Ben Wile

The ironic thing is that, instead of fighting for better education for all, we argue about whether taxing private schools is right. It says a lot about what people truly care about.

If it were just the private schools, it would be fine in Greece. However, as I mentioned before, due to legislative limitations, it included all forms of private schooling and tutoring, as well as sports classes. This is why it wasn't sustainable. The policy would have primarily affected the extracurricular schools that everyone sends their children to, regardless of income. Therefore, it's not a comparable situation. I don’t see why it couldn't be successful. The state needs money, and if you can afford to pay 30,000 a year for your children’s education, an additional 6,000 shouldn’t be a significant burden. If you can’t, then I’m afraid you are minority. The majority of those who privately educate their children can. Besides, educating your children privately is not a necessity. If the government needs to find money, which they do, I’d rather they raise taxes on private education than on necessities or essential goods. And as @malumbu wrote, evidence shows there won’t be a mass exodus from private schools. The income from private education will benefit everyone and will make better schools for all. This is equity.

You keep dragging the Greeks into the conversation even if it is a completely different situation, as I outlined in my earlier comment. Also the fact that you don’t send your children to a state school and therefore you indirectly pay further taxes may sound smart but it is a straw man’s argument. I indirectly pay taxes then by not using the road as I do not have a car. You do not pay taxes when not using services and infrastructure provided by the state.

Public education in Greece is in deep crisis, and it cannot be compared to the UK one: https://www.tovima.com/stories/greek-education-system-in-crisis-infrastructure-gaps-underfunding. It is not hypocrisy, as he didn't try to shut down private schools, but increase the taxation. He would be a downright fool to send his school to a public school if he has the money to send them to a private school. Furthermore, during his premiership, he demonstrated a commitment to improving public education, though his efforts were constrained by austerity measures. The term "working people" is somewhat vague, as nearly everyone is part of the workforce. To be more specific, we need to clarify which fees we are discussing and which segments of "working people" can afford them. Let's consider a practical example: the fees at Rosemead for children Year 3-6 are approximately £15,000-£16,000 per year. For a family with two children, this amounts to around £30,000 annually, just until year 6. What kind of salaries can support these expenses? The working people I know certainly cannot afford this. While a fee increase from £15,000 to £18,000 is significant, it is not an astronomical jump. Additionally, the revenue generated from taxing private education would benefit all students, potentially improving public schools for everyone. Although this taxation might pressure public schools as some private school students may move to public schools, the majority—93%—of students already attend public schools and would benefit from the increased funding. Left-leaning people can still send their children to private schools while supporting public education. They advocate for public education to be as good as private education. Currently, it is not. Your argument is similar to suggesting that leftists should give away all their money, which is not a valid argument.

As long as there are other ways to offer feedback, but also to speak to the council about this matter, then 1-1 feedback to GALA is not a problem, but an additional option.

I’m Greek, and I get my information directly from Greek media. I couldn't access the Economist article, but it doesn't seem very different from what I mentioned, apart from their ideological angle—and thanks for adding the actual text. If the government involves other private educational institutions, the situation will become more complicated indeed. However, I don't think it can be compared to the Greek situation for the reasons I mentioned and those in the Economist article—which I find prejudiced and patronising, if not racist: "But a gap between ideology and real life is something with which many Greeks seem to live quite contented". Regarding the Economist's information, I'm not sure how many private schools closed, as the Economist claims, since the law only lasted for two months. I definitely know of one school in Piraeus called Michalopouleio, but given the law's brief duration, it can't be the sole reason. Tsipras sending his sons to a private school does create an ethical problem. However, asking him to send his sons to a public school, when public education has been chronically neglected by right-wing governments, is similar to asking leftists to give away all their money. Additionally, the right-wing government has recently introduced legislation that allows private colleges and universities this year, so there's no “problem” there anymore.

Comparisons to the Greek situation are incorrect because the policy would affect far more than just private schools. In Greece, private schools are attended primarily by the upper middle class and wealthy individuals. However, the policy was quickly reversed—within two months— due to widespread opposition as the number of people it would affect was far greater. The majority of Greek schoolchildren attend extracurricular private schools in the afternoons during the last one or two years of high school, in addition to public schools. This is because the final high school exams, crucial for higher education admission, require more preparation than what public schools provide. This policy would impact all forms of private education, including conservatories, vocational institutes, and foreign language schools (which nearly all Greek schoolchildren attend). Consequently, its impact would be widespread, affecting most of Greek people who had already endured significant hardship during the crisis. In contrast, the policy here concerns only private schools. I believe this tax hike is reasonable unless a better way to generate funds can be found after the catastrophic years of Tory governance.

I’ve been following the conversation with great interest. I don’t think that london parks and their wildlife are appropriate places for this kind of events. And of course, it also affects residents, too. It was really annoying going to the park with so many people, cans and rubbish everywhere, and noise spreading towards all directions. And think that I do like this kind of music, but I still think that this is not the right place to run big open air events like this. Also, today I saw this on the news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3gg8p770eeo A free event was cancelled because private ones damaged the Brockwell park. Of course a free event would be cancelled, there is no way it’d be the other way around.