Keir Starmer’s cabinet would be the most state-educated in history – fascinating stat from @melissadenes’ excellent longread on private schools. https://t.co/LhulhWzV0W pic.twitter.com/wnBfGJQMgX
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
The self-righteous often think they can say outrageous things and get away with it. *they* said it so it must be true.
Witness Andy MacDonald. A moron’s moron. Says something deliberately / cretinously stupid and has the whip withdrawn. Then Tory Mince MP comes along, claims Andy Moron said some even more outrageous and not only gets sued, he manages to give credibility to Moron.
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
Nah. Plants are more intelligent. Have you seen how sunflowers can tilt themselves to track the Sun?
Actually, both Lee and Sue are victims of the Shock Jock trap. Once you make a career out of saying the unsayable, you have to keep going. At some point, unless you're very clever, you end up saying something that really really shouldn't be said.
Interesting theory about Trump's defence to the Jan 6 charges.
A BRIEF THREAD: Back in 2014, Republican Bob McDonnell was convicted of bribery. But he successfully argued to SCOTUS that the bribery laws were too vague and ambiguous, and he got his conviction thrown out. 1/ In 2021, when the 1/6 committee was pushing for Electoral Count Act Reform, a bunch of republicans were on board. I thought SURELY they’re only supportive because it gives Donald a reason to appeal future convictions for violating the Electoral Count Act. 2/ SURE ENOUGH, tonight, Donald posts this on truth social... https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1721362282733867235
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
The self-righteous often think they can say outrageous things and get away with it. *they* said it so it must be true.
Witness Andy MacDonald. A moron’s moron. Says something deliberately / cretinously stupid and has the whip withdrawn. Then Tory Mince MP comes along, claims Andy Moron said some even more outrageous and not only gets sued, he manages to give credibility to Moron.
What do you get from rabid, vitriolic, invective ? It used to be Laura Pillock too. Why ? Does it feel good to resort to student politics level of name calling.
Politics is not in a great place now. Is it any wonder.
Interesting theory about Trump's defence to the Jan 6 charges.
A BRIEF THREAD: Back in 2014, Republican Bob McDonnell was convicted of bribery. But he successfully argued to SCOTUS that the bribery laws were too vague and ambiguous, and he got his conviction thrown out. 1/ In 2021, when the 1/6 committee was pushing for Electoral Count Act Reform, a bunch of republicans were on board. I thought SURELY they’re only supportive because it gives Donald a reason to appeal future convictions for violating the Electoral Count Act. 2/ SURE ENOUGH, tonight, Donald posts this on truth social... https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1721362282733867235
Oh. Guess who was the prosecutor in the Bob McDonnell case.
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
Nah. Plants are more intelligent. Have you seen how sunflowers can tilt themselves to track the Sun?
Actually, both Lee and Sue are victims of the Shock Jock trap. Once you make a career out of saying the unsayable, you have to keep going. At some point, unless you're very clever, you end up saying something that really really shouldn't be said.
This happens to politicians and commentators from all sides, and is encouraged by social media - which rewards invective and hyperbole.
Good morning everybody. Very pleasant here at the moment.
Very bravely, the Guardian has published what it describes as a complete guide to the Israel/Palestine crisis. I haven’t had time to read it yet! Not all of it anyway.
It's raining pretty heavily. The current weather forecast is for light cloud. Hmm.
As ever, which forecast. If you are referring to an app, that’s auto generated from raw model data. If it’s a forecast from a meteorologist then check when it was made (bbc local forecasts on Breakfast are from the evening before).
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
In any case the liberal elite is just anyone in a position of influence in society whom they disagree with. So Angela Rayner probably qualifies as liberal elite.
It just isn't true that Labour is conducting a 'war' on a particular group of parents. They plan to remove a tax exemption (VAT) from a particular range of services for a group of people who on the whole receive quite a few tax exemptions.
At the same time people on minimum wage pay VAT on a massive range of basic items.
