Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
Thames Water has invested billions in building new sewers and pipes in general - the new London super sewer is just coming into operation.
What is required is a simple, steady increase in the water quality/pollution regulations over a previously well defined period of time.
In multiple industries, this kind of steady, progressive improvement in standards, scheduled over years has quietly, and without fuss massively improved matters.
In fact such regulated improvement in standards has already changed the water industry a lot over the last 30 years
The demented AllDevelopmentIsEvul thing has been applied to reservoirs.
I actually asked a civil servant why there was a target for reducing water usage per head. He says climate change - C02 released by per ton of water processed. I pointed out that we are not long from net zero in planning terms (a few decades)
And that since you could use wind/solar to process and store water, you could in effect store energy in the form of either water pumped into reservoirs or as processed water in holding.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
Because housing was much cheaper, they paid off mortgages early, and put masses of money into pensions and savings. In addition, services and consumer goods were much more expensive (as you say), so they tended not to do so much of that.
An aunt has her late husbands company pension (maxed out the contributions), her pension, a big pile of shares (from always saving 25% net income), the house (paid off).
They didn’t spend lots - even their holidays abroad (which they did a fair bit of) were the cheapest possible stuff - often camping from the car as they drove round Europe.
In fact, I think the over did the savings and should have spent a bit more while they were active.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
Like housing, things made in the UK have also become more expensive, whereas things now made in East Asia have become cheaper. Unlike housing, though, gadgets aren't expected to last as a store of value for more than a hundred years.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
It's the cost of housing. My daughters don't see any prospect of ever having enough money to buy a house, at least around where we live. And renting is even more expensive in the long term.
I saw this when on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, as a result of which I converted my paid off house into a £350k mortgage. I faced the choice of either living like a trappist monk for 5 years, no holidays, no eating out, no drinking and ending up if I was lucky with a mortgage balance of £320k, or do as I pleased and end up with a mortgage of £340k. It made no material difference to my financial position whatever I did, but a very real one to my quality of life.
The previous generation, who had coffees and holidays that were 2-3 times as expensive in real terms, and housing 2-3 times cheaper, still view it through that prism.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Yes, but the answer isn't "socialism".
We must beware emotional kneejerk responses, not indulge in them.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
I’m glad to pay my share. In the meantime, I can’t understand how anyone with a brain cell can vote Conservative in the light of the past 12 months. They need a break.
You can't understand because you're a core Labour voter who wants a Labour government.
A Conservative government will certainly tax me heavily but a Labour government will squeeze my tit until it turns purple.
Why do people think the state would be better providing water. The state is also indebted up to the eyeballs, and also has a hundred other things it would rather spend money on, before excess capacity in a service that most people don't even think about, because it works fine.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
The trouble with this sort of thinking is that you'll get a paradigm shift to something that's even worse, because it's a licence for snake-oil salesman.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
It's the cost of housing. My daughters don't see any prospect of ever having enough money to buy a house, at least around where we live. And renting is even more expensive in the long term.
I saw this when on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, as a result of which I converted my paid off house into a £350k mortgage. I faced the choice of either living like a trappist monk for 5 years, no holidays, no eating out, no drinking and ending up if I was lucky with a mortgage balance of £320k, or do as I pleased and end up with a mortgage of £340k. It made no material difference to my financial position whatever I did, but a very real one to my quality of life.
The previous generation, who had coffees and holidays that were 2-3 times as expensive in real terms, and housing 2-3 times cheaper, still view it through that prism.
The rising price of housing is a direct transfer of wealth from younger generations to older ones.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
It's the cost of housing. My daughters don't see any prospect of ever having enough money to buy a house, at least around where we live. And renting is even more expensive in the long term.
I saw this when on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, as a result of which I converted my paid off house into a £350k mortgage. I faced the choice of either living like a trappist monk for 5 years, no holidays, no eating out, no drinking and ending up if I was lucky with a mortgage balance of £320k, or do as I pleased and end up with a mortgage of £340k. It made no material difference to my financial position whatever I did, but a very real one to my quality of life.
The previous generation, who had coffees and holidays that were 2-3 times as expensive in real terms, and housing 2-3 times cheaper, still view it through that prism.
The rising price of housing is a direct transfer of wealth from younger generations to older ones.
I don't know if it is that simple. The older ones will eventually die, and leave it to the younger ones, nor do most older people gain benefits from the extra wealth - the quality of their housing doesn't change - only if they downsize and spend the money on, I don't know, a yacht.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Yes, but the answer isn't "socialism".
We must beware emotional kneejerk responses, not indulge in them.
Politico.com - Santos struggles in Fox News interview about lying and integrity Guest host Tulsi Gabbard came down hard on the New York congressman-elect, who has admitted to fabricating significant parts of his résumé and embellishing his background.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
An MI5 agent paid for Spanish holidays and Celtic football tickets for suspected leaders of the New IRA as he infiltrated the dissident republican terrorist group.
Details of Dennis McFadden’s mission inside the organisation, codenamed Operation Arbacia, have emerged in court hearings in Northern Ireland concerning criminal proceedings against ten people.
Security chiefs believe that the undercover operation — by “the man who was always there but was never really there” — has severely weakened the New IRA. It was the most dangerous terrorist group still operating in the province and was responsible for the murder of the journalist Lyra McKee in April 2019....
...McFadden told locals that he was a hotel inspector who travelled extensively to check the safety and standards of tourist accommodation. In reality he was a spy who, for more than 15 years, infiltrated the fragmented world of Irish republican splinter groups opposed to the 1998 peace agreement. His frequent absences from home were not to inspect hotels but for MI5 debriefing sessions.
By the end of his mission he held a leadership role in Saoradh, the group seen as the political wing of the dissident republican terrorist group known as the New IRA. McFadden arranged meetings that were bugged by the security service and led to the arrests in August 2020 of nine people suspected of making up the New IRA army council.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Yes, but the answer isn't "socialism".
We must beware emotional kneejerk responses, not indulge in them.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
The trouble with this sort of thinking is that you'll get a paradigm shift to something that's even worse, because it's a licence for snake-oil salesman.
