Yeah, those lazy primary school children, choosing not to work... they should send 'em all down the mines...

I think once again it shows how out of touch Labour are. I don't think in the big scheme of all things education that this would be a priority for many people. Not to mention. Plus school meals aren't very nutritious.

I was talking about the parents and you know it, a very disingenuous reply:nono:

You're right, every parent of every primary school child in the country chooses not to work

youre lying again, I didnt say that...but some choose not to thats for certain

Why should people who have worked hard to be able to send their children to private schools, thus saving the state the cost of educating them, have to fork out for other people's children.?
Labour does this every time. They punish the people who have ambition and have achieved something in life, by making them pay for those who just want to live off the state. I'm not saying that every parent whose child attends state school is an underachiever or not doing their best. There are lots of them who work hard.
It just seems to me that Labour is trying to turn Britain into a country of handouts, nannying by the state and apathy.
The rich, by and large have earned their wealth and if labour continues to try to tax them out of existence, maybe all we will be left with is a bankrupt nation. Not only bankrupt of cash, but of moral fibre and the will to succeed.

agreed

Why isn't VAT already on school fees, It's a tax on goods and services isn't it?

How come only private schools get to tax dodge by claiming charitable status?...

Good post Jenny. :clap1:

Ahem...

Former education secretary Michael Gove has slammed independent schools for serving the offspring of the world’s global elite, while using their charitable status to avoid paying taxes in the manner of other private firms.

In a column written for The Times, entitled “Put VAT on school fees and soak the rich”, Mr Gove criticises the current system for still considering the education of the children of “plutocrats and oligarchs” to be a charitable activity. He argues that removing the tax advantages of private schools would boost standards in the state sector and raise vital extra funds.

“Private school fees are VAT-exempt. That tax advantage allows the wealthiest in this country, indeed the very wealthiest in the globe, to buy a prestige service that secures their children a permanent positional edge in society at an effective 20 per cent discount,” Mr Gove wrote.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7597126.html

so they are ripping off a Tory policy, this just gets better.

Dianne Abbott: "I sent my son to private school so he wouldn't end up in a gang"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...private-230293

Cobyn and his "don't do as I do, do as I say" mentality, allowing his class hatred to rise to the surface without realising he's targeting the wrong people. My brother sends his three girls to private school, costs them an arm and a leg, they've taken equity from their house, given up holidays and treats, the grandparents have chipped in... another 20% on top of the fees will send the girls back to the state school where they were so badly failed.

Yes a Early M.Gove idea.


Now a Labour Plan

Taxing education for children is ridiculous.
Those that sacrifice holidays and cut down on other things in life to pay for their children's education need a pat on the back not taxing.
They are already saving the state by paying for what the state would otherwise have to pay.

It's only aimed at primary school pupils.
Hardly a massive venture.
However I think it will be a welcome policy overall.

How does this help anyone? Those who need free school lunches already qualify. If they tax private education fees, they should use the money for something more substantial e.g ensuring schools have the resources to cope with large amounts of pupils.

Corbyn taxing what he perceives as the over-privileged, now his cronies' children have all left private school. A lot like Blair introducing university fees once they'd all enjoyed their free education.

All parties have perceived hypocrites in them as to policies they direct at others in govt.

This policy will help in that all primary pupils get free meals and therefore removes part of the stigma from pupils who at present need the free aspect of same.

Anything that helps stop children feeling inferior is a good thing.
Or maybe some like the idea of children 'needing' free school meals being ridiculed for needing same.

Also it at least opens up a proper meal ensured too.
That's a good thing too.

But I bet Diane would fight tooth and nail to stop anyone elses child getting a break in grammar school. Says it all really. ****ing hypocrite.

This will drive the numbers of working class kids out of private education and back into state education therefore not saving money as the number of primary state school places will need to increase, therefore making more mouths to feed. Also, children who are in need of free lunches already get means tested free lunches.

I went to a private school, my parents were working class, I didn't go abroad till i was 18 and could pay for myself, non-uniform day was a nightmare given the number of wealthy kids but hey ho....that's the education my parents absolutely skinted to provide for me....to deprive working class families of having that option by further increasing school fees is detrimental to those kids.....who's going to fix that?

They get free meals up to P3 here and... I have to be totally honest... they feed them utter ****. Just... garbage. Cheap frozen pizza, cheap sausage rolls and chips, etc. Bleugh.

On the other hand I do let my daughter have them more often than not because A) she wants to sit with her friends (packed lunch kids sit at the other end of the hall to school lunch kids) and B) I'm rly lazy :joker:

But she's P3 now so will likely be almost always packed lunch from next year (and I imagine her friends will be too, so solves the main issue). I don't mid her eating that stuff really, it's not her main meal of the day and she has a decent breakfast and dinner so it's just to tide her over really... but I would certainly begrudge paying £2 a day for 3 fish fingers and a handful of chips worth at most about 50p.

There was no backlash when council tax was hiked to pay for adult social care.... how is this proposal any different?

It's probably in order for the Conservatives to do what they like Kizzy.
No matter the hardship that may bring or how heartless it may be or who it affects.

Probably because kids that actually need free meals already get them.:shrug:

Possibly because that was hiked for everyone - not a targeted select group some of whom are already pushed to the limit to try and provide for their children in the best way that they feel possible.

Those who already qualified for council tax relief still got it and extra help was provided where needed.