Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
If private education is so bad, how come so many Labour MPs choose private education for their kids, then?
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
Most of us didn't succeed in marrying the child of a billionaire. This is true.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Interesting - are you a Father Ted fan?
Never seen it.
Genuinely? Same writers, so if you don’t like The IT Crowd, maybe don’t bother… However I think it’s up there with some of the best comedy writing. And rewatchable. I’ve seen some episodes 10+ times and still laugh.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
And there it is, the politics of envy writ large. Would you be complaining if I chose to spend my money on a f--koff big flatscreen TV, four holidays a year and a massive four by four up the drive?
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
Most of us didn't succeed in marrying the child of a billionaire. This is true.
Yep, I knew someone would bite on that! What about Starmer? He wont be finding it tough either.
Republican support for Donald Trump's presidential bid in 2024 has cratered, an exclusive USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, as the former president is beleaguered by midterm losses and courtroom setbacks.
By 2-1, GOP and GOP-leaning voters now say they want Trump's policies but a different standard-bearer to carry them. While 31% want the former president to run, 61% prefer some other Republican nominee who would continue the policies Trump has pursued.
They have a name in mind: Two-thirds of Republicans and those inclined to vote Republican want Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to run for president. By double digits, 56% to 33%, they prefer DeSantis over Trump.
"Republicans and conservative independents increasingly want Trumpism without Trump," said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center.
More importantly, the MAGA crowd are going to make it very hard for anyone to beat Trump to the nomination.
De Santis is probably getting some never Trump support right now, but I don't think he's got the will right now - he's young enough to easily get another chance rather than go now.
Politicians never “wait for next time”. If they have the shot they take it. Who knows what happens in the next 4 years
On the contrary, politicians 'wait for next time' all the time - that's what we call politicians who miss their shot and bottle it. The election not called, the candidacy not announced, the teasing hints and allies talking them up.
Some will get lucky and actually have that second chance, but many more wait for it and never get it.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
Love The IT Crowd.
In a parallel universe I turn into Moss.
I work with Jen.
The day she broke the internet is replicated daily in NHS IT.
Finally got some snow! 20 minutes of steady. Will replace ice sheets of pavements with ones with a few mm of frozen snow on top. Wasn't in the forecast.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
What kind of dystopia do people imagine in which the Prime Minister is worrying about whether he can afford to eat?
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Interesting - are you a Father Ted fan?
Never seen it.
You should watch it. Go on. Oh, go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
It depends on the individual. Boris is a rich toff and acts like it, and no one really cared. Labour leaders usually score better on understanding 'voters like me' anyway. Rishi is particularly wealthy and probably is immensely out of touch, even though it's not like he was born into extreme wealth. If he or the party were more well liked such attacks would not work, even in the current circumstances. But I don't see any sign that he can overcome the impression that he's a clueless rich guy.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Interesting - are you a Father Ted fan?
Never seen it.
Genuinely? Same writers, so if you don’t like The IT Crowd, maybe don’t bother… However I think it’s up there with some of the best comedy writing. And rewatchable. I’ve seen some episodes 10+ times and still laugh.
Well, I have seen the 'I heard you're a racist now, father' clip, but that's it. The IT crowd just felt so cliche, and the two dudes were awful actors.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
Most of us didn't succeed in marrying the child of a billionaire. This is true.
Yep, I knew someone would bite on that! What about Starmer? He wont be finding it tough either.
Working class lad got to the top of his profession through hard work and dedication.
Peter Walton talking ****cks on ITV. I'm with Neville, Wright and Keane.
Just read on the Birmingham (Post?) that Stevie G. is in the frame to replace Southgate. What is this madness?
Brendan Rodgers being mooted too.
Plenty in Leicester would be glad to see the back of him.
Stevie G is at least English... What's wrong with Graeme Potter or Eddie Howe?Surely the best English managers around?
Not sure Potter is up to much, The trajectory of him and of Brighton since they parted company.
Personally I would keep Southgate. That we went out to the Champions at the QF would have been considered a success for nearly all previous England managers.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
What kind of dystopia do people imagine in which the Prime Minister is worrying about whether he can afford to eat?
Yes, I know these sorts of things are more about the general emotion and whether someone 'gets' the difficulties of the country, but like asking the price of milk it doesn't really matter in itself. Someone could be super rich and have great plans to address social and economic iniquities. It might be argued Rishi has no such plans, but that type of attack simply presumes he is not suffering so he cannot have any such plans.