I don't especially like this Labour policy, and have no problem with private schools but class war it is not.
Most private schools do not deserve special treatment on the basis of being charities. Some, but very few, do so operate, but basically charging loads to offer a service which would be a charitable service if provided free at the point of need is no more a charity in the public eye than Lidl. Foodbanks mat be a charity but Waitrose isn't.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
'The fact so many of Starmer’s cabinet went to state school is likely to explain their war on brilliant parents who contribute their taxes to state education but send their children to private schools as not to take away resources from the less fortunate’
Now that Mike is taking more of a back seat I really hope we can keep provocation off this site. The internet is full of trolling and this site can be above it.
There’s a debate to be had but not by deliberately winding-up @TSE
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
It just isn't true that Labour is conducting a 'war' on a particular group of parents. They plan to remove a tax exemption (VAT) from a particular range of services for a group of people who on the whole receive quite a few tax exemptions.
At the same time people on minimum wage pay VAT on a massive range of basic items.
I don't especially like this Labour policy, and have no problem with private schools but class war it is not.
Most private schools do not deserve special treatment on the basis of being charities. Some, but very few, do so operate, but basically charging loads to offer a service which would be a charitable service if provided free at the point of need is no more a charity in the public eye than Lidl. Foodbanks mat be a charity but Waitrose isn't.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
It's not surprising - and it wouldn't surprise me if Labour can reduce that LD and Green percentage even further as its made clear to people that it's first past the post and you can't select your preferred no chance of winning candidate as your first preference with the least worst possible winner as your second choice.
'The fact so many of Starmer’s cabinet went to state school is likely to explain their war on brilliant parents who contribute their taxes to state education but send their children to private schools as not to take away resources from the less fortunate’
Now that Mike is taking more of a back seat I really hope we can keep provocation off this site. The internet is full of trolling and this site can be above it.
There’s a debate to be had but not by deliberately winding-up @TSE
Peace to all
xx
Are you new here?
I have, inter alia, wound up Nats, Brexiteers, Corbynites, the DUP, and nuttier Tories, it is one of the perks of the job.
I’m house sitting for a friend in Falmouth. Massive house, sea views. All I gotta do is feed the cats
Could be worse. But I just don’t get pets. Cats are amusing sometimes but that’s it. All they do is loll around sleeping meantime you have to let them in and out and feed them disgusting food and then they sleep some more
What is it? Why pets? Why cats and dogs? Why can’t people cope without a stupid domesticated mammal that’s basically in a comfortable jail and had no purpose other than to mildly entertain?
It’s like slavery. Pet owners are inadequate twats
Talking of Falmouth, probably no constituency in the country responded more favourably to Jeremy Corbyn's leadership of the Labour Party than Truro & Falmouth. In 2015 Labour were on 15.2%, in 2017 they got 37.7% and then 38.3% in 2019.
The thing I find interesting about the graph in the OP is that May's cabinet was only 30% private school educated, massively out of line with the other Tory cabinets both before and after. Anybody know why? Did she have a different set of people she favoured who happened to be eg younger, or was she deliberately after a more diverse range of backgrounds, or what?
This is great news to wake up to on a Monday morning. It'll be good to have the country governed by people who haven't been purposefully separated from their fellow country-people and taught from a young age to consider themselves superior. The mixture of cockiness, ignorance and indifference thus induced has so often proved fatal (to the rest of us).
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Toffs like TSE only call it class warfare when us proles get uppity.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
No other developed country has the same social division in schooling that we have here. It’s a symptom, rather than a cause, of our deep rooted class system.
I don’t know what the solution is, but we’re not going to solve it in a couple of years. I’d like so see the currently very stark boundary between state and private provision much blurrier and less of a cliff edge.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Toffs like TSE only call it class warfare when us proles get uppity.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
The thing I find interesting about the graph in the OP is that May's cabinet was only 30% private school educated, massively out of line with the other Tory cabinets both before and after. Anybody know why? Did she have a different set of people she favoured who happened to be eg younger, or was she deliberately after a more diverse range of backgrounds, or what?
