-exempt because they were education, and not because the school was a charity. Some, but not all, private schools are registered charities.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
I'd sooner the money spent on education as a whole be more evenly spread than concentrated unfairly on the children of the wealthy.
Personally I'd abolish private education altogether. Those with the power to do so would ensure the state system was a lot better than it is if they couldn't opt out of using it. Call me a commie bastard if you like, but this has always been my conviction.
Both schools have polled parents and the increase in VAT is overwhelmingly the reason given. The former is a Jewish school with fees of £13,632 per year. One of the reeasons parents choose the school is that they can be sure that all catering is kosher - something not guarranteed at any of the state primaries in the area. The latter is a girls' primary and mixed nursery; at £17,272 for years 3-6 this is not a "school for the rich".
" The Government putting VAT on private school fees, increasing employer national insurance contributions, and the removal of business rates relief were also cited as factors for an expected loss of £235k over the next financial year, after a £165k loss for this one. "
"Expert analysis apparently advised closing the school in 2021, but it tried to keep going at that time. "
So the picture here is that it's been making a loss for some time (and probably eating into reserves to do so).
Anyone who has a spare 13 or 17 grand available per year for school fees is pretty darned rich by my reckoning. Especially if they have more than one child. I don't know what world you're living in when a "not rich" income would allow that but it sure isn't the one I inhabit where most people don't have that much once they've paid for their rent or mortgage - never mind eating!
Precisely. If you can spend 17k a year sending an 8 year old to school you're rich. I'm sure someone will jump in about cheap holidays and old cars, but if you can spend 17k a year and still afford a roof over your head, any holiday and any car, guess what? You. Are. Rich.
What @chrisstiles wrote here is the most important point. VAT is not the reason. That is a classic example of a manipulative poll.
However, as others have noted only the rich can afford these fees.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2023
Here the ONS are using 'disposable income' to mean take home pay. How much you have after taxes.
The median is £34,500 per household.
Mortgage costs / rents vary enormously across the country (and by circumstances) but the average is around £1,300 per month: around 15k per year.
So, even on an average income, even if you didn't heat your home, buy clothes or food or anything else, you'll already -2k is you'll gonna pay those kind of school fees for one child.
Realistically, even with significant sacrifices, one needs a household income approaching 100k to be able to consider such school fees.
The vast majority of parents cannot even get close to considering private schooling.
That’s only £50k each - doing ok, sure, but not rich.
Most of us would consider one £50k income to be doing well, two is, yes, rich.
I certainly would - certainly we've never got near that between us.
My wife and I both have salaries in the £40-£50k range* (me in Higher Education, she in the NHS), and I'm pretty sure we're not rich, or even close to it. We live in an ex-council house in an area where more than half of households are considered deprived according to the ONS (based on 2021 census data). Once we've paid the mortgage, energy, heating, insurance, food, nursery, TV, mobile phone, transport etc costs there's not much left each month - we certainly couldn't find a spare £17k for private schooling! There are loads of jobs that need doing in the house and garden, but we can't afford to get them all done - if we were truly rich then they'd all have been dealt with by now.
I mean, I know we're not poor by any definition. But we're not rich either.
.
*= for another few weeks, anyway. Then I get made redundant.
Given that the median household income is £35k. It is reasonable, I think to consider three times the median,* rich.
Moreover, many of the people who claim that non-rich people are all sending their kids to private education if they make the effort and sacrifices are often the same people claiming that there's no such thing as poor people in this country. I will remind you here, that £35k is the median household income; i.e. HALF of the population live in households with less than that. I don't think that applies to anyone on this thread but it is ubiquitous in certain media circles. You cannot have it both ways.
AFZ
*There are some important caveats here to do with the big difference between income and wealth. I earn 100k** I have no issue with people therefore considering me rich. However, I am not as well off as many people who bought their houses 20 years ago and earn half what I do. Because of various professional and other necessities, we have been renting for 4 and half years and this had made a big difference to our long-term outcome. Note here I am not complaining, just acknowledging the complexities. But it remains the case that at least 90% of the population could not even think about sending their kids to a private school, no matter what striving and sacrificing their were prepared to do.
**I sort of do, but I'm still waiting for a permanent job. I have been employed since January and things are great at the moment, but I have no clear employment beyond April so I do not really know how much I am earning...
So excellently put.