You can tell that sort of attack is ridiculous because if the boot was on the other foot and Labour had a super rich leader then they would say it didn't matter, and the Tories would say it did. See also if someone is slick presentationally against someone who is not, where it will be declared being slick means you cannot also have subtance.
Gordon Brown's people did that after the 2010 debates, when I thought he'd done ok, and it meant even his own people were in effect saying he came across shit, but don't let that worry you.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You do know that, if you don't vote, someone wins anyway?
Honestly, I can get abstention on the basis of not giving a sh1t. But the sort of "reasoned" abstention, by people who have views but essentially want a free pass to criticise whoever wins, gets on my nerves.
Just extract the fence post from your arse and make a choice, because a choice will be made with or without you.
And there are more than two candidates in every seat, it is not obligatory to vote for Con or Labour.
Don't let that get out, you'll draw the ire of the big two for ruining their perennial strategy all over the country.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Interesting - are you a Father Ted fan?
Never seen it.
Genuinely? Same writers, so if you don’t like The IT Crowd, maybe don’t bother… However I think it’s up there with some of the best comedy writing. And rewatchable. I’ve seen some episodes 10+ times and still laugh.
Well, I have seen the 'I heard you're a racist now, father' clip, but that's it. The IT crowd just felt so cliche, and the two dudes were awful actors.
Is it cliche because it’s 15 years old though? All the characters are, of course, extreme examples of types. Personally a huge fan of Matt Berry, but he’s second series.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Interesting - are you a Father Ted fan?
Never seen it.
Genuinely? Same writers, so if you don’t like The IT Crowd, maybe don’t bother… However I think it’s up there with some of the best comedy writing. And rewatchable. I’ve seen some episodes 10+ times and still laugh.
Well, I have seen the 'I heard you're a racist now, father' clip, but that's it. The IT crowd just felt so cliche, and the two dudes were awful actors.
Is it cliche because it’s 15 years old though? All the characters are, of course, extreme examples of types. Personally a huge fan of Matt Berry, but he’s second series.
No, I don't think that's why it's cliche - pretty much every joke in that first series felt like something I would have been watching in the early 90s, it's not like it must have been fresh in the mid 2000s but I've seen that sort of thing loads since.
Matt Berry would tempt me to giving the next series a go, he's hilarious.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
And there it is, the politics of envy writ large. Would you be complaining if I chose to spend my money on a f--koff big flatscreen TV, four holidays a year and a massive four by four up the drive?
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
OK...so buying a fuck off TV and 4 Holidays is equivalent to buying your child an advantage over another child of the same (and probably less) ability....
I'll remind my manager when he is employing my replacement...pick the one who can pop him a few tenners their way....
Ministers have been accused of writing a “blank cheque” for Boris Johnson’s legal bills, as it emerged taxpayer-funded support was being extended to help defend him against claims he misled parliament over Partygate.
With just days left until a contract expires with the law firm Peters and Peters, which Johnson and the government have relied on to disparage an investigation by the privileges committee, the Guardian has learned the Cabinet Office intends to renew it.
The extension could be for up to six months given the investigation’s slow progress and was likely to be signed off without a new tender process, sources said.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
Most of us didn't succeed in marrying the child of a billionaire. This is true.
Yep, I knew someone would bite on that! What about Starmer? He wont be finding it tough either.
Working class lad got to the top of his profession through hard work and dedication.
Sunak appears to have got on well by hard work too, although some will hold Winchester against him. That’s no fairer an attack than to say that Starmer was educated at a private school (he was, but not as a payer of fees). Many people aspir3 to send their kids to private schooling.
Ministers have been accused of writing a “blank cheque” for Boris Johnson’s legal bills, as it emerged taxpayer-funded support was being extended to help defend him against claims he misled parliament over Partygate.
With just days left until a contract expires with the law firm Peters and Peters, which Johnson and the government have relied on to disparage an investigation by the privileges committee, the Guardian has learned the Cabinet Office intends to renew it.
The extension could be for up to six months given the investigation’s slow progress and was likely to be signed off without a new tender process, sources said.
Well that clears everything up. We can't afford Johnson's legal bills AND an inflation paced pay rise for the nurses. Something had to give.