There's a problem with these categorisations when someone was partly privately and partly state educated, like Theresa May herself.
Interesting theory about Trump's defence to the Jan 6 charges.
A BRIEF THREAD: Back in 2014, Republican Bob McDonnell was convicted of bribery. But he successfully argued to SCOTUS that the bribery laws were too vague and ambiguous, and he got his conviction thrown out. 1/ In 2021, when the 1/6 committee was pushing for Electoral Count Act Reform, a bunch of republicans were on board. I thought SURELY they’re only supportive because it gives Donald a reason to appeal future convictions for violating the Electoral Count Act. 2/ SURE ENOUGH, tonight, Donald posts this on truth social... https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1721362282733867235
One of the most fascinating aspects of Trump is how almost everything he says means the exact opposite of the words used in the sentence and we could start with the phrase "Truth Social"
On the subject of solicitors, looks like the BMA legal eagles have done excellent work on 30p Lee. A contribution to the BMA strike fund from the Deputy Chair of the Tory Party shows they have a sense of humour too.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
Whilst putting VAT of private school fees might be a net positive for Government finances are Labour proposing to put some of the moneys raised from the imposition of VAT into the Education budget to cater for a larger state educated sector?
If not state schools will suffer as there will be some reduction in pupils being sent to private schools.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
My guess is they are not being asked because, to the bulk of the questioners, the release of hostages is not actually seen as critical. I agree with you they should be asked and (my guess) is their answer would be suitably vague and along the lines of "of course, we want to protect innocent lives but Israel first has to stop its bombardment..." and to kick the issue into the grass.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
I was struck by the comment of the resigning councillor interviewed this morning accusing Starmer of "doing anything to win the next election", and "neglecting the grass roots".
If those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
There’s an awful lot of very good North London state schools, to which the elites in politics and media love to talk about sending their children. They’re totally available to absolutely everyone who can afford one of the £1m houses in the very small catchment area.
Whilst putting VAT of private school fees might be a net positive for Government finances are Labour proposing to put some of the moneys raised from the imposition of VAT into the Education budget to cater for a larger state educated sector?
If not state schools will suffer as there will be some reduction in pupils being sent to private schools.
Depends how you do the modelling. How much will private schools absorb the hit, how much will parents be put off? Most (but not all) sets of assumptions show the state coming out ahead.
The other thing to note is that the baby bust that started in the 2010s is now now hitting primary schools and is set to wash up on secondaries soon. There are going to be quite a lot of schools with empty places in the next few years.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
I was struck by the comment of the resigning councillor interviewed this morning accusing Starmer of "doing anything to win the next election", and "neglecting the grass roots".
I those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
This is a topic I often argue with friends who say to "trust that SKS will provide a better government, he's saying this to win the election and once he's in he'll govern differently". I'm with the LBJ biographer who said power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. And what SKS has revealed during his time as Labour leader is a deep cynicism and distaste towards policy solutions that are left of centre, an aversion for combating the systems that lead to inequality, and a willingness to come down extremely hard on Labour members and politicians who do not stick to his party line. The purges that were warned about happening under Corbyn never materialised, but SKS has done it on a much grander scale and nobody blushes. He is an authoritarian, using party procedure to narrow the acceptable debates in the party.
It is not surprising that he has extremely low personal favourability ratings given the polling for the Labour party - because he isn't winning the argument, Sunak and the Conservatives have just lost it and SKS is left holding the bag. If he continues like this he will be a very unpopular PM, potentially with a very large mandate, which could result in a quick flip back to Conservative rule.
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
There’s an awful lot of very good North London state schools, to which the elites in politics and media love to talk about sending their children. They’re totally available to absolutely everyone who can afford one of the £1m houses in the very small catchment area.