Hold onto nurse for something worse, eh? Nope. That hasn’t worked. Turns out nurse has Munchausen’s syndrome.
An MI5 agent paid for Spanish holidays and Celtic football tickets for suspected leaders of the New IRA as he infiltrated the dissident republican terrorist group.
Details of Dennis McFadden’s mission inside the organisation, codenamed Operation Arbacia, have emerged in court hearings in Northern Ireland concerning criminal proceedings against ten people.
Security chiefs believe that the undercover operation — by “the man who was always there but was never really there” — has severely weakened the New IRA. It was the most dangerous terrorist group still operating in the province and was responsible for the murder of the journalist Lyra McKee in April 2019....
...McFadden told locals that he was a hotel inspector who travelled extensively to check the safety and standards of tourist accommodation. In reality he was a spy who, for more than 15 years, infiltrated the fragmented world of Irish republican splinter groups opposed to the 1998 peace agreement. His frequent absences from home were not to inspect hotels but for MI5 debriefing sessions.
By the end of his mission he held a leadership role in Saoradh, the group seen as the political wing of the dissident republican terrorist group known as the New IRA. McFadden arranged meetings that were bugged by the security service and led to the arrests in August 2020 of nine people suspected of making up the New IRA army council.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Yes, it’s sad, but that’s modern Toryism in a nutshell. See the Waugh quote cited upthread.
The idea that Keir or Labour are red in tooth and claw is silly.
Prediction: Labour will not meaningfully alter the percentage of GDP taken into tax beyond current levels.
Which is relatively low, by peer economy standards. As is redistribution, which is why the poor in the UK are actually very poor (though not as bad as the US) by first world standards.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
It's the cost of housing. My daughters don't see any prospect of ever having enough money to buy a house, at least around where we live. And renting is even more expensive in the long term.
I saw this when on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, as a result of which I converted my paid off house into a £350k mortgage. I faced the choice of either living like a trappist monk for 5 years, no holidays, no eating out, no drinking and ending up if I was lucky with a mortgage balance of £320k, or do as I pleased and end up with a mortgage of £340k. It made no material difference to my financial position whatever I did, but a very real one to my quality of life.
The previous generation, who had coffees and holidays that were 2-3 times as expensive in real terms, and housing 2-3 times cheaper, still view it through that prism.
The rising price of housing is a direct transfer of wealth from younger generations to older ones.
The idea that Keir or Labour are red in tooth and claw is silly.
Prediction: Labour will not meaningfully alter the percentage of GDP taken into tax beyond current levels.
Which is relatively low, by peer economy standards. As is redistribution, which is why the poor in the UK are actually very poor (though not as bad as the US) by first world standards.
It's entirely possible that the total tax take as a percentage of GDP will be lower under SKS than currently under this 'Tory' government.
Politico.com - Santos struggles in Fox News interview about lying and integrity Guest host Tulsi Gabbard came down hard on the New York congressman-elect, who has admitted to fabricating significant parts of his résumé and embellishing his background.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
An MI5 agent paid for Spanish holidays and Celtic football tickets for suspected leaders of the New IRA as he infiltrated the dissident republican terrorist group.
Details of Dennis McFadden’s mission inside the organisation, codenamed Operation Arbacia, have emerged in court hearings in Northern Ireland concerning criminal proceedings against ten people.
Security chiefs believe that the undercover operation — by “the man who was always there but was never really there” — has severely weakened the New IRA. It was the most dangerous terrorist group still operating in the province and was responsible for the murder of the journalist Lyra McKee in April 2019....
...McFadden told locals that he was a hotel inspector who travelled extensively to check the safety and standards of tourist accommodation. In reality he was a spy who, for more than 15 years, infiltrated the fragmented world of Irish republican splinter groups opposed to the 1998 peace agreement. His frequent absences from home were not to inspect hotels but for MI5 debriefing sessions.
By the end of his mission he held a leadership role in Saoradh, the group seen as the political wing of the dissident republican terrorist group known as the New IRA. McFadden arranged meetings that were bugged by the security service and led to the arrests in August 2020 of nine people suspected of making up the New IRA army council.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Labour always attacks private schools as redmeat for its base. Even centrist leaders like Blair and Starmer. Remember New Labour too removed assisted places after winning in 1997
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Precisely this.
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s when New Zealand was in the very avant-garde of monetarism, privatisation and deregulation.
I know all the reasons it happened, what it was reacting to, and even the successes it delivered.
But that shit turned toxic some time ago.
The solution is not Corbynism of course, and I’m not convinced Keir or Labour have very persuasive answers, but we desperately need a paradigm shift in the UK.
I think there is a problem with inter generational fairness that has been hugely exacerbated by covid, and the response to it. Take my parents. Dad retired at 57 after 30 years in the police, 8 previously in the Guards (which got him into the police directly - let’s say the interview wasn’t challenging). Mum worked on and off, ending up in the NHS. Been retired almost as long. Own their own detached house in a nice village. Obviously mortgage paid of long ago. Now the younger generations are faced with vastly longer careers, significantly worse pensions and the economy is broken. And yet the pensioners must have their triple lock, and not pay NI on earnings, even though they are the frequent fliers of the NHS. I don’t know what the answers are, but looking at high income retired folk and evening up tax across the generations would be a start. Put it this way, at 50 my Dad was 7 years off retirement. I’m probably 15 at the earliest, and even then I probably won’t match his lifestyle.
So many people have their own version of this, it’s astonishing.
And yet surveys show that something like 5/6 pensioners believe that the under 65s just need to stop eating avocado.
They mistake what are, essentially, trivial (yet very nice to have) things, with the core of the situation young people face.
But also the odd inversion that has happened over the last few decades. Things like mobile phones and flat screen TVs and holidays abroad used to be seriously expensive luxury goods, whereas housing was affordable. Now the prices are the other way round.
I disagree with the implicit equivalence here (as I read it).
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
It's the cost of housing. My daughters don't see any prospect of ever having enough money to buy a house, at least around where we live. And renting is even more expensive in the long term.
