In a tense live discussion on GB News, presenter Patrick Christys accused the Labour Party of disguising a political agenda as a plan for educational reform. Labour’s proposal to add VAT to private school fees has stirred up debate, with Christys claiming it aims to push more kids into the state education system, where they could be influenced by “woke ideology.”
It’s estimated that this new tax could lead to around 90,000 children leaving private schools for already overburdened state schools. Critics warn that such a move could worsen problems like overcrowding, especially in places like Surrey, which reportedly doesn’t have enough school spaces.
Christys claimed that Labour’s Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, is spearheading an agenda to reshape the national curriculum. He warned of a potential “decolonization” of education that could prioritize divisive topics, such as race and identity politics, over traditional British history.
“Labour wants to turn the curriculum into a Britain-hating, race-obsessed woke manifesto,” Christys argued.
He suggested that future lessons could be influenced by groups like Black Lives Matter or focus disproportionately on perceived historical wrongs, sidelining British achievements./
The policy is expected to impact disabled children disproportionately, as specialized support in state schools is often limited. Critics, including political consultant Suzanne Evans, argued the move is part of a broader Labour strategy to centralize control over education:
“This feels like an ideological attack on aspiration and parental choice. Labour’s endgame is to indoctrinate children while eroding British cultural identity,” Evans said.
Education expert Aman Bal agreed, adding:
“It’s not about diversity—it’s about division. This policy punishes ambition and pushes a flawed ideological agenda onto children.”
Journalist Benjamin Borth pushed back against the criticism, dismissing claims of a hidden agenda:
“Let’s separate fact from fiction. Bridget Phillipson hasn’t called for decolonizing the curriculum—she’s advocating for a more inclusive education that reflects all of Britain’s history.”
Borth highlighted Phillipson’s background, emphasizing her rise from a working-class single-parent household to the top of British politics. He argued the proposed VAT on private schools aligns with Labour’s broader plan to reinvest in education:
“This policy is about funding better resources for all children, not just the privileged few.”
The VAT policy has polarized public opinion. A recent poll showed that 55% of Britons support the move, believing it will help level the playing field in education. Critics, however, argue the policy could have unintended consequences, such as overwhelming the state system and reducing parental choice.
Christys and Evans raised concerns about the broader implications of Labour’s reforms, pointing to unresolved issues like the case of the Batley Grammar School teacher forced into hiding after a free speech controversy.
“Where is Labour’s support for teachers who dare to challenge orthodoxy? Their silence is telling,” Christys said.
As Labour faces mounting criticism over its educational reforms, Phillipson and her team have defended the VAT policy, claiming it will fund thousands of new teachers and resources for state schools. However, questions remain about the feasibility and fairness of these plans.
For parents and educators, the debate underscores a growing divide over the future of British education—one that pits the pursuit of equity against concerns over freedom, choice, and national identity.