I gather there are some very good state schools in Leeds, although you can’t say the same of at least a few of their alumni.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
Whilst putting VAT of private school fees might be a net positive for Government finances are Labour proposing to put some of the moneys raised from the imposition of VAT into the Education budget to cater for a larger state educated sector?
If not state schools will suffer as there will be some reduction in pupils being sent to private schools.
Depends how you do the modelling. How much will private schools absorb the hit, how much will parents be put off? Most (but not all) sets of assumptions show the state coming out ahead.
The other thing to note is that the baby bust that started in the 2010s is now now hitting primary schools and is set to wash up on secondaries soon. There are going to be quite a lot of schools with empty places in the next few years.
Just as well given the number of schools whose roofs are about to collapse. The sites can be sold off for housing and because the families who move into these homes will never have children, this will not create a shortage of school places in five or ten years time.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
That's a very long preamble to answering the question, which you never quite got round to.
BTW I am one of the votes Sir K needs - he needs two or three million Tory switchers. Because the Tories are so awful it would be hard to lose me, but he would if he lost sight of the events of 7th October or the continuing war crime of the hostages, and failed to prioritise Israel's defence against a group which would repeat the holocaust if they could.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more.
That actually removes the main benefit of eton - the friends you make there are what makes Eton, Eton...
As in the outside world, people in the branch offices don't get the opportunities those in head office get..
It will be interesting to see if that is confirmed by other polls. I do tend to suspect there was a wobble coming up to and just after ULEZ expansion, but that it turned out to be the dog that didn't bark in that many people who expected to be affected were not.
I do wonder with the London Mayoral election whether Rory Stewart might have chosen the wrong election when he briefly threw his hat into the ring for 2020 (withdrawing when it was postponed). Khan has been there a long while, Hall is scraping the barrel, the field is uninspiring, and there is probably an opening for a credible independent. But he's ruled himself out and I don't see where another one may emerge from.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
There are ‘branches’ of several British private schools in Bangkok. Don’t know how well the students turn out.
I'm in Suella's constituency and I've seen her talk about 'cultural marxism' in a public meeting. I suspect that most people there didn't have a clue what she meant. Now she's talking about 'lifestyle choices'. Am I the only one to have noticed that the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives also likes talking about 'lifestyle choices'. He thinks that homosexuality is one of those choices. I wonder if Suella agrees. See the link below for Pete Buttigieg's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22VWUf2NA-M
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I think you need to reconsider your stance and see if you can make it more betterer.
Basically, no change on the previous poll by the same pollsters in August, but this is the highest DUP result since the last Assembly election, and the lowest UUP or TUV result.
It's raining pretty heavily. The current weather forecast is for light cloud. Hmm.
As ever, which forecast. If you are referring to an app, that’s auto generated from raw model data. If it’s a forecast from a meteorologist then check when it was made (bbc local forecasts on Breakfast are from the evening before).
Northern England is in a NW-ly airflow which is bringing showers. By their nature it is hard to predict exactly where a shower will land. One of the defects of weather apps is that most of them obscure this uncertainty and present a deterministic forecast as though the location and timing of each individual shower can be forecast (even if they show percentage rainfall probabilities, they will still show a symbol for the most likely weather).
Criticising a weather forecast for a positional error on a rain shower of perhaps as little as a few km is a bit harsh.
If you want a nowcast then look at the rainfall radar or satellite pictures (or out of the window).
As the chart shows most Labour cabinets tend to be majority state educated and most Tory cabinets majority privately educated. May's being the only Conservative cabinet of recent times where most Ministers went to state school (although most Conservative MPs now went to state schools even if most of Sunak's cabinet didn't).
No surprise Labour again proposing measures against private schools by ending their VAT exemption as Blair ended assisted places. Despite the fact that just makes access to private schools even more restricted and reduces their incentive to share facilities with the local community.
