SARAH VINE: Abolishing VAT on school fees will make life easier for the rich while the rest fight for scraps… Starmer really is a true socialist

SARAH VINE: Abolishing VAT on school fees will make life easier for the rich while the rest fight for scraps… Starmer really is a true socialist

To the question 'what is a socialist', Keir Starmer has a ready answer: 'I am!' To the question 'what is a woman?' he's not so sure. A week after the election campaign, we still don't know whether he thinks a woman can have a penis. Come on, Sir Keir, yes or no? We need to know.

In reality, however, Starmer does not need to proclaim his socialism. It's very clear. Only a dyed-in-the-wool socialist would put forward a policy as divisive and as short-sighted as swatting. VAT on public school fees.

It's pure dog whistles, designed to appeal to the donkey-clad, badge-wearing, eat-the-rich core of the labour party – in other words, all those Corbynites who feel left out as Sir Keir tries to woo him Guard rose Woman by ruling out common things such as increases in income tax and national insurance.

Or, as we saw yesterday, getting groups of gushing, 'fanboy' business leaders to support him. One wonders what the incentive is, as eliminating income tax and raising government bonds will almost certainly mean an attack on capital gains and corporate taxes to finance new spending. Maybe Labour New Year's celebration list will make for enlightening reading.

Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson during a visit to a school in Harlow, Essex

Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer and shadow education secretary Bridget Phillipson during a visit to a school in Harlow, Essex

But I digress. Back to VAT on state schools, which Labor says will raise money for more teachers in the state sector and improve standards generally.

Have you heard of “girl math” – that tongue-in-cheek social media trend where women find increasingly bizarre excuses to rationalize unjustified spending decisions?

Well, this is the political equivalent: labor mathematics. A lot of self-indulgent nonsense that may fuel the politics of envy, but makes no financial – or social – sense at all. And here's why.

First, the policy will actually do that benefit the rich. For wealthy parents, the 20 percent VAT will be an annoyance and inconvenience, but not a deal breaker.

Mom will just have to buy one less Chanel handbag, or rein in the Pilates instructor; Maybe Dad should forego that shooting weekend with his old university friends, or maybe book Cornwall instead of Antigua for the Christmas holidays this year.

Not only will they be able to keep their kids in public school, it will be easier to get them in because all those annoyingly smart scholarship students will be out of the picture.

This will make places like Eton, Winchester, Wycombe Abbey, Harrow and other top schools even more elite. And because they will now pay VAT, they are released from their duties as a charity, which now requires them to meet certain criteria, such as providing opportunities to disadvantaged students.

Brilliant socialist logic, I'm sure you'll agree. Exclude poor children from the system and ensure that rich children have even more options. Karl Marx must be doing a real trick in his grave.

Let's not forget that a fee-paying student is a student who does not have to fund the state sector – and yet someone whose parents still contribute to the overall education budget (through the tax system) for a service they do not use. Far from being elitist parasites, these parents actually free up resources, just as a patient who pays to go to the private clinic saves the NHS money by not needing treatment.

Under Starmer's plan, thousands of these pupils will go straight back onto the taxpayers' books. He doesn't even have the keys to Number 10 yet, and parents are already taking their children out of the private sector.

To date, the exodus of around 3,000 children has cost the taxpayer £22 million in additional school places. If you scale up these numbers, it's easy to see how the additional costs can increase.

According to the latest estimates, these policies could see nearly a quarter of a million students leave the private sector over the next five years – 42 percent of the total. Labor claims the scheme will raise £1.7 billion in tax, but the Adam Smith Institute calculates that if even a quarter of private apprentices were forced to join the state sector – let alone almost half forecast – this could cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion. . To see? Labor mathematics.

And that's before we even consider capacity. State schools are already oversubscribed, and cash isn't always the barrier to expansion. Many are in overcrowded areas where extra space is simply not available, or where local planning restrictions make this impossible.

As for the excellent state schools, they are already generating their own economic ecosystems, driving up rents and house prices in the surrounding catchment areas. By increasing competition for places in state schools, Labor will once again create a housing bubble in the immediate vicinity of those schools, which will inevitably lead to poorer students being priced out of the market.

But it doesn't end there. There is another way in which these policies will benefit the private sector: the booming market for private education. The internet is already full of sites offering paid one-on-one help, usually over Zoom, for students who are struggling or who want to get the highest grades.

The market exploded during lockdown, and shows no signs of abating as more parents look to boost their children's chances in a booming market. Prices range from £30 per hour to £150 for the highest scoring tutors. Oh, and fun fact: the sites are full of public school teachers who make extra money. How will they feel about giving up their fun side jobs?

The problem with socialism, as we have seen time and time again, is that it is an abstract ideology, not a way of life. It fails to understand the basics of human behavior, namely that we are essentially pack animals, highly competitive and ambitious by nature.

Labor demands VAT on school fees to raise money for more teachers in the state sector

Labor demands VAT on school fees to raise money for more teachers in the state sector

According to the latest estimates, this policy could see nearly a quarter of a million students leave the private sector

According to the latest estimates, this policy could see nearly a quarter of a million students leave the private sector

To be clear, I'm not a big fan of the independent sector. But I do believe in choice. I didn't raise my two privately, but that was partly because their father was once Minister of Education and I firmly believe that you should practice what you preach.

In an ideal world, children from all socio-economic backgrounds should study together, not least because education is about expanding the mind, and it is important to see how other people live.

My two have learned a lot from those around them that they might not have experienced had they been in the independent sector, and they have friends from all walks of life. My hope has always been that this will make them more well-rounded adults – but it was not a cost-neutral exercise. Both have experienced very unpleasant and intense bullying due to their specific family circumstances, and both have been deeply affected by it in their own ways.

I think it was a price well worth paying. But if I sometimes question that choice, at least I had one. I could have taken my child out of a difficult situation and into a different environment at any time.

And that is my last and final point on why this policy is so pernicious. There is an assumption that the reason people choose to raise their children in the independent sector is because they are all wannabe toffs. That is emphatically not the case.

Just ask Diane Abbott, Labor firebrand and former flame of Jeremy Corbyn, who was roundly criticized in 2003 for sending her son to the City of London School, which then cost £10,000 a year.

She acknowledged the inconsistency at the time, but added: “I had to choose between my reputation as a politician and my son.” And for all her hypocrisy, I respected that. She did what was right for her child.

There are countless children for whom the local public school is simply not the right option. Currently, their parents have a choice. Under this policy, in many cases they will not. Private education will truly become the domain of the very rich, and the rest will only have to fight for the morsels the government throws at them.

But then that's socialism for you.