I saw this when on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, as a result of which I converted my paid off house into a £350k mortgage. I faced the choice of either living like a trappist monk for 5 years, no holidays, no eating out, no drinking and ending up if I was lucky with a mortgage balance of £320k, or do as I pleased and end up with a mortgage of £340k. It made no material difference to my financial position whatever I did, but a very real one to my quality of life.
The previous generation, who had coffees and holidays that were 2-3 times as expensive in real terms, and housing 2-3 times cheaper, still view it through that prism.
The rising price of housing is a direct transfer of wealth from younger generations to older ones.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
When it comes to thinking about how Labour is - and not - going to squeeze the rich, the best way to think about it is to concentrate on what does, and doesn't, impact it's wealthy band of North London supporters (I'm not joking by the way).
So I'm quite relaxed about the threat of higher taxes on property for example. Sure the Council Tax bands will be expanded but not outrageously so. There will be few serious meaningful attempts to tax property at high levels except possibly at the IHT levels but even there I don't think they will do much.
Same with pensions. Many of the supporters will have very nice pension schemes so expect these to be protected or even expanded (the lifetime allowance for example) on the grounds it gets older people back into work.
Shares are a little bit more in the middle. I don't think they will tamper with the business owners / self-employed so much although there may be some smallish moves there but a lot of their friends would fall into the bracket.
You are absolutely right though to be worried about private schools though. Red meat to the base but, maybe more to the point, there tends to be a mix to where they said their kids both state and private.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
The confusing thing about all of all this is that Labour is the "middle class" party, it gets many of its working age votes from affluent middle class professionals, university graduates etc. The private schools are at the vanguard of the "woke" zeitgeist. The tories are the blue collar party and have spent the last 7 years destroying its appeal to the middle classes. I've mentioned before, lots of private school parents are now labour voters whereas they would have previously voted conservative. So I don't really understand why labour would want to create such obvious financial problems to a small but quite important and influential group of voters in such a destructive way. 20% on £15k fees per year is another £3k, £6k per year for a 2 child family... Its a new £500 a month tax on these people. No one earns enough money for that to be an unnoticeable hit, it is quite significant.
This is a stupid policy, appealing to outdated notions of class war. I am in a similar position to casino and it is a issue in my case also. I think that Labour will come to regret this policy, particularly as you can investigate their MP's and look at how many of them have kids at private schools or went to them themselves... the perception will be that they are so priveleged they are unaffected by their own policy choices.
It's brilliant, isn't it? where did you go for that? I had a go in Banff a few years back, even got to try the mushing (spoiler: wasn't very good). If you're on Twitter, seek out Blair Braverman, who tweets about sled dogs and mushing. She did the Iditarod a few years back, and.following it online is great.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
When it comes to thinking about how Labour is - and not - going to squeeze the rich, the best way to think about it is to concentrate on what does, and doesn't, impact it's wealthy band of North London supporters (I'm not joking by the way).
So I'm quite relaxed about the threat of higher taxes on property for example. Sure the Council Tax bands will be expanded but not outrageously so. There will be few serious meaningful attempts to tax property at high levels except possibly at the IHT levels but even there I don't think they will do much.
Same with pensions. Many of the supporters will have very nice pension schemes so expect these to be protected or even expanded (the lifetime allowance for example) on the grounds it gets older people back into work.
Shares are a little bit more in the middle. I don't think they will tamper with the business owners / self-employed so much although there may be some smallish moves there but a lot of their friends would fall into the bracket.
You are absolutely right though to be worried about private schools though. Red meat to the base but, maybe more to the point, there tends to be a mix to where they said their kids both state and private.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Sometimes you have accept that the will of the people is based on faulty judgment.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Sometimes you have accept that the will of the people is based on faulty judgment.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Since you're rather a simple soul, that doesn't surprise me.
Several countries are insisting on testing for Chinese visitors when they arrive.
Oh, god, haven't we got over this nonsense yet?
It is quite funny that the Chinese government is so grumpy about it though, considering that up until pretty much just the other day they thought zero covid was the only way to go.
rcs1000 - It is certainly true that Bill Gates was not from a poverty-stricken family, and that he got a big head start from the computer at his private high school, Lakeside.
But that wasn't my point, rather that he dropped out of Harvard to start a company with his buddy, Paul Allen. And they didn't start it with much money from his family.
Let me make my question more directly: In your experience, are billionaires more likely to be drop-outs? From high school, college, or their first jobs?
Drop outs?
Definitely.
But many - perhaps most - of the self made billionaires had the advantage of parents who were relatively wealthy. And who were often able to, as in the case of Microsoft and Amazon among others, directly invest in their offsprings' business.
It seems you need to start with parents who have several “hundy” available to fund your first, second or third venture.
Anyone not born to well-off parents has made a poor life-choice tbf.
As noise goes railways are quite good. You know what sort of sound they'll make. Whereas foxes seem to deliberately invent new sounds which wake you up.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
The confusing thing about all of all this is that Labour is the "middle class" party, it gets many of its working age votes from affluent middle class professionals, university graduates etc. The private schools are at the vanguard of the "woke" zeitgeist. The tories are the blue collar party and have spent the last 7 years destroying its appeal to the middle classes. I've mentioned before, lots of private school parents are now labour voters whereas they would have previously voted conservative. So I don't really understand why labour would want to create such obvious financial problems to a small but quite important and influential group of voters in such a destructive way. 20% on £15k fees per year is another £3k, £6k per year for a 2 child family... Its a new £500 a month tax on these people. No one earns enough money for that to be an unnoticeable hit, it is quite significant.
This is a stupid policy, appealing to outdated notions of class war. I am in a similar position to casino and it is a issue in my case also. I think that Labour will come to regret this policy, particularly as you can investigate their MP's and look at how many of them have kids at private schools or went to them themselves... the perception will be that they are so priveleged they are unaffected by their own policy choices.
It is a stupid policy but it will be a popular one on the basis that most people can't afford it anyway and it looks like it hits those who can - not them.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
When it comes to thinking about how Labour is - and not - going to squeeze the rich, the best way to think about it is to concentrate on what does, and doesn't, impact it's wealthy band of North London supporters (I'm not joking by the way).
So I'm quite relaxed about the threat of higher taxes on property for example. Sure the Council Tax bands will be expanded but not outrageously so. There will be few serious meaningful attempts to tax property at high levels except possibly at the IHT levels but even there I don't think they will do much.