Starmer is of course himself privately educated, as most Labour general election winning PMs are, see also Attlee and Blair. Only Harold Wilson of election winning Labour PMs had his school education entirely in state schools
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
There’s an awful lot of very good North London state schools, to which the elites in politics and media love to talk about sending their children. They’re totally available to absolutely everyone who can afford one of the £1m houses in the very small catchment area.
When I was doing my PhD I did some voluntary work helping refugee kids at Havelock school in Chalk Farm, the Milibands' old school close to chichi Primrose Hill. It was just like any other London comprehensive school - a very diverse intake, lots of kids on free school meals, energetic but overworked teachers, packed out classrooms, a kind of frenetic energy to the place. Very like my kids' school and not dissimilar to my own school although that was 99% white. I think a lot of the "elite comprehensive schools with £2mn houses the price of entry" crowd have probably never even set foot in a comprehensive school of any description.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
I was struck by the comment of the resigning councillor interviewed this morning accusing Starmer of "doing anything to win the next election", and "neglecting the grass roots".
I those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
This is a topic I often argue with friends who say to "trust that SKS will provide a better government, he's saying this to win the election and once he's in he'll govern differently". I'm with the LBJ biographer who said power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. And what SKS has revealed during his time as Labour leader is a deep cynicism and distaste towards policy solutions that are left of centre, an aversion for combating the systems that lead to inequality, and a willingness to come down extremely hard on Labour members and politicians who do not stick to his party line. The purges that were warned about happening under Corbyn never materialised, but SKS has done it on a much grander scale and nobody blushes. He is an authoritarian, using party procedure to narrow the acceptable debates in the party.
It is not surprising that he has extremely low personal favourability ratings given the polling for the Labour party - because he isn't winning the argument, Sunak and the Conservatives have just lost it and SKS is left holding the bag. If he continues like this he will be a very unpopular PM, potentially with a very large mandate, which could result in a quick flip back to Conservative rule.
The argument that under Sir K the Labour party will be so right/centrist that those disaffected with this from the left will enable the Tories to take over is odd.
In reality the Overton window for election winning is very narrow. It involves: massive state management of society, highly regulated private enterprise, an expensive welfare/health state, absolute commitment to defence of the the west and law and order. This is not where either Tory or Labour membership is, but the voters are.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more.
I initially read that as ‘Elon will’ and thought what’s he going to fuck around with now.
It’s odd that some of the AI chickenlickens are also in favour of preserving our thumb on the scale education system. If we (or more likely subsequent generations) are looking at long years of inactivity, presumably we’ll need cataclysmic change in our methods of educating people. I suspect they instinctively think they should reap as much advantage for their genetic line as possible while they can.
I'm in Suella's constituency and I've seen her talk about 'cultural marxism' in a public meeting. I suspect that most people there didn't have a clue what she meant. Now she's talking about 'lifestyle choices'. Am I the only one to have noticed that the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives also likes talking about 'lifestyle choices'. He thinks that homosexuality is one of those choices. I wonder if Suella agrees. See the link below for Pete Buttigieg's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22VWUf2NA-M
There's a seamless relationship between the Tory right and the Republicans' lunatic fringe, the same talking points, the same ideology, the same training, the same backers. It's a well-resourced international movement.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
I was struck by the comment of the resigning councillor interviewed this morning accusing Starmer of "doing anything to win the next election", and "neglecting the grass roots".
I those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
This is a topic I often argue with friends who say to "trust that SKS will provide a better government, he's saying this to win the election and once he's in he'll govern differently". I'm with the LBJ biographer who said power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. And what SKS has revealed during his time as Labour leader is a deep cynicism and distaste towards policy solutions that are left of centre, an aversion for combating the systems that lead to inequality, and a willingness to come down extremely hard on Labour members and politicians who do not stick to his party line. The purges that were warned about happening under Corbyn never materialised, but SKS has done it on a much grander scale and nobody blushes. He is an authoritarian, using party procedure to narrow the acceptable debates in the party.
