Sir Keir Starmer says there is ‘no evidence’ private schools will have to close due to Labour’s VAT plans

Published

1 year ago

June 27, 2024

admin

Sir Keir Starmer has said there is “no evidence” private schools will be forced to close due to Labour’s plans to impose VAT on them.

Speaking to Sky’s Sophy Ridge, the Labour leader defended his party’s education policy to use the money to support state schools.

Election latest: Tory donor backs Reform

“I think they will adapt,” he said. “They’ve had lots of increases in costs over the last 14 years and they’ve accommodated it.

“There’s no evidence to show these schools will close. They don’t have to pass the cost on to parents.”

Private schools are currently exempt from VAT – but the Labour Party has pledged to close the current loophole.

Sir Keir was grilled on the policy at the Sky News Leaders’ event in Grimsby.

It’s a difficult choice’

Addressing parents’ concerns, he added: “It’s a difficult choice. But they’re businesses in the end and they’re very successful in the round.

“I want them to thrive. But we need to make this choice, because in the end, if I want the teachers we need in our state secondary schools, I have to answer the question you would put to me, just how are you going to pay for that?

“You’re going to pay for that by getting rid of the tax breaks for private schools, and use it to invest in the teachers we need in our state secondaries.”

Sir Keir was also pressed on the recent backlash to the policy, which Ms Ridge suggested may be related to “many people in Westminster and in the media who either went to private school or send their children there”.

“I think there’s an element of that,” he replied.

Grammer school background

The Labour leader spoke to Sky News following the final TV debate between he and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak before voters go to the polls on 4 July.

A snap Sky News poll suggested the public viewed their performance at the event in Nottingham on Wednesday equally.

Ms Ridge also quizzed the Labour leader on his own education. He attended a grammar school in Surrey, which became private while he was there.

Asked how he felt about the change, he said: “I don’t think I even appreciated it.

“If you ask all the people that were at school with me – we started off as state grammar school boys, paid for by the local authority – we ended up as state grammar school boys paid for by the local authority.”

He stressed the funding and support from the council remained the same.

“It’s obviously very different now, but it is very important to me that every child has those opportunities,” he added.

The Labour leader says his first steps should he be in Downing Street on 5 July are 40,000 extra NHS appointments to reduce waiting lists, recruiting secondary school teachers, and setting up ‘Great British Energy’ to minimise energy bill rises.

NHS fit ‘for the future’

Specifically on the NHS, he said he aims to “change the very model of the NHS” to “make much greater use of AI” and ensure it is more preventative and community-based.

“Creating the NHS is one [moment] we celebrate every year,” he said.

“I want to make sure that in the 50, 60, 70 years people are celebrating the fact that an incoming Labour government in 2024 made sure the NHS was not something to just proudly look back on, but is actually built fit for the future.”

Asked for his general feelings as the election campaign comes to an end, he said: “We’ve been here for four-and-a-half years.

“I woke up with a smile on my face on 1 January, because I knew we’d have an election this year.

“We’re ready for this. We’ve got a positive offer to put to the country. So we’re campaigning with a smile and a spring in our step.”

After his rival Mr Sunak told a previous TV debate he eats too much Haribo during election campaigns, Sir Keir said coffee was his vice to get him through

“Coffee coupled with cheese sandwiches and tuna sandwiches in the back of that Labour bus,” he said.

Politics

‘We’re a team’: Jess Phillips defends PM’s decision to suspend Labour rebels

Published

47 mins ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Starmer suspends four Labour MPs for breaches of party discipline

A minister has defended Sir Keir Starmer’s decision to discipline rebellious MPs, saying they would have used “stronger” language against those who are “continually causing trouble”.

Home Office minister Jess Phillips told Sky News’ Matt Barbet that Labour MPs were elected “as a team under a banner and under a manifesto” and could “expect” to face disciplinary action if they did not vote with the government.

It comes after the prime minister drew criticism for suspending four Labour MPs who voted against the government on its flagship welfare bill earlier this month, while stripping a further three of their roles as trade envoys.

Politics latest: PM to welcome German chancellor

Brian Leishman, Chris Hinchliff, Neil Duncan-Jordan and Rachael Maskell all lost the whip, meaning they are no longer part of Labour’s parliamentary party and will sit as independent MPs.

Labour backbenchers lined up to criticise the move last night, arguing it was a “terrible look” that made “a Reform government much more likely”.