Same with pensions. Many of the supporters will have very nice pension schemes so expect these to be protected or even expanded (the lifetime allowance for example) on the grounds it gets older people back into work.
Shares are a little bit more in the middle. I don't think they will tamper with the business owners / self-employed so much although there may be some smallish moves there but a lot of their friends would fall into the bracket.
You are absolutely right though to be worried about private schools though. Red meat to the base but, maybe more to the point, there tends to be a mix to where they said their kids both state and private.
The problem Labour are going to have is that so many of the areas they would like to tax have already been nabbed by the Tories - and the consequences are turning out to be just as bad as some people warned.
The obvious example right now is the windfall tax. It was viewed by both Hunt and the Opposition as an easy source of income for the Government with no nasty side effects but the actual effect is to kill investment in the North Sea and wreck the Governments plans for increasing energy security. Indeed the medium term effect will probably be to reduce rather than increase overall tax take from the North Sea. Another example would be the pension fund raids in the late 90s and 2000s which saw people turn away from pensions as a source of retirement security and instead invest in property which then helped to drive the runaway housing market.
I have no idea whether the claims about hitting private schools and driving them out of business are accurate but if I were making policy plans right now I would have to have at least a modicum of concern that the unintended consequences of the tax plans might end up costing the country more than they make in the medium term.
Left-wing solutions will deliver the same outcomes that left-wing solutions always have.
The answer lies in shifting public spending to investing in our collective future (education, science, R&D and defence), reducing taxation on work, and encouraging greater productivity and innovation.
There’s nothing here that is not left wing and much here that is.
I dont think so.
Being left-wing is about taking a collectivist approach to the economy and wealth, which leads you down the path of redistribution and believing there's always further you could go.
My view is we spend too much on pensions, health and welfare and I'd reduce spending on those and pivot to the rest without further increasing the burden of taxation.
There are different left-isms, not all collectivist.
Regardless, what is clear is that shrinking the state and abandoning large parts of the economy to laissez-faire capitalism (which in turn has often mutated into hyper-financialisation, rentierism and monopolisation) has been an absolute shit-show.
And, yet, those policies worked well at the time and were widely imitated around the world. I think they were suitable to moving from a manufacturing to services economy that was more international and globalised.
Now, we are dealing with the blowback - but we shouldn't overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
But there are some good points raised there, look at our Water industry, saddled with debt, billions paid out in dividends to overseas PE and sovereign wealth funds, fuck all investment and we're a island nation that suffers from droughts. The government has done absolutely nothing to curb asset owners paying themselves lavish dividends from often borrowed money or reduced investment. In other countries the water industry would have been regulated into bankruptcy and the bond holders would have sold it to the state for not very much money after taking a pretty big haircut. Water isn't the only industry that is completely taken over by financial engineers.
Look at our major utilities and the investors in them, look at all of the income based funds that snap up UK assets because they know the government will sit idly while they load balance sheets up with debt, pay huge dividends and cut investment to zero.
Whatever we've been doing for the last 30-40 years hasn't worked, it's helped to enrich a few overseas investors but the people have got nothing for their money. Energy shortages, water shortages, raw sewage pumped into rivers and beaches, extremely expensive public transport that is 50 years out of date. But the PE owners have done very well for themselves.
Yes, but the answer isn't "socialism".
We must beware emotional kneejerk responses, not indulge in them.
SKS hates Socialism more than you.
I am not an SKS fan, but I will try and explain. Let's face it, socialism has been destructively tested over and over and been proven to be highly inefficient at best and murderous at worst. You would have to have the brain of an amoeba to believe in it (eg Jeremy Corbyn).
Thankfully by contrast to old "2 Es Corbyn", SKS does seem to be reasonably intelligent, so him hating socialism, or at least realising how dumb it is seems very likely, and as it seems very likely also that he will be PM then that is a relief to all but the most stupid.
Several countries are insisting on testing for Chinese visitors when they arrive.
Oh, god, haven't we got over this nonsense yet?
It is quite funny that the Chinese government is so grumpy about it though, considering that up until pretty much just the other day they thought zero covid was the only way to go.
On C4 news they reported that half of two planes arriving in Milan from China tested positive.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Since you're rather a simple soul, that doesn't surprise me.
You had a privileged education, you want your daughter to have a privileged education too. That figures, I guess.
Just don't be surprised if the 93% who didn't have that privilege and are never going to be able to give their children that privilege... don't give a fuck.
Politico.com - Santos struggles in Fox News interview about lying and integrity Guest host Tulsi Gabbard came down hard on the New York congressman-elect, who has admitted to fabricating significant parts of his résumé and embellishing his background.
Weirdly, she has no problem with Trump's... integrity issues.
But Tulsi Gabbard IS way better looking than Kari Lake. For what THAT's worth.
True enough!
However, two other possible considerations for TG and others of her ilk:
> Smart politics (personally & ideologically) to get in front of the parade denouncing George Santos, especially as he's already outed himself as a fraud.
> Whether or not Santos gets seated could well impact the math for - or more likely against - Kevin McCarthy (R-Weathervane) in his quest to become the next Speaker of the US House.
It's brilliant, isn't it? where did you go for that? I had a go in Banff a few years back, even got to try the mushing (spoiler: wasn't very good). If you're on Twitter, seek out Blair Braverman, who tweets about sled dogs and mushing. She did the Iditarod a few years back, and.following it online is great.
We're in Ruka, Finnish Lapland. I mushed (the photo was taken by my daughter). My dogs - and this is typical pf my experience of dogs - were berks. Dog 3 wanted to be at the front, dog 4 and dog 1 were having a protracted argument, dog 2 was running alongside ineffectually and dogs 5 and 6 got the wrong side of each other. Once the nice Finnish lady untangled them all they were much more effective and snapping away at the heels of the sled in front piloted by my wife. But it was awesome. Not just the dogs, but the landscape. I have never been sonewhere so uncompromising. I'm not that well travelled outside the UK, but I kind of thought Finland wouldn't feel that foreign. But it does. You pierce the clouds and miles and miles of boreal forest stare up at you impassively: "you won't last ten minutes on your own out here pal." And is is so, so COLD. And dark. And the Finns all look plausibly Elvish, and the language is otherworldly and everywhere looks made up. It is wonderful. Happy to report the family have also been skiing today and the daughters managed it successfully, while I snowboarded for the first time since Jan 2009, and my knees can still do it. This place is weird. And wonderful.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Prejudice rarely is swayed even by the tears of a child. I pity your heartlessness.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Superb post. Labour's attack on private schools won't impact the very rich very much, but it will have a huge impact on middle-income middle-class parents making huge sacrifices to give their children the best possible thing you can give a child in this life: the best possible education.