It is not surprising that he has extremely low personal favourability ratings given the polling for the Labour party - because he isn't winning the argument, Sunak and the Conservatives have just lost it and SKS is left holding the bag. If he continues like this he will be a very unpopular PM, potentially with a very large mandate, which could result in a quick flip back to Conservative rule.
The argument that under Sir K the Labour party will be so right/centrist that those disaffected with this from the left will enable the Tories to take over is odd.
In reality the Overton window for election winning is very narrow. It involves: massive state management of society, highly regulated private enterprise, an expensive welfare/health state, absolute commitment to defence of the the west and law and order. This is not where either Tory or Labour membership is, but the voters are.
And cuts to their own taxes but rises for the richest
Robert Peston went to a comprehensive school, case closed, private schools are the best.
Robert Peston has a PPE from Oxford and that institution might be more problematic.
Oxford as a whole is very good, can’t, I think, say the same for the PPE degree. Or at least the degree holders.
One problem with Oxford is the network effect. Power brokers went there so now they recruit from there. It is self-perpetuating.
Yes, all too easy only to recruit 'people like us'.
The most significant learning revelation I experienced in my 40 year career was when I grudgingly attended a 'Diversity' course (I know) and found out that it was focused on diversity of thinking and experience rather than ethnicity, gender, disability etc.
Of course those latter factors drive the former but it is the diversity of views that can deliver innovative business success.
Re the previous comment that "Most education establishments are not VAT rated". For guidance on how VAT is applied to education go to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130. AFAIK every business that has an income falls into one of three classes as far as VAT is concerned once the VAT annual turn-over threshold is reached or you choose to register: 1. Exempt - no need to fill in VAT returns, you do not put VAT on your invoices and you cannot recover any VAT you have paid on your purchases. 2. Standard rated - you add VAT at the appropriate rate to your invoices and at the end of each period you add up the VAT on your invoices and the VAT on your purchases and pay or recover the difference from the VAT people. 3. Zero rated - you add VAT at 0% to your invoices and recover the VAT you have paid on your purchases from the VAT people.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
That's a very long preamble to answering the question, which you never quite got round to.
BTW I am one of the votes Sir K needs - he needs two or three million Tory switchers. Because the Tories are so awful it would be hard to lose me, but he would if he lost sight of the events of 7th October or the continuing war crime of the hostages, and failed to prioritise Israel's defence against a group which would repeat the holocaust if they could.
Does he not need many of the voters who almost made Corbyn PM in 2017 (a GE he lost by like 2000 votes?). Does he not need to try to win voters like me, voters who either do not vote or vote ABC and need to feel that Labour is distinct from Conservatives and right wing positions? Does he not need the votes of long term Labour voters who had voted for long term Labour councillors, and are now considering not voting at all, or giving a protest vote elsewhere?
SKS can, along with all the people who are calling for a ceasefire, condemn the events of the 7th of October and the holding of hostages by Hamas (hostages that some reports are suggesting Hamas is trying to give back and Israel is refusing to negotiate for) and condemn the mass slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians. He can accept that there are innocent victims in Israel and Palestine, and not condone the killing of thousands of children. SKS has access to all the information I have - of Israeli ministers saying that all Palestinians should be nuked, "sent to Ireland or the desert"; that they are "human animals"; of missiles hitting Gazan hospitals, schools, refugee camps. He is a human rights lawyer; he is not blind. And yet he won't call for the bare minimum - as cessation of violence to potentially discuss peace terms. Should that not be the aim?
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
There are ‘branches’ of several British private schools in Bangkok. Don’t know how well the students turn out.
Yep, same over here. They generally have good reputations and a record of UK and US university admissions.
My wider point was that trying to legislate some of the best schools in the world out of existence, won’t simply lead to them closing and everyone going to state school. They’ll pop up somewhere else, and the global elites will send their kids there instead.
The main losers will be the kids of the UK middle classes, who can no longer afford to send their kids to those schools.