It's all pointless anyway - if Rishi had restored the Tory rating a bit more maybe he would have been empowered to cast Boris aside, if things fall against him, but as things stand the party is still in the doldrums (albeit that is a step up from where Truss was), and he cannot afford to piss off the Borisian element that far, and the legalese, though dismissed by the committee, gives cover (more so than with Paterson, when it was even more patently bullcrap).
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
The Tories are going to.lose the next election. There is little doubt about it, but history is littered with LD by-election victories that have promised the earth and proved a damp squid.
A "damp squid" ? You'll be putting people on a pedal stool next.
I will given predictive text and its peculiarities.
No other "IT Crowd" fans here, I guess.
I watched the first series for the first time last week. It was complete shit. I assume it must have improved a lot after that.
Interesting - are you a Father Ted fan?
Never seen it.
Genuinely? Same writers, so if you don’t like The IT Crowd, maybe don’t bother… However I think it’s up there with some of the best comedy writing. And rewatchable. I’ve seen some episodes 10+ times and still laugh.
Well, I have seen the 'I heard you're a racist now, father' clip, but that's it. The IT crowd just felt so cliche, and the two dudes were awful actors.
Is it cliche because it’s 15 years old though? All the characters are, of course, extreme examples of types. Personally a huge fan of Matt Berry, but he’s second series.
No, I don't think that's why it's cliche - pretty much every joke in that first series felt like something I would have been watching in the early 90s, it's not like it must have been fresh in the mid 2000s but I've seen that sort of thing loads since.
Matt Berry would tempt me to giving the next series a go, he's hilarious.
My faith in you is restored. I’m with you on Matt Berry, even if Toast in America was a shadow of the previous series.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
And there it is, the politics of envy writ large. Would you be complaining if I chose to spend my money on a f--koff big flatscreen TV, four holidays a year and a massive four by four up the drive?
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
OK...so buying a fuck off TV and 4 Holidays is equivalent to buying your child an advantage over another child of the same (and probably less) ability....
I'll remind my manager when he is employing my replacement...pick the one who can pop him a few tenners their way....
Would you refuse to read to your children because it will give them an advantage over children whose parents don't?
Ministers have been accused of writing a “blank cheque” for Boris Johnson’s legal bills, as it emerged taxpayer-funded support was being extended to help defend him against claims he misled parliament over Partygate.
With just days left until a contract expires with the law firm Peters and Peters, which Johnson and the government have relied on to disparage an investigation by the privileges committee, the Guardian has learned the Cabinet Office intends to renew it.
The extension could be for up to six months given the investigation’s slow progress and was likely to be signed off without a new tender process, sources said.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
Interesting that you don't even begin to feel that you need to demonstrate that attempting to break the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance will actually improve education for those who currently rely on state education.
Your post is a superb example of the politics of envy genre, advocating levelling down for the sake of it.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
The headline should say "talks tough". It will be yet another announcement with no substance to back it up.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
It’s just sensible good politics to get this done on the eve of Christmas holidays, MPs heading to constituency’s. The difference between Sunak’s government digging the party out a hole, his PM predecessors, and like Starmer too, were poor at reading all the documents and being on top all the detail, so not delivering.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019. But they don’t count now, they are out the game - the next election is fought solely upon Sunak and Hunt’s record over the next two years, on migrant invasion, cost of living, and hospital waiting lists, and wether to dump Sunak and Hunt for Starmer and his team. This is how results like 1992 happen. This is reality of electoral politics.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019.
That's not why Boris was dumped. You think Tory MPs would give a crap about whether promises were being delivered on so long as they looked on course to win again? Rightly or wrongly they were concerned they would not, and Boris forcing them to spend seemingly every moment defending his own incompetent mistakes did not help.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
And there it is, the politics of envy writ large. Would you be complaining if I chose to spend my money on a f--koff big flatscreen TV, four holidays a year and a massive four by four up the drive?
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
OK...so buying a fuck off TV and 4 Holidays is equivalent to buying your child an advantage over another child of the same (and probably less) ability....
I'll remind my manager when he is employing my replacement...pick the one who can pop him a few tenners their way....
Would you refuse to read to your children because it will give them an advantage over children whose parents don't?
I get it...it's lazy feckless parents who cannot be bothered to read to their children..stupid me thought that it was the public schools that produce almost our entire elite, namely politicians, judiciary, media, business that enhances our inequality...
How does the government propose to recruit more staff to deal with the asylum backlog? How will they be trained and how much will they be paid? Cos no other public service can fill the vacancies.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
It’s just sensible good politics to get this done on the eve of Christmas holidays, MPs heading to constituency’s. The difference between Sunak’s government digging the party out a hole, his PM predecessors, and like Starmer too, were poor at reading all the documents and being on top all the detail, so not delivering.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019. But they don’t count now, they are out the game - the next election is fought solely upon Sunak and Hunt’s record over the next two years, on migrant invasion, cost of living, and hospital waiting lists, and wether to dump Sunak and Hunt for Starmer and his team. This is how results like 1992 happen. This is reality of electoral politics.
He'll clear the asylum backlog by granting them all asylum.
How does the government propose to recruit more staff to deal with the asylum backlog? How will they be trained and how much will they be paid? Cos no other public service can fill the vacancies.
Apparently Sunak is going to do it by tripling their productivity. That is what he said earlier.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019.
That's not why Boris was dumped. You think Tory MPs would give a crap about whether promises were being delivered on so long as they looked on course to win again? Rightly or wrongly they were concerned they would not, and Boris forcing them to spend seemingly every moment defending his own incompetent mistakes did not help.
Nonsense. He was dumped because it was clear he didn’t have a handle on how to govern correctly - he was too slack, too lazy, and the MPs ran out of patience - and a key driver was, by not delivering on his promises made, he was going to take them down with him.
The fact is, the next election will now be fought on Sunak’s record over the next two years, nothing what Truss or Boris got up to, not Boris promises in 2019, nor Boris record in office. A week is a long time in politics, two years burys Boris antics into history in voters minds.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
It’s just sensible good politics to get this done on the eve of Christmas holidays, MPs heading to constituency’s. The difference between Sunak’s government digging the party out a hole, his PM predecessors, and like Starmer too, were poor at reading all the documents and being on top all the detail, so not delivering.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019. But they don’t count now, they are out the game - the next election is fought solely upon Sunak and Hunt’s record over the next two years, on migrant invasion, cost of living, and hospital waiting lists, and wether to dump Sunak and Hunt for Starmer and his team. This is how results like 1992 happen. This is reality of electoral politics.
He'll clear the asylum backlog by granting them all asylum.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
And there it is, the politics of envy writ large. Would you be complaining if I chose to spend my money on a f--koff big flatscreen TV, four holidays a year and a massive four by four up the drive?
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
OK...so buying a fuck off TV and 4 Holidays is equivalent to buying your child an advantage over another child of the same (and probably less) ability....
I'll remind my manager when he is employing my replacement...pick the one who can pop him a few tenners their way....
Would you refuse to read to your children because it will give them an advantage over children whose parents don't?
I get it...it's lazy feckless parents who cannot be bothered to read to their children..stupid me thought that it was the public schools that produce almost our entire elite, namely politicians, judiciary, media, business that enhances our inequality...
@williamglenn asked a very sensible and polite question. What's your answer?
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
It’s just sensible good politics to get this done on the eve of Christmas holidays, MPs heading to constituency’s. The difference between Sunak’s government digging the party out a hole, his PM predecessors, and like Starmer too, were poor at reading all the documents and being on top all the detail, so not delivering.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019. But they don’t count now, they are out the game - the next election is fought solely upon Sunak and Hunt’s record over the next two years, on migrant invasion, cost of living, and hospital waiting lists, and wether to dump Sunak and Hunt for Starmer and his team. This is how results like 1992 happen. This is reality of electoral politics.
Talk is cheap . And next May I'll score an absolute screamer that sends West Brom back into the Premiership. Neither my, nor Mr Sunak's proclamations are remotely likely to become reality.
We had a kid return on Monday after a two week suspension for assaulting a teacher and another pupil. They were supposed to come for an hour a day with 1 to 1 TA support. Despite our objections. None was available. And no supply forthcoming. So. They arrived, and were allowed to wander back to their class, and left there with the teacher and student they'd attacked. Teacher is still receiving medical treatment. The rest of the class, who'd witnessed this, got to see there aren't any consequences for actions. It's not all about pay and conditions. It's about everyone's safety too.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
Go and tick the blue box. Well fucking done.