It really is a bit of class warfare designed as red meat for those who think all private schools are Eton, when in fact, the situation you describe above is much more likely to be the case. And utterly heartbreaking to hear the impact this policy would have on your daughter.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Problem is that even if what you say is 100% true - that private school (alongside places such as Eton) are the exception rather than the rule.
most offer the local community the square root of f all.
Politico.com - Santos struggles in Fox News interview about lying and integrity Guest host Tulsi Gabbard came down hard on the New York congressman-elect, who has admitted to fabricating significant parts of his résumé and embellishing his background.
Weirdly, she has no problem with Trump's... integrity issues.
But Tulsi Gabbard IS way better looking than Kari Lake. For what THAT's worth.
True enough!
However, two other possible considerations for TG and others of her ilk:
> Smart politics (personally & ideologically) to get in front of the parade denouncing George Santos, especially as he's already outed himself as a fraud.
> Whether or not Santos gets seated could well impact the math for - or more likely against - Kevin McCarthy (R-Weathervane) in his quest to become the next Speaker of the US House.
I very much hope Starmer turns out to be more leftwing than he appears to be. On the other hand, I think the charitable status policy, like the assisted places ban policy before it, is vacuous gesture politics nonsense, that ultimately will benefit the international money that just wants to take even more of these schools' places than before - and which also in fact suggests figleaves for the lack of real, radical and structurally thought out new policies, rather as New Labour used these too.
Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.
Seriously? Is that all the Conservatives have left? Then they truly are consigned to electoral oblivion.
Starmer is not going to take the UK back into the European Union - he may privately like the idea but any process of negotiating a return will take years and even then there's the small matter of the terms on which the EU would want us back - the Euro and Schengen - which Starmer knows will never be accepted.
He won't "bang on about Europe" if the Opposition Conservatives do.
If you think Labour Governments are all the same then the alternative is, however bad they are and however incompetent and venal, the Conservatives are always the better Party to have in Government.
Not really much point having elections at all then, is there?
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Problem is that even if what you say is 100% true - that private school (alongside places such as Eton) are the exception rather than the rule.
most offer the local community the square root of f all.
That is not necessarily true. Many parents that struggle to pay for independent schools (quite a large number) would have to use the state if fees were forced up by 20%. This would mean significantly more pressure on state schools.
Policy based on petty prejudice rarely turns out well. Private schools do seem to turn on some peoples' irrationality in an extreme and silly way. Often these are the same people who would be horrified if it were suggested that they should not holiday in the Maldives or eat in a Michelin star restaurant because others in society cannot afford them.
Prejudice and hypocrisy; the two principle vices of the middleclass left.
On the private school issue I wonder if private schools that specialise in soecial needs will be subject to the envy tax. We have a child with a social communication disorder exacerbated by the lockdowns. At present they are in a state school with 1 to 1 special needs help, but there is a private school near us that specialises in children with certain special needs. If they tax that out of existence it would be a pity.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
I’m glad to pay my share. In the meantime, I can’t understand how anyone with a brain cell can vote Conservative in the light of the past 12 months. They need a break.
You can't understand because you're a core Labour voter who wants a Labour government.
A Conservative government will certainly tax me heavily but a Labour government will squeeze my tit until it turns purple.
It’s better for people like us who can afford it to pay more than people who can’t. As for Labour taxing more, you’re out of date. The tax take is higher now than it has ever been. We’re taxed to pay for Conservative failure.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Since you're rather a simple soul, that doesn't surprise me.
You had a privileged education, you want your daughter to have a privileged education too. That figures, I guess.
Just don't be surprised if the 93% who didn't have that privilege and are never going to be able to give their children that privilege... don't give a fuck.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Problem is that even if what you say is 100% true - that private school (alongside places such as Eton) are the exception rather than the rule.
most offer the local community the square root of f all.
Apart from reducing the pressure on state schools.
I can’t find anything on what Labour want to achieve from this policy. Do they just want to raise a bit of revenue, or would they welcome a reduction in the number of kids educated privately?
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Since you're rather a simple soul, that doesn't surprise me.
You had a privileged education, you want your daughter to have a privileged education too. That figures, I guess.
Just don't be surprised if the 93% who didn't have that privilege and are never going to be able to give their children that privilege... don't give a fuck.
I think that people's 'lived experience' on this will be quite different, but I think that it is more than 7% who give some thought to the option of private schools. I've been working in (or with) the public sector at a professional level for the last 15 years, I'd estimate something like 50% of colleagues send their kids to private school and most colleagues consider it. These people are assumed to be 'natural labour voters'. But they don't particularly want the option taken away from them by way of a 'class war' tax. I think it isn't good politics.
For what it is worth... I went to private school for a few years and absolutely hated it. For many years I would have applauded this policy, until now I have my own children and have seen the problems with state schools in disadvantaged parts of the UK. I also live in a marginal constituency and think this policy (amongst other problems) will mean the tories hold the constituency in the next election. They've probably lost my vote over it.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Problem is that even if what you say is 100% true - that private school (alongside places such as Eton) are the exception rather than the rule.
most offer the local community the square root of f all.
That simply isn't true.
Most private schools offer 20-30% bursaries/ scholarships and do offer the local community the use of their facilities out of hours. They also employ more educators and teachers than the state would otherwise be able to, expanding the overall sector and pool of staff.
Meanwhile, those who attend are effectively donating their tax to spread the education around all those who choose not to do so.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
When it comes to thinking about how Labour is - and not - going to squeeze the rich, the best way to think about it is to concentrate on what does, and doesn't, impact it's wealthy band of North London supporters (I'm not joking by the way).