But speaking to Sky News, Ms Phillips said: “We were elected as a team under a banner and under a manifesto, and we have to seek to work together, and if you are acting in a manner that is to undermine the ability of the government to deliver those things, I don’t know what you expect.

“Now I speak out against things I do not like, both internally and sometimes externally, all the time.

“There is a manner of doing that, that is the right way to go about it. And sometimes you feel forced to rebel and vote against.”

Referring to a description of the rebels by an unnamed source in The Times, she said: “I didn’t call it persistent knob-headery, but that’s the way that it’s been termed by some.”

She said she would have described it as “something much more sweary” because “we are a team, and we have to act as a team in order to achieve something”.

More than 100 MPs had initially rebelled against the plan to cut personal independent payments (PIP). Ultimately, 47 voted against the bill’s third reading, after it was watered down significantly in the face of defeat.

Three other MPs – who also voted against the government – have had their trade envoy roles removed. They are Rosena Allin Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin.

However, it is understood this was not the only reason behind the decision to reprimand all seven MPs, with sources citing “repeated breaches of party discipline”.

Ms Maskell was one of the lead rebels in the welfare revolt, and has more recently called for a wealth tax to fund the U-turn.

Mr Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, proposed a series of amendments to the flagship planning and infrastructure bill criticising the government’s approach.

Mr Duncan-Jordan, the MP for Poole, led a rebellion against the cut to the winter fuel payments while Alloa and Grangemouth MP Mr Leishman has been critical of the government’s position on Gaza as well as the closing of an oil refinery in his constituency.

Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, wrote on X on Wednesday that the prime minister’s actions “don’t show strength” and were “damaging Labour’s support and risk rolling out the red carpet for Reform”.

Leeds East MP Richard Burgon added that “challenging policies that harm our communities” would “make a Reform government much more likely”.

Ian Lavery, Labour MP for Blyth and Ashington, warned the suspensions were “a terrible look”.

“Dissatisfaction with the direction the leadership is taking us isn’t confined to the fringes,” he wrote.

Politics

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer’s MP suspensions

Published

3 hours ago

July 17, 2025

admin

Five reasons to be confused by Starmer's MP suspensions

I’m going to level with you – I am very, very confused.

In fact, I’ve got five reasons why I’m very confused.

The first reason I’m confused is because this is meant to be a show of strength, but most people have literally never heard of these four individuals.

Rachael Maskell is a bit well-known, but if this is intended to impress the public, then I’m not sure the public will notice.

Secondly, if it’s about installing discipline in the parliamentary Labour Party, I’m confused about that. Surely Sir Keir Starmer‘s aim right now should be to unite the parliamentary Labour Party rather than divide it.

After the welfare rebellion, the promise was to listen. Starmer gave interviews saying he was going to create policy more sympathetic to his party.

This is the opposite approach.

The third reason I’m confused is because they’ve been suspended in part for their role in the welfare rebellion that forced the government into its U-turn.

It was only yesterday morning that Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall said the government’s welfare reforms were in the “right place” – yet the people who helped get them there are suspended.

Suspended for agreeing with what is now government policy is an odd look.

Fourth, I’m confused at who the most prominent individual to be suspended is – Rachael Maskell.

She was on Sky News within minutes of the suspension looking genuinely surprised and really rather upset.

Now, there’s absolutely no doubt she was a ringleader in this rebellion. Eight days ago, she authored an article in the New Statesman discussing how to organise a government rebellion – so I think that’s pretty much case closed.

But Rachael is of the soft left, not the hard left. And who else is on the soft left? It’s Starmer.

It does feel as if the prime minister is slightly coming for people who have dangerously similar views to him.

I understand this is all about drawing hard lines and showing who’s on your team and who isn’t.

But some of that line looks like it goes awfully close to people that you really wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of if you’re prime minister.

And finally, three other MPs – Rosena Allin-Khan, Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Mohammed Yasin – have been sacked from their trade envoy jobs. They do retain the party whip.

But here’s the thing that hurts your head: if you are a Lib Dem trade envoy, like Sarah Olney, or if you’re a Tory trade envoy, as George Freeman was until a couple of weeks ago when he was suspended, you do not have to obey the whip – and you can continue to keep your trade envoy role.

But if you’re in the Labour Party and you’re a trade envoy, you do have to obey the whip.

And it’s just one of those mad inconsistencies where if you’re in another party, you can keep your trade envoy role, if you’re in the governing party, you can’t. That just doesn’t make sense at all.

So there are my five reasons why I’m completely confused.