UK Politics General Discussion

[rob666]

Probably called it early so that Sunak's whole family can jet off somewhere and the kids will be ready for the start of a new school year. Call it later and still lose anyway and the kids are half-way through a school/college year which is not ideal. They've probably all had enough and realise they'll certainly lose anyway so why hang in there and put the rest of your lives on hold for no reason and prolong the ridicule? Wouldn't surprise me if it's as simple as something like that.

He was slowly being backed into a corner timewise...options were short.
He hoped for good news on inflation and the economy, and sort of got that news...but the rest has just been amazing, D day and Tory bookie fiddles showing good old true colours.
Then Boris went into hiding, and Farage pops out of nowhere!

And of course, if he keeps his post as an mp, which is still more than likely, he has promised to keep on as an mp.
But as politicians lie every time they move their lips...

 

[BarryZola]

He was slowly being backed into a corner timewise...options were short.
He hoped for good news on inflation and the economy, and sort of got that news...but the rest has just been amazing, D day and Tory bookie fiddles showing good old true colours.
Then Boris went into hiding, and Farage pops out of nowhere!

And of course, if he keeps his post as an mp, which is still more than likely, he has promised to keep on as an mp.
But as politicians lie every time they move their lips...

I would put a bet on with anyone that if the Tories lose the election that Sunak will not stay on as an MP for more than 2 months. Not for charity either though - if I win I'm keeping the money for myself

 

[Mick]

I would put a bet on with anyone that if the Tories lose the election that Sunak will not stay on as an MP for more than 2 months. Not for charity either though - if I win I'm keeping the money for myself

Personally think he’ll be ousted/resigned as leader within a week of the election. He may linger on as an MP for a bad smell like a while longer, like Liz Truss, but only if he sees that being to his personal benefit.

 

[Matt.GC]

Liz Truss has nowhere to go and she's still clinging on to these alternative reality hard right wet dreams she has. She's probably waiting for the day that Farage and his odiously crazed cronies ride in to Tory HQ to give her, Braverman, and Patel shadow cabinet jobs in the newly-formed, mutant, party of the damned that may arise from the ashes of the post election period. Theressa "immigrants (including you Wind Rush lot) go home" May has an old school attitude to public duty, and I'm glad she stuck around for a bit to stick knives into the other morons if for nothing else, although her type seem to now be being cleansed from the party. I think we all know why Porky Pie Johnson stuck around until the weight of sleaze and corruption forced him to run for the hills, he still has hopes of making some misguided populist comeback, which I wouldn't put past him. Some embarrassing Farage Vs Johnson populist showdown, grappling for control of the steaming crater that's left, fueled by egotism maybe?

No way Sunak will be sticking around. He's filthy rich and can do anything he likes. He doesn't strike me as someone who particularly cares too much about public service, and he doesn't have a crazed collection of disciples within the centre or hard right of the party. Much of a nothing kind of guy really. Maybe he'll technically stay on but not do any work, but I can't imagine there'd be much point in him existing as a parliamentarian after this.

I would say we should all race down to Ladbrokes, get in the queue behind a load of Tories, and whack bets on this. But the Gambling Commission are busy enough as it is right now.

 

[Leigh]

Personally think he’ll be ousted/resigned as leader within a week of the election. He may linger on as an MP for a bad smell like a while longer, like Liz Truss, but only if he sees that being to his personal benefit.

It would be a massive shock if he didn’t resign as leader on the day the vote comes in. Same as Miliband, Brown, Clegg etc did when they lost their respective elections.

 

[Matt.GC]

Speaking of Orange Book Cleggy, I think this is shaping up to be an election where a non- proportional voting system, and the 5 years of propping up Tory austerity is actually benefiting the Lib Dems.

They've reverted back to their old tactics of specifically targeting Tory seats. The Tories are down and out, and the coalition government pretty much represented an ideology that sleepy shire 'One Nation' Tories actually liked. Now that their home party has alienated and abandoned them in the name of sleaze, incompetence, and chasing Farage down a right wing rabbit hole that the Tories are too portly to fit in to, does that mean that some of those fearing Daily Mail headlines of a "one party socialist state" but can't bring themselves to support the old guard fall into the arms of Lib Dems?

On the left, they're talking about Social Care and the NHS more than Labour are, and planning on spending more money to boot. On Question Time last week, Starmer sweated under the pressure of being grilled about ideological U-turns and Corbyn, Swinney was struggling on SNP sleaze and his parties sexual arousal regarding Independence, and Sunak was being destroyed about.....well just about everything. Whereas Davey, as much as I don't like the guy, came across as sincere I thought, and dealt with Horizon and ConDem coalition pressures rather well. This could potentially be because their national polling isn't great, and they're not seen as a threat.

But, other than getting in to bed with the Tories, they have had a history of being quite electorally clever. Ashdown didn't have a great night in terms of national vote share in 97, but solidified their presence in parliament. By 2001, there was a plethora Lib Dem safe seats. Davey could return the most MP's to the commons for them in 100 years on a low vote share.

We could have a sleeper hit on our hands here, with one absurd MRP prediction putting them within reaching distance of becoming the official opposition.

 

[BigT]

A rather convoluted way of attempting to avoid 20% VAT on public school fees, but he has always been rather self serving.

No he’s rich enough to have paid in advance thus avoiding it.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

No he’s rich enough to have paid in advance thus avoiding it.

There's nothing in the proposed legislation which says that parents have to pay an increase in their fees at all. It's up to the institution as to whether they raise their prices, or leave them as they are and swallow the hit, they could also meet halfway. As it stands it looks as though most private schools are going to do an Apple.

When VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15%, most retailers didn't change their pricing and so the cut was passed on to the consumer. Apple raised their prices, so that their products were the same "price" for the consumer at 15% VAT as they were at 17.5%. When VAT was increased to 20%, Apple dutifully increased their prices, passing the increase on to the customer but keeping their profit margins healthy.

They don't have to behave like Apple.

 

[Benzin]

But what about the shareholders? They're far more important to consider compared to the peasants buying the product.

 

[BigT]

There's nothing in the proposed legislation which says that parents have to pay an increase in their fees at all. It's up to the institution as to whether they raise their prices, or leave them as they are and swallow the hit, they could also meet halfway. As it stands it looks as though most private schools are going to do an Apple.

When VAT was cut from 17.5% to 15%, most retailers didn't change their pricing and so the cut was passed on to the consumer. Apple raised their prices, so that their products were the same "price" for the consumer at 15% VAT as they were at 17.5%. When VAT was increased to 20%, Apple dutifully increased their prices, passing the increase on to the customer but keeping their profit margins healthy.

They don't have to behave like Apple.

They are not for profit organisations with no shareholders so respectfully most will have no choice but to apply the VAT.
Some will offset the amount they can reclaim against the full increase but it’s still going to be a hefty increase unless you can afford to pay in advance now.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

They are not for profit organisations with no shareholders so respectfully most will have no choice but to apply the VAT.

There's plenty of money to be made in not for profit organisations, either by the board of trustees, employees, or third party contractors. (As a former freelancer, charities were by far my more lucrative clients. Able to pay the standard commercial rate, usually without question.)

The CEO of Nuffield Health, the country's largest healthcare charity, reportedly took home an annual salary of £1,229,999 in 2022. (Source: https://register-of-charities.chari...ty-details/205533/accounts-and-annual-returns)

Macmillan Cancer support's CEO took home a reported annual salary of £200,000 in 2022. (Source: https://register-of-charities.chari...ty-details/261017/accounts-and-annual-returns)

Help for Heroes CEO took home a reported annual salary between £140,001 - £150,000 in 2021. (Source: https://register-of-charities.chari...y-details/4034727/accounts-and-annual-returns)

A side note. Not for profit organisations still have to pay VAT, or are VAT registered. Public schools are granted charitable status, and so are exempt. According to all financial reports for public school charity trusts, their expenditure on operational costs count as "charitable activities" and all of the fees that parents pay are counted as "donations". At this point it's looking like one is paying for a service, one which adds value, rather than making a donation. If this is the case, which surely it is, why should these bodies be exempt from VAT?

 

[Tom]

Speaking of Orange Book Cleggy, I think this is shaping up to be an election where a non- proportional voting system, and the 5 years of propping up Tory austerity is actually benefiting the Lib Dems.

They've reverted back to their old tactics of specifically targeting Tory seats. The Tories are down and out, and the coalition government pretty much represented an ideology that sleepy shire 'One Nation' Tories actually liked. Now that their home party has alienated and abandoned them in the name of sleaze, incompetence, and chasing Farage down a right wing rabbit hole that the Tories are too portly to fit in to, does that mean that some of those fearing Daily Mail headlines of a "one party socialist state" but can't bring themselves to support the old guard fall into the arms of Lib Dems?

On the left, they're talking about Social Care and the NHS more than Labour are, and planning on spending more money to boot. On Question Time last week, Starmer sweated under the pressure of being grilled about ideological U-turns and Corbyn, Swinney was struggling on SNP sleaze and his parties sexual arousal regarding Independence, and Sunak was being destroyed about.....well just about everything. Whereas Davey, as much as I don't like the guy, came across as sincere I thought, and dealt with Horizon and ConDem coalition pressures rather well. This could potentially be because their national polling isn't great, and they're not seen as a threat.

But, other than getting in to bed with the Tories, they have had a history of being quite electorally clever. Ashdown didn't have a great night in terms of national vote share in 97, but solidified their presence in parliament. By 2001, there was a plethora Lib Dem safe seats. Davey could return the most MP's to the commons for them in 100 years on a low vote share.

We could have a sleeper hit on our hands here, with one absurd MRP prediction putting them within reaching distance of becoming the official opposition.

I get your point about Lib Dem concentrated support in certain seats, but actually if they get about 10% of the vote and 65 seats they will have achieved a PR type result, such the mechanism is coincidence!

 

[Slugjc]

I find it bizarre that I’ve had not one person from any of the political parties knock the door and try and persuade me. Given the projected losses for the Tories I would have thought at least one of them would be canvassing.

We've had leaflets and that's It. To be fair the labour candidate, he has been spotted around the local area alot. So he is out and about. The Tory candidate is a lamb to slaughter and I'm not sure what the reform lad is doing. I'm guessing he will be in the town centre, he's target audience of the poor oap's and the out of work will be mostly there.

I can't call this election. I can't even call my own constituency. Our boundary has moved so we are now in Selby. I think it will be between labour and reform. This is an area that voted for Brexit by a big margin. So I would have reform as the favourite, which to me is alarming.

 

[Ryan]

Some will offset the amount they can reclaim against the full increase but it’s still going to be a hefty increase unless you can afford to pay in advance now.

Paying in advance is no guarantee of evading the VAT - it's widely assumed that the VAT will be levied at the point of the service being provided, not at time of payment, in regards to school fees.

Most schools are offering the service to pay in advance, pointing out the potential risk of an unexpected VAT bill, and confirming that it would be the parents liable for the bill, not the school.

The small amount of people kicking up the most fuss about this change, the "I can pay without VAT, can't afford with" would be daft to take such a risk. Because according to their own assesment of their financial situation, an unexpected VAT bill would entirely bankrupt them.

 

[Mick]

We've had leaflets and that's It. To be fair the labour candidate, he has been spotted around the local area alot. So he is out and about. The Tory candidate is a lamb to slaughter and I'm not sure what the reform lad is doing. I'm guessing he will be in the town centre, he's target audience of the poor oap's and the out of work will be mostly there.

I can't call this election. I can't even call my own constituency. Our boundary has moved so we are now in Selby. I think it will be between labour and reform. This is an area that voted for Brexit by a big margin. So I would have reform as the favourite, which to me is alarming.

It’s mad that the out of work are considered reform’s demographic , one of the few reform policies I’ve actually noticed is around fully removing unemployment benefits. Though it’s all about ‘stopping the boats’, and ‘Labour and Conservative are both as bad as each other’.

Amazes me when it comes to an election just how many turkeys we have in this country that willingly vote for Christmas.

 

[Slugjc]

It’s mad that the out of work are considered reform’s demographic , one of the few reform policies I’ve actually noticed is around fully removing unemployment benefits. Though it’s all about ‘stopping the boats’, and ‘Labour and Conservative are both as bad as each other’.

Amazes me when it comes to an election just how many turkeys we have in this country that willingly vote for Christmas.

Reform know what they are doing.
I've noticed farage won't get drawn into a conversation about why he and his party "gaslight." mostly because, he knows full well it's the only tactic they have.

 

[BigT]

Paying in advance is no guarantee of evading the VAT - it's widely assumed that the VAT will be levied at the point of the service being provided, not at time of payment, in regards to school fees.

Most schools are offering the service to pay in advance, pointing out the potential risk of an unexpected VAT bill, and confirming that it would be the parents liable for the bill, not the school.

The small amount of people kicking up the most fuss about this change, the "I can pay without VAT, can't afford with" would be daft to take such a risk. Because according to their own assesment of their financial situation, an unexpected VAT bill would entirely bankrupt them.

VAT is levied at the point of invoice not when a service is provided in fact there isn’t even a mechanism for paying VAT separately or later.
A school issues an invoice now and is paid in full it cant be subjected to VAT retrospectively regardless of what Labour are saying.
Advance fee schemes are different and a legal nightmare to unpick.

My “best guess” at what will happen will be something like this.
Labour wins the election and announces a budget for after parliament returns from summer recess as they need time to look at the books.
During that budget (probably in September) they announce they will add VAT to school fees and add an anti-forestalling legislation to stop pre payment from that point.
When realistically VAT can be applied is open for debate but likely most schools will need to register for VAT so time has to be allowed for that, then we would be in the middle of a tax year so probably best guess would be April next year.
Then there will be legal challenges that could potentially take years to resolve so we realistically may not see this actually happen for a few years seems to be the feeling amongst the parents / governors I speak with by which time little Jonny will have finished his education or his parents will start him at a state school if not already in a private school making private schools even more elite.

 

[Ryan]

there isn’t even a mechanism for paying VAT separately or later

There is, and it was last used in 2012 -Adjustments of contracts on changes in VAT. In 2011/12 the supplier was invoiced, and it was up to them whether they charged the consumer. Most didn't in 11/12, many schools now have made it clear they will.

It's not yet known how far back Labour will try to reach with anti-forestalling measures, but it is in no way certain that the cut off point will be in the future, not the past.

It wouldn't suprise me if the date set for this would be only when an official announcement is made, post election. But it could be (and is being) argued that a manifesto pledge, or even a clear public statement, is enough "warning" of an impending VAT rise to make anti-forestalling measures reaching back into early 2024/2023 viable.

 

[Matt.GC]

The legal challenges will centre around advanced payment schemes, it won't stop the VAT being levied quickly within the first year, which will be simple to do.

Doesn't all this debate about advanced payment kind of blow the argument that huge swaths of parents will struggle to afford it out of the water? On one hand it's being argued that they can't afford a 20% hike in school fees, but then miraculously manage to quickly source huge sums of money to pay in advance.

Sounds like good old fashioned tax avoidance. The better offs make empty threats at every election to keep their tax bills down. Sending young Gideon to toff school is a choice. If you make that choice, you choose to pay your taxes.

 

[BigT]

The legal challenges around advanced payment schemes V HMRC will literally take years to solve but the Independent Schools Council is already drawing up a legal challenge to the whole principle of VAT on school fees under the European Human Rights Act so no it won’t be easy or happen straight away.
It would be illegal in the EU so it won’t be a hard case to fight for an ex public school lawyer.

If you make that choice, you choose to pay your taxes.

Except when you made that choice there was no VAT so that’s not really a valid argument.
I don’t have a problem adding it for new applicants then they know the financial commitment they are getting themselves into but it’s unfair to add it to existing pupils.
It certainly will not be easy to add in the first year either as I pointed out, most schools are not even VAT registered and HMRC is under staffed.