And there it is, the politics of envy writ large. Would you be complaining if I chose to spend my money on a f--koff big flatscreen TV, four holidays a year and a massive four by four up the drive?
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
OK...so buying a fuck off TV and 4 Holidays is equivalent to buying your child an advantage over another child of the same (and probably less) ability....
I'll remind my manager when he is employing my replacement...pick the one who can pop him a few tenners their way....
Would you refuse to read to your children because it will give them an advantage over children whose parents don't?
I get it...it's lazy feckless parents who cannot be bothered to read to their children..stupid me thought that it was the public schools that produce almost our entire elite, namely politicians, judiciary, media, business that enhances our inequality...
So here's a question for you. I have child with special needs at a state school. The LEA funds some considerable help through an EHCP, but the school has to fund £6000 pa of this. We give a donation of £6000 pa to the school as their budget is tight and we think the school is right for our child. Now is that a sin on your book too? Should we be allowed to do that or should we be subject to your Envy Tax?
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Or:
Just a bit of fun, I know, BUT. Can a rich man no longer be PM? For most people ALL politicians are wealthy. Starmer surely isn’t short of cash. Can he be truly said to understand the CoL crisis while in a box at Arsenal?
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
We had a kid return on Monday after a two week suspension for assaulting a teacher and another pupil. They were supposed to come for an hour a day with 1 to 1 TA support. Despite our objections. None was available. And no supply forthcoming. So. They arrived, and were allowed to wander back to their class, and left there with the teacher and student they'd attacked. Teacher is still receiving medical treatment. The rest of the class, who'd witnessed this, got to see there aren't any consequences for actions. It's not all about pay and conditions. It's about everyone's safety too.
We had a kid return on Monday after a two week suspension for assaulting a teacher and another pupil. They were supposed to come for an hour a day with 1 to 1 TA support. Despite our objections. None was available. And no supply forthcoming. So. They arrived, and were allowed to wander back to their class, and left there with the teacher and student they'd attacked. Teacher is still receiving medical treatment. The rest of the class, who'd witnessed this, got to see there aren't any consequences for actions. It's not all about pay and conditions. It's about everyone's safety too.
We had a kid return on Monday after a two week suspension for assaulting a teacher and another pupil. They were supposed to come for an hour a day with 1 to 1 TA support. Despite our objections. None was available. And no supply forthcoming. So. They arrived, and were allowed to wander back to their class, and left there with the teacher and student they'd attacked. Teacher is still receiving medical treatment. The rest of the class, who'd witnessed this, got to see there aren't any consequences for actions. It's not all about pay and conditions. It's about everyone's safety too.
Everyone I talk to curls their lip at the mere mention or sighs. Little sign of support where I am.
Well they would say that mid term, they nearly always do, especially with Boris and Truss fresh in their heads.
But you are confidently stating about something two years hence, after 2 years of stable Sunak government delivering the voters priorities fresh in the mind - which is why your statement is vague unscientific daftness, isn’t it?
Yeah but, you've been implying the polling evidence is on your side. It isn't yet.
You may turn out to be the sagest of sages but if you do, it will all be down to guesswork.
I’m not predicting anything, not sage anything. I’m just reporting what is already going on in front of us. The media and voter love in with Sunak and his government has been going on for weeks right in front of you, my little Mex Pet. Open your eyes. Starmer and the Labour Party can’t lay a glove on them at the moment. And unlike Boris and Truss, the Sunak government does all the right things on all the right issues - look at todays announcement, sending MPs home for Christmas with deals agreed and five point plans now in place.
Sure don’t listen to me. But this is front page of tomorrows FT. SUNAK TOUGH ON MIGRANTS.
If only being tough on migrants made everything better. It might shock 70 year old home owners in the shires and working class right on lads on the coasts, but turns out it doesn't.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019.
That's not why Boris was dumped. You think Tory MPs would give a crap about whether promises were being delivered on so long as they looked on course to win again? Rightly or wrongly they were concerned they would not, and Boris forcing them to spend seemingly every moment defending his own incompetent mistakes did not help.
Nonsense. He was dumped because it was clear he didn’t have a handle on how to govern correctly - he was too slack, too lazy, and the MPs ran out of patience - and a key driver was, by not delivering on his promises made, he was going to take them down with him.
The fact is, the next election will now be fought on Sunak’s record over the next two years, nothing what Truss or Boris got up to, not Boris promises in 2019, nor Boris record in office. A week is a long time in politics, two years burys Boris antics into history in voters minds.
If the problem had been BoJo's undoubted mediocrity as PM, he would have gone at the confidence vote. The final collapse came when Conservative MPs discovered that Boris had put a sex pest in their HR department and lied about it.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
I live in an area with bad schools. People that grew up here and made something of their lives tend to send their children to private schools because they were so traumatised by the state schools here, and they know about all the guns, crime, drugs etc that go on in the state schools. I think that labour will have a problem with this policy because it is a marginal seat and the people I have described above will probably vote conservative because of this policy, I don't think it is all that wise.
I don't think there is any moral case for the policy at all, because there is just as much 'inequality' between schools in the state sector, 'privilege' just manifests itself in different ways, ie through high house prices near well to do schools.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Refusing a referendum when it's voted for is a maximalist demand.
Ignoring @HYUFD Paisley* inspired position, the case hadn’t been made.
Holyrood elections are irrelevant because it’s outwith its mandate
* not the place
Massive majority in Scottish constituencies at Westminster, *on exactly the same metric as the ruling party uses to justify its position by FPTP, though on a different geographical basis (well, of course).
What more do you want?
FPTP is designed to do something different - create a body that represents the interests of different localities. It’s not primarily to do with forming a government (that’s a weakness in our parliamentary system) or to be used to claim a mandate on a specific item that is outside of the powers of the body.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
Why should you be able to buy your children better life opportunities than others? Purely because you have money. Nothing more. And you create sink schools by your actions so you make the odds all the more weighted in your favour. You lay waste to the talents and abilities of the children whose parents cannot afford to buy their children this kind of advantage. And you ferment and enhance inter generational poverty. And so it carries on and before you know it only those children whose parents can afford it achieve.
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
I live in an area with bad schools. People that grew up here and made something of their lives tend to send their children to private schools because they were so traumatised by the state schools here, and they know about all the guns, crime, drugs etc that go on in the state schools. I think that labour will have a problem with this policy because it is a marginal seat and the people I have described above will probably vote conservative because of this policy, I don't think it is all that wise.
I don't think there is any moral case for the policy at all, because there is just as much 'inequality' between schools in the state sector, 'privilege' just manifests itself in different ways, ie through high house prices near well to do schools.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Nationalists and "yes" voters aren't the same thing.
It's is true that some people with a particular view will never move an inch. But you don't need them too, or for everyone to agree to an outcome. You need enough people to agree there's been a reasonably fair process and it's time to move on. You'll always get clowns hanging about but, when the circus leaves town, they're just clowns.
I was trying to come up with a term for supporters of independence that wasn’t SNP. It wasn’t intended to be loaded.
But my point is that if someone wants independence as a point of principle they are unlikely to settle for less.
Moreover given the large swathes of authority that Holyrood already has there’s not a huge amount more to give
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
It's hardly the politics of envy to stop subsidising a sector which strengthens the link between educational outcome and parental bank balance, thus facilitating privilege and violating the principle of equal opportunities.
What are Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss up to these days? One is almost nostalgic for omnichaos.
Sunak’s 1970’s economic strife re-run is just tedious. None of the flair for novel catastrophe of his predecessors.
May won an award for best commons speech a couple of months ago. The speech, on the death of the Queen, was brilliant. If she has anything more up her sleeve like that, then she's far from done.
Shame she didn’t care a fig for the Grenfell deaths.
And you make this outrageous slur based on what evidence?
She's English and he doesn't like her as a result?
So a Scottish Nationalim is all about love of one’s own country and not hatred of England? Did I get that right?
Well, it can be. And there are plenty of sane and reasonable Scottish Nationalists, including the likes of Carnyx, or Alistair, or even TUD on many subjects.
But Stu just ain't one of them.
There are a few sane and reasonable non Scottish posters on PB but many are not among them.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Refusing a referendum when it's voted for is a maximalist demand.
Ignoring @HYUFD Paisley* inspired position, the case hadn’t been made.
Holyrood elections are irrelevant because it’s outwith its mandate
It is an interesting thought that one of the things that "did for" Theresa May's dream of a landslide against Corbyn was not necessarily the "dementia tax" but many people thinking they really didn't like the idea of a Tory landslide.
I have been very critical of the Conservative/populist Party in the last few years, but the one thing that is likely to cause me to put a cross in the Tory box is the thought of a Labour landslide.