So I'm quite relaxed about the threat of higher taxes on property for example. Sure the Council Tax bands will be expanded but not outrageously so. There will be few serious meaningful attempts to tax property at high levels except possibly at the IHT levels but even there I don't think they will do much.
Same with pensions. Many of the supporters will have very nice pension schemes so expect these to be protected or even expanded (the lifetime allowance for example) on the grounds it gets older people back into work.
Shares are a little bit more in the middle. I don't think they will tamper with the business owners / self-employed so much although there may be some smallish moves there but a lot of their friends would fall into the bracket.
You are absolutely right though to be worried about private schools though. Red meat to the base but, maybe more to the point, there tends to be a mix to where they said their kids both state and private.
The problem Labour are going to have is that so many of the areas they would like to tax have already been nabbed by the Tories - and the consequences are turning out to be just as bad as some people warned.
The obvious example right now is the windfall tax. It was viewed by both Hunt and the Opposition as an easy source of income for the Government with no nasty side effects but the actual effect is to kill investment in the North Sea and wreck the Governments plans for increasing energy security. Indeed the medium term effect will probably be to reduce rather than increase overall tax take from the North Sea. Another example would be the pension fund raids in the late 90s and 2000s which saw people turn away from pensions as a source of retirement security and instead invest in property which then helped to drive the runaway housing market.
I have no idea whether the claims about hitting private schools and driving them out of business are accurate but if I were making policy plans right now I would have to have at least a modicum of concern that the unintended consequences of the tax plans might end up costing the country more than they make in the medium term.
That particular policy proposal isn't intended to raise money, though.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Superb post. Labour's attack on private schools won't impact the very rich very much, but it will have a huge impact on middle-income middle-class parents making huge sacrifices to give their children the best possible thing you can give a child in this life: the best possible education.
It really is a bit of class warfare designed as red meat for those who think all private schools are Eton, when in fact, the situation you describe above is much more likely to be the case. And utterly heartbreaking to hear the impact this policy would have on your daughter.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.
"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.
Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.
I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.
Casino told us some time ago what his salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the VAT on his daughter's school fees.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.
"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.
Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.
I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.
Casino told us some time ago what his salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the VAT on his daughter's school fees.
So you're saying he's lying when he says he won't be able to, and this policy would force his daughter away from her friends and the school she loves?
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.
"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.
Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.
I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.
Casino told us some time ago what his salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the VAT on his daughter's school fees.
So you're saying he's lying when he says he won't be able to, and this policy would force his daughter away from her friends and the school she loves?
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
When it comes to thinking about how Labour is - and not - going to squeeze the rich, the best way to think about it is to concentrate on what does, and doesn't, impact it's wealthy band of North London supporters (I'm not joking by the way).
So I'm quite relaxed about the threat of higher taxes on property for example. Sure the Council Tax bands will be expanded but not outrageously so. There will be few serious meaningful attempts to tax property at high levels except possibly at the IHT levels but even there I don't think they will do much.
Same with pensions. Many of the supporters will have very nice pension schemes so expect these to be protected or even expanded (the lifetime allowance for example) on the grounds it gets older people back into work.
Shares are a little bit more in the middle. I don't think they will tamper with the business owners / self-employed so much although there may be some smallish moves there but a lot of their friends would fall into the bracket.
You are absolutely right though to be worried about private schools though. Red meat to the base but, maybe more to the point, there tends to be a mix to where they said their kids both state and private.
The problem Labour are going to have is that so many of the areas they would like to tax have already been nabbed by the Tories - and the consequences are turning out to be just as bad as some people warned.
The obvious example right now is the windfall tax. It was viewed by both Hunt and the Opposition as an easy source of income for the Government with no nasty side effects but the actual effect is to kill investment in the North Sea and wreck the Governments plans for increasing energy security. Indeed the medium term effect will probably be to reduce rather than increase overall tax take from the North Sea. Another
example would be the pension fund raids in the late 90s and 2000s which saw people
turn away from pensions as a source of retirement security and instead invest in property which then helped to drive the runaway housing market.
I have no idea whether the claims about hitting private schools and driving them out of business are accurate but if I were making policy plans right now I would have to have at least a modicum of concern that the unintended consequences of the tax plans might end up costing the country more than they make in the medium term.
That particular policy proposal isn't intended to raise money, though.
Have Labour actually said that they hope putting VAT on school fees will reduce the number of kids going to private schools? Interesting if true.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.
Since you're rather a simple soul, that doesn't surprise me.
You had a privileged education, you want your daughter to have a privileged education too. That figures, I guess.
Just don't be surprised if the 93% who didn't have that privilege and are never going to be able to give their children that privilege... don't give a fuck.
Funny how a lot of people who are left leaning like to claim to be "caring". This post that is essentially showing a seething envy of a child shows how Labour supporters have just as many c*nts as the Tories do.
Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.
Seriously? Is that all the Conservatives have left? Then they truly are consigned to electoral oblivion.
Starmer is not going to take the UK back into the European Union - he may privately like the idea but any process of negotiating a return will take years and even then there's the small matter of the terms on which the EU would want us back - the Euro and Schengen - which Starmer knows will never be accepted.
He won't "bang on about Europe" if the Opposition Conservatives do.
If you think Labour Governments are all the same then the alternative is, however bad they are and however incompetent and venal, the Conservatives are always the better Party to have in Government.
Not really much point having elections at all then, is there?
We are simply in core vote territory. There are many who despite their acceptance that the current government is venal, cruel and incompetent will still put their cross in the Conservative box. They will also turn out to vote. There is a Labour core vote too.
These are not the people that decide elections, they are the people that make safe seats safe.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
I’m glad to pay my share. In the meantime, I can’t understand how anyone with a brain cell can vote Conservative in the light of the past 12 months. They need a break.
You can't understand because you're a core Labour voter who wants a Labour government.
A Conservative government will certainly tax me heavily but a Labour government will squeeze my tit until it turns purple.
It’s better for people like us who can afford it to pay more than people who can’t. As for Labour taxing more, you’re out of date. The tax take is higher now than it has ever been. We’re taxed to pay for Conservative failure.
No, we're being taxed to pay for our parents generation who are simply the most selfish to have existed. They hollowed out investment for current spending and tax cuts, now they're putting up taxes on working people to fund their lavish DB and state pensions and to seemingly live forever. We're in the shit because the generation above bought all the houses, restricted supply of new houses, cut state and private investment in favour of current spending and dividends, retired with mostly unfunded DB pensions paid out of current spending by the state and companies as well as state pensions on top. Retirees are soon going to be the largest proportion of higher rate tax payers. As more people retire on very, very generous DB pensions plus state pensions and other private income like rent/dividends.
"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics. But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.
If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."
Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.
The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.
10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.
You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.
Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.
Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.
Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Superb post. Labour's attack on private schools won't impact the very rich very much, but it will have a huge impact on middle-income middle-class parents making huge sacrifices to give their children the best possible thing you can give a child in this life: the best possible education.
It really is a bit of class warfare designed as red meat for those who think all private schools are Eton, when in fact, the situation you describe above is much more likely to be the case. And utterly heartbreaking to hear the impact this policy would have on your daughter.
Where I come from middle class people don't send their children to private school. Education in the south of England is weird but not representative of the rest of the country.
Politico.com - Santos struggles in Fox News interview about lying and integrity Guest host Tulsi Gabbard came down hard on the New York congressman-elect, who has admitted to fabricating significant parts of his résumé and embellishing his background.
Weirdly, she has no problem with Trump's... integrity issues.
But Tulsi Gabbard IS way better looking than Kari Lake. For what THAT's worth.
True enough!
However, two other possible considerations for TG and others of her ilk:
> Smart politics (personally & ideologically) to get in front of the parade denouncing George Santos, especially as he's already outed himself as a fraud.
> Whether or not Santos gets seated could well impact the math for - or more likely against - Kevin McCarthy (R-Weathervane) in his quest to become the next Speaker of the US House.
Gabbard isn't in any party.
She has joined the MAGA tendency, and is talked about as a potential VP pick for the GOP. (Given the galley of absolute steamers they have, that’s not completely impossible.)
Comments
What is required is a simple, steady increase in the water quality/pollution regulations over a previously well defined period of time.
In multiple industries, this kind of steady, progressive improvement in standards, scheduled over years has quietly, and without fuss massively improved matters.
In fact such regulated improvement in standards has already changed the water industry a lot over the last 30 years
The demented AllDevelopmentIsEvul thing has been applied to reservoirs.
I actually asked a civil servant why there was a target for reducing water usage per head. He says climate change - C02 released by per ton of water processed. I pointed out that we are not long from net zero in planning terms (a few decades)
And that since you could use wind/solar to process and store water, you could in effect store energy in the form of either water pumped into reservoirs or as processed water in holding.
He kind of flapped his mouth.
An aunt has her late husbands company pension (maxed out the contributions), her pension, a big pile of shares (from always saving 25% net income), the house (paid off).
They didn’t spend lots - even their holidays abroad (which they did a fair bit of) were the cheapest possible stuff - often camping from the car as they drove round Europe.
In fact, I think the over did the savings and should have spent a bit more while they were active.
Yes, capitalism (and globalisation) has done its thing and given us smartphones and low-cost airlines.
But a previous generation got penicillin, washing machines and in-door loos. *And* they could also afford housing.
I am very attracted to the housing theory of everything.
I saw this when on the wrong end of a divorce settlement, as a result of which I converted my paid off house into a £350k mortgage. I faced the choice of either living like a trappist monk for 5 years, no holidays, no eating out, no drinking and ending up if I was lucky with a mortgage balance of £320k, or do as I pleased and end up with a mortgage of £340k. It made no material difference to my financial position whatever I did, but a very real one to my quality of life.
The previous generation, who had coffees and holidays that were 2-3 times as expensive in real terms, and housing 2-3 times cheaper, still view it through that prism.
We must beware emotional kneejerk responses, not indulge in them.
A Conservative government will certainly tax me heavily but a Labour government will squeeze my tit until it turns purple.
And you'll be pleased to know I did a video about that... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDjdXl9IUdc&t=498s&ab_channel=RobertSmithson
I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.
"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.
They certainly can.
Guest host Tulsi Gabbard came down hard on the New York congressman-elect, who has admitted to fabricating significant parts of his résumé and embellishing his background.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/28/tulsi-gabbard-grills-rep-elect-santos-on-lies-about-his-credentials-00075676
Tulsi Gabbard grills Santos over his admitted lies on Fox.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDqcMkNKr4
Addendum:
George Santos on 'Tucker Carlson Tonight': 'I made a mistake'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3sC1Ha2JwU
An MI5 agent paid for Spanish holidays and Celtic football tickets for suspected leaders of the New IRA as he infiltrated the dissident republican terrorist group.
Details of Dennis McFadden’s mission inside the organisation, codenamed Operation Arbacia, have emerged in court hearings in Northern Ireland concerning criminal proceedings against ten people.
Security chiefs believe that the undercover operation — by “the man who was always there but was never really there” — has severely weakened the New IRA. It was the most dangerous terrorist group still operating in the province and was responsible for the murder of the journalist Lyra McKee in April 2019....
...McFadden told locals that he was a hotel inspector who travelled extensively to check the safety and standards of tourist accommodation. In reality he was a spy who, for more than 15 years, infiltrated the fragmented world of Irish republican splinter groups opposed to the 1998 peace agreement. His frequent absences from home were not to inspect hotels but for MI5 debriefing sessions.
By the end of his mission he held a leadership role in Saoradh, the group seen as the political wing of the dissident republican terrorist group known as the New IRA. McFadden arranged meetings that were bugged by the security service and led to the arrests in August 2020 of nine people suspected of making up the New IRA army council.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/mi5-agent-new-ira-leaders-spanish-villa-holidays-infiltrated-group-gdng3sz58
Nope. That hasn’t worked. Turns out nurse has Munchausen’s syndrome.
Prediction: Labour will not meaningfully alter the percentage of GDP taken into tax beyond current levels.
Which is relatively low, by peer economy standards. As is redistribution, which is why the poor in the UK are actually very poor (though not as bad as the US) by first world standards.
Plus of course if your parents own property you will ultimately inherit it (provided they avoid residential care costs)
My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.
The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.
At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.
Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.
The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?
It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.
Guess which country isn't doing so. No prizes.
https://twitter.com/GraceCuddihy/status/1608075003794186241?s=20&t=Wkbo5QTgFj-ouPqgCGdDGQ
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/property/huge-5-bedroom-art-deco-7964609
Much better value round here than down South.
So I'm quite relaxed about the threat of higher taxes on property for example. Sure the Council Tax bands will be expanded but not outrageously so. There will be few serious meaningful attempts to tax property at high levels except possibly at the IHT levels but even there I don't think they will do much.
Same with pensions. Many of the supporters will have very nice pension schemes so expect these to be protected or even expanded (the lifetime allowance for example) on the grounds it gets older people back into work.
Shares are a little bit more in the middle. I don't think they will tamper with the business owners / self-employed so much although there may be some smallish moves there but a lot of their friends would fall into the bracket.
You are absolutely right though to be worried about private schools though. Red meat to the base but, maybe more to the point, there tends to be a mix to where they said their kids both state and private.
This is a stupid policy, appealing to outdated notions of class war. I am in a similar position to casino and it is a issue in my case also. I think that Labour will come to regret this policy, particularly as you can investigate their MP's and look at how many of them have kids at private schools or went to them themselves... the perception will be that they are so priveleged they are unaffected by their own policy choices.
If you're on Twitter, seek out Blair Braverman, who tweets about sled dogs and mushing. She did the Iditarod a few years back, and.following it online is great.
The obvious example right now is the windfall tax. It was viewed by both Hunt and the Opposition as an easy source of income for the Government with no nasty side effects but the actual effect is to kill investment in the North Sea and wreck the Governments plans for increasing energy security. Indeed the medium term effect will probably be to reduce rather than increase overall tax take from the North Sea. Another example would be the pension fund raids in the late 90s and 2000s which saw people turn away from pensions as a source of retirement security and instead invest in property which then helped to drive the runaway housing market.
I have no idea whether the claims about hitting private schools and driving them out of business are accurate but if I were making policy plans right now I would have to have at least a modicum of concern that the unintended consequences of the tax plans might end up costing the country more than they make in the medium term.
Thankfully by contrast to old "2 Es Corbyn", SKS does seem to be reasonably intelligent, so him hating socialism, or at least realising how dumb it is seems very likely, and as it seems very likely also that he will be PM then that is a relief to all but the most stupid.
As we doctors say: There is a lot of it about!
Just don't be surprised if the 93% who didn't have that privilege and are never going to be able to give their children that privilege... don't give a fuck.
True enough!
However, two other possible considerations for TG and others of her ilk:
> Smart politics (personally & ideologically) to get in front of the parade denouncing George Santos, especially as he's already outed himself as a fraud.
> Whether or not Santos gets seated could well impact the math for - or more likely against - Kevin McCarthy (R-Weathervane) in his quest to become the next Speaker of the US House.
I mushed (the photo was taken by my daughter).
My dogs - and this is typical pf my experience of dogs - were berks. Dog 3 wanted to be at the front, dog 4 and dog 1 were having a protracted argument, dog 2 was running alongside ineffectually and dogs 5 and 6 got the wrong side of each other.
Once the nice Finnish lady untangled them all they were much more effective and snapping away at the heels of the sled in front piloted by my wife.
But it was awesome. Not just the dogs, but the landscape. I have never been sonewhere so uncompromising. I'm not that well travelled outside the UK, but I kind of thought Finland wouldn't feel that foreign. But it does. You pierce the clouds and miles and miles of boreal forest stare up at you impassively: "you won't last ten minutes on your own out here pal." And is is so, so COLD. And dark. And the Finns all look plausibly Elvish, and the language is otherworldly and everywhere looks made up. It is wonderful.
Happy to report the family have also been skiing today and the daughters managed it successfully, while I snowboarded for the first time since Jan 2009, and my knees can still do it.
This place is weird. And wonderful.
It really is a bit of class warfare designed as red meat for those who think all private schools are Eton, when in fact, the situation you describe above is much more likely to be the case. And utterly heartbreaking to hear the impact this policy would have on your daughter.
most offer the local community the square root of f all.
Starmer is not going to take the UK back into the European Union - he may privately like the idea but any process of negotiating a return will take years and even then there's the small matter of the terms on which the EU would want us back - the Euro and Schengen - which Starmer knows will never be accepted.
He won't "bang on about Europe" if the Opposition Conservatives do.
If you think Labour Governments are all the same then the alternative is, however bad they are and however incompetent and venal, the Conservatives are always the better Party to have in Government.
Not really much point having elections at all then, is there?
Policy based on petty prejudice rarely turns out well. Private schools do seem to turn on some peoples' irrationality in an extreme and silly way. Often these are the same people who would be horrified if it were suggested that they should not holiday in the Maldives or eat in a Michelin star restaurant because others in society cannot afford them.
Prejudice and hypocrisy; the two principle vices of the middleclass left.
I can’t find anything on what Labour want to achieve from this policy. Do they just want to raise a bit of revenue, or would they welcome a reduction in the number of kids educated privately?
For what it is worth... I went to private school for a few years and absolutely hated it. For many years I would have applauded this policy, until now I have my own children and have seen the problems with state schools in disadvantaged parts of the UK. I also live in a marginal constituency and think this policy (amongst other problems) will mean the tories hold the constituency in the next election. They've probably lost my vote over it.
Most private schools offer 20-30% bursaries/ scholarships and do offer the local community the use of their facilities out of hours. They also employ more educators and teachers than the state would otherwise be able to, expanding the overall sector and pool of staff.
Meanwhile, those who attend are effectively donating their tax to spread the education around all those who choose not to do so.
Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.
I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.
Casino told us some time ago what his salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the VAT on his daughter's school fees.
There is a Labour core vote too.
These are not the people that decide elections, they are the people that make safe seats safe.
(Given the galley of absolute steamers they have, that’s not completely impossible.)