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
There’s an awful lot of very good North London state schools, to which the elites in politics and media love to talk about sending their children. They’re totally available to absolutely everyone who can afford one of the £1m houses in the very small catchment area.
When I was doing my PhD I did some voluntary work helping refugee kids at Havelock school in Chalk Farm, the Milibands' old school close to chichi Primrose Hill. It was just like any other London comprehensive school - a very diverse intake, lots of kids on free school meals, energetic but overworked teachers, packed out classrooms, a kind of frenetic energy to the place. Very like my kids' school and not dissimilar to my own school although that was 99% white. I think a lot of the "elite comprehensive schools with £2mn houses the price of entry" crowd have probably never even set foot in a comprehensive school of any description.
Basically, no change on the previous poll by the same pollsters in August, but this is the highest DUP result since the last Assembly election, and the lowest UUP or TUV result.
Actually shows a swing from SF to DUP since the last Assembly election as the DUP squeeze other Unionist parties
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
I was struck by the comment of the resigning councillor interviewed this morning accusing Starmer of "doing anything to win the next election", and "neglecting the grass roots".
I those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
This is a topic I often argue with friends who say to "trust that SKS will provide a better government, he's saying this to win the election and once he's in he'll govern differently". I'm with the LBJ biographer who said power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. And what SKS has revealed during his time as Labour leader is a deep cynicism and distaste towards policy solutions that are left of centre, an aversion for combating the systems that lead to inequality, and a willingness to come down extremely hard on Labour members and politicians who do not stick to his party line. The purges that were warned about happening under Corbyn never materialised, but SKS has done it on a much grander scale and nobody blushes. He is an authoritarian, using party procedure to narrow the acceptable debates in the party.
It is not surprising that he has extremely low personal favourability ratings given the polling for the Labour party - because he isn't winning the argument, Sunak and the Conservatives have just lost it and SKS is left holding the bag. If he continues like this he will be a very unpopular PM, potentially with a very large mandate, which could result in a quick flip back to Conservative rule.
The argument that under Sir K the Labour party will be so right/centrist that those disaffected with this from the left will enable the Tories to take over is odd.
In reality the Overton window for election winning is very narrow. It involves: massive state management of society, highly regulated private enterprise, an expensive welfare/health state, absolute commitment to defence of the the west and law and order. This is not where either Tory or Labour membership is, but the voters are.
In 2017 Corbyn was ~2000 votes away from winning - the Overton window is not narrow at all.
I'm in Suella's constituency and I've seen her talk about 'cultural marxism' in a public meeting. I suspect that most people there didn't have a clue what she meant. Now she's talking about 'lifestyle choices'. Am I the only one to have noticed that the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives also likes talking about 'lifestyle choices'. He thinks that homosexuality is one of those choices. I wonder if Suella agrees. See the link below for Pete Buttigieg's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22VWUf2NA-M
There's a seamless relationship between the Tory right and the Republicans' lunatic fringe, the same talking points, the same ideology, the same training, the same backers. It's a well-resourced international movement.
The enemy within without scruple or principle. I’ll have to learn to chill about calling them scum.
Comments
Wayne Rooney got so obsessed with Wagatha Christie he looked into signing up to law school
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/wayne-rooney-obsessed-wagatha-christie-31206303
I can see him being the King of Torts (sic).
Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho tells @TimesRadio
: “I wouldn't have used necessarily those words”
https://twitter.com/johnestevens/status/1721426049139868020
They're not the BNP.
What they reveal is fascinating, what they hide is much more interesting.
https://twitter.com/LeeAndersonMP_/status/1721237434111832326?t=RBojQXLJ7SvVTB7jvo-svA&s=19
Witness Andy MacDonald. A moron’s moron. Says something deliberately / cretinously stupid and has the whip withdrawn. Then Tory Mince MP comes along, claims Andy Moron said some even more outrageous and not only gets sued, he manages to give credibility to Moron.