The way things stand, I'm unlikely to vote at the next GE. The Tories are out of ideas for how to improve the economy and they've delivered us a winter of discontent.
But. I can't support tax on private school fees. Should I ever have kids, that's an extra 50k per kid over the course of their education I'd have to find. Two kids, and I'm voting myself an extra six figures in tax. That's on top of the tax I'd be paying into the system to educate other people's sprogs through the state system, on top of the many years I've already paid to educate people's sprogs when I don't have kids of my own. Plus the extra tax I'll be paying to educate all the other people's sprogs whose parents can no longer afford to go private.
It strikes me as the worst kind of politics of envy and puts a private education out of the reach of the middle class, while the rich will just shrug and pay it anyway.
It must surely be a factor in some key marginals, and I can't imagine it being a net vote winner.
And this is me saying this without having kids yet. I imagine if I did have kids, it'd force me to put my tick in the blue box, even with gritted teeth. It's a walloping, "dementia tax" sized levy on aspiration.
You do know that, if you don't vote, someone wins anyway?
Honestly, I can get abstention on the basis of not giving a sh1t. But the sort of "reasoned" abstention, by people who have views but essentially want a free pass to criticise whoever wins, gets on my nerves.
Just extract the fence post from your arse and make a choice, because a choice will be made with or without you.
And there are more than two candidates in every seat, it is not obligatory to vote for Con or Labour.
For many seats the third option is lib dems and no one with a brain votes for them. They are the only party that would make me vote to keep them out.
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Nationalists and "yes" voters aren't the same thing.
It's is true that some people with a particular view will never move an inch. But you don't need them too, or for everyone to agree to an outcome. You need enough people to agree there's been a reasonably fair process and it's time to move on. You'll always get clowns hanging about but, when the circus leaves town, they're just clowns.
I was trying to come up with a term for supporters of independence that wasn’t SNP. It wasn’t intended to be loaded.
But my point is that if someone wants independence as a point of principle they are unlikely to settle for less.
Moreover given the large swathes of authority that Holyrood already has there’s not a huge amount more to give
The Supreme Govt was correct to deny the right to a mock-referendum, but the Govt has erred in refusing to define a possible democratic path to SINDY.
There is a possible democratic path: get a majority in Parliament.
Surely the SNP response would be that they want independence for Scotland, and have indeed got a majority in the Scottish Parliament (with the pro-independence Scottish Greens) and in Westminster in terms of Scottish constituencies.
If your point is the SNP ought to shut up until they win in Mid Devon, Skegness, and Dover, it's just obvious silliness to think the constitutional arrangements for a relatively small proportion of the UK far away from those places is ever going to be a motivating issue at the ballot box.
Look - I'm a unionist and am uncomfortable about the SNP line of asking again and again until they get the result they want. But demanding the ludicrously unrealistic, or just sticking our fingers in our ears and screaming "NO" is calculated to antagonise and drive away. There does need to be some kind of maturely drawn out road map that doesn't make independence easy and does try to resolve uncertainties over what independence looks like (a major omission by both Salmond and Cameron in 2014) but at least makes it realistic if consistent, reasonably strong support within Scotland is there.
They don't necessarily have to win Mid Devon, Skegness etc. to get a majority in parliament for indyref2. They need a hung parliament and to convince SKS they will vote down any Labour King's Speech unless he agrees to a S.30. Though, SKS could (and may well) try and call their bluff.
I think your comment sums up a problem in our politics, particularly on constitutional matters.
The focus is always on the game of politics, rather than the solving of political problems.
So it's true in the "game" sense that a smaller party (on the whole UK level) potentially has a lot of leverage if the maths of a particular General Election falls a particular way.
But in the "problem solving" sense, we have a serious, unresolved issue with the constitutional arrangements in Scotland, a rather bitterly and evenly divided electorate in a substantial part of the UK, worsening tensions, and a lack of focus on other policy questions in Scotland particularly. So we'd ideally be thinking more strategically about how we defuse that in a way that works in Scotland and the rest of the UK. That means mature discussion about a route map, defining what independence would mean in practical terms, and also defining what the alternatives are within the UK. That way the process feels fair to a lot of people, you reduce the heat, and you either move towards an equitable parting or a stronger union.
What will happen in reality, I agree, is the issue will be used by political pygmies for short term tactical advantage on either side, until circumstances force a botched, rushed poll that doesn't really satisfactorily resolve important aspects, and upsets a lot of people. I'm just saying that's an unhealthy way to conduct politics.
The issue is that you have one side making maximalist demands that can’t be compromised with.
Independence vs not-independence is binary in the view of nationalists. Devolution sounds like a reasonable compromise to unionists but not to nationalists.
Nationalists and "yes" voters aren't the same thing.
It's is true that some people with a particular view will never move an inch. But you don't need them too, or for everyone to agree to an outcome. You need enough people to agree there's been a reasonably fair process and it's time to move on. You'll always get clowns hanging about but, when the circus leaves town, they're just clowns.
I was trying to come up with a term for supporters of independence that wasn’t SNP. It wasn’t intended to be loaded.
But my point is that if someone wants independence as a point of principle they are unlikely to settle for less.
Moreover given the large swathes of authority that Holyrood already has there’s not a huge amount more to give
Proper tax raising and borrowing powers.
If the snp want independence for scotland as I have said before they need to trigger a referendum on is south of the scottish border
Comments
It seems to me that success is now to be sneered at.
Absolute genius.
Plenty in Leicester would be glad to see the back of him.
Why *shouldn't* I want to buy my children every possible advantage for them? Why *shouldn't* I want to buy them the best possible education I can afford? Especially when the state sector is so woefully lacking in the UK.
Labour's tax on private education is a tax on aspiration, and it's also a tax that will make the state education sector worse, by increasing pressure on that sector, and reducing the amount of outreach private schools are able to do.
It's the nonsensical politics of envy. Well f--king done yourself, mate. Have a big pat on the back for your oh so virtuous beliefs.
Some will get lucky and actually have that second chance, but many more wait for it and never get it.
The day she broke the internet is replicated daily in NHS IT.
Wasn't in the forecast.
What's wrong with Graeme Potter or Eddie Howe?Surely the best English managers around?
Trust me to keep an eye on the gusset columns 😈
Personally I would keep Southgate. That we went out to the Champions at the QF would have been considered a success for nearly all previous England managers.
You can tell that sort of attack is ridiculous because if the boot was on the other foot and Labour had a super rich leader then they would say it didn't matter, and the Tories would say it did. See also if someone is slick presentationally against someone who is not, where it will be declared being slick means you cannot also have subtance.
Gordon Brown's people did that after the 2010 debates, when I thought he'd done ok, and it meant even his own people were in effect saying he came across shit, but don't let that worry you.
Matt Berry would tempt me to giving the next series a go, he's hilarious.
I'll remind my manager when he is employing my replacement...pick the one who can pop him a few tenners their way....
https://twitter.com/Exploding_Heads/status/1602627914759131136?t=8p2QBDtMUT1qAU3ntkutcw&s=19
Your post is a superb example of the politics of envy genre, advocating levelling down for the sake of it.
Bloody public sector is so piss easy it's all interchangeable.
In 6 months, he'll announce the same crap again.
Boris was dumped because he was never going to deliver on his promises of 2019. But they don’t count now, they are out the game - the next election is fought solely upon Sunak and Hunt’s record over the next two years, on migrant invasion, cost of living, and hospital waiting lists, and wether to dump Sunak and Hunt for Starmer and his team. This is how results like 1992 happen. This is reality of electoral politics.
How will they be trained and how much will they be paid?
Cos no other public service can fill the vacancies.
The fact is, the next election will now be fought on Sunak’s record over the next two years, nothing what Truss or Boris got up to, not Boris promises in 2019, nor Boris record in office. A week is a long time in politics, two years burys Boris antics into history in voters minds.
None was available. And no supply forthcoming.
So. They arrived, and were allowed to wander back to their class, and left there with the teacher and student they'd attacked. Teacher is still receiving medical treatment. The rest of the class, who'd witnessed this, got to see there aren't any consequences for actions.
It's not all about pay and conditions.
It's about everyone's safety too.
I don't think there is any moral case for the policy at all, because there is just as much 'inequality' between schools in the state sector, 'privilege' just manifests itself in different ways, ie through high house prices near well to do schools.
But my point is that if someone wants independence as a point of principle they are unlikely to settle for less.
Moreover given the large swathes of authority that Holyrood already has there’s not a huge amount more to give