Actually, both Lee and Sue are victims of the Shock Jock trap. Once you make a career out of saying the unsayable, you have to keep going. At some point, unless you're very clever, you end up saying something that really really shouldn't be said.
A BRIEF THREAD: Back in 2014, Republican Bob McDonnell was convicted of bribery. But he successfully argued to SCOTUS that the bribery laws were too vague and ambiguous, and he got his conviction thrown out. 1/
In 2021, when the 1/6 committee was pushing for Electoral Count Act Reform, a bunch of republicans were on board. I thought SURELY they’re only supportive because it gives Donald a reason to appeal future convictions for violating the Electoral Count Act. 2/
SURE ENOUGH, tonight, Donald posts this on truth social...
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1721362282733867235
Politics is not in a great place now. Is it any wonder.
Jack Smith.
END/
https://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrote/status/1721362282733867235
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GeKgrdIliKo
It's raining pretty heavily. The current weather forecast is for light cloud. Hmm.
Very bravely, the Guardian has published what it describes as a complete guide to the Israel/Palestine crisis.
I haven’t had time to read it yet! Not all of it anyway.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
At the same time people on minimum wage pay VAT on a massive range of basic items.
I don't especially like this Labour policy, and have no problem with private schools but class war it is not.
Most private schools do not deserve special treatment on the basis of being charities. Some, but very few, do so operate, but basically charging loads to offer a service which would be a charitable service if provided free at the point of need is no more a charity in the public eye than Lidl. Foodbanks mat be a charity but Waitrose isn't.
Now that Mike is taking more of a back seat I really hope we can keep provocation off this site. The internet is full of trolling and this site can be above it.
There’s a debate to be had but not by deliberately winding-up @TSE
Peace to all
xx
a new YouGov poll of the London Mayoral race gives Sadiq Khan a 25-point lead over Susan Hall.
Khan (LAB): 50%
Hall (CON): 25%
Garbett (GREEN): 11%
Blackie (LD): 7%
Cox (REF): 4%
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1721443180636143873?s=46
I have, inter alia, wound up Nats, Brexiteers, Corbynites, the DUP, and nuttier Tories, it is one of the perks of the job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truro_and_Falmouth_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
*Not a real word but it should be.
C- must try harder.
I don’t know what the solution is, but we’re not going to solve it in a couple of years. I’d like so see the currently very stark boundary between state and private provision much blurrier and less of a cliff edge.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
TSE is just having a bit of fun.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
@DPJHodges
This week Keir Starmer began to look like a Prime Minister. And Rishi Sunak began to look like a hologram >
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1721077248906715593?s=20
If not state schools will suffer as there will be some reduction in pupils being sent to private schools.
If those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
The other thing to note is that the baby bust that started in the 2010s is now now hitting primary schools and is set to wash up on secondaries soon. There are going to be quite a lot of schools with empty places in the next few years.
It is not surprising that he has extremely low personal favourability ratings given the polling for the Labour party - because he isn't winning the argument, Sunak and the Conservatives have just lost it and SKS is left holding the bag. If he continues like this he will be a very unpopular PM, potentially with a very large mandate, which could result in a quick flip back to Conservative rule.
BTW I am one of the votes Sir K needs - he needs two or three million Tory switchers. Because the Tories are so awful it would be hard to lose me, but he would if he lost sight of the events of 7th October or the continuing war crime of the hostages, and failed to prioritise Israel's defence against a group which would repeat the holocaust if they could.
As in the outside world, people in the branch offices don't get the opportunities those in head office get..
For some reason, I was never taught dead languages at school.
I do wonder with the London Mayoral election whether Rory Stewart might have chosen the wrong election when he briefly threw his hat into the ring for 2020 (withdrawing when it was postponed). Khan has been there a long while, Hall is scraping the barrel, the field is uninspiring, and there is probably an opening for a credible independent. But he's ruled himself out and I don't see where another one may emerge from.
Now she's talking about 'lifestyle choices'. Am I the only one to have noticed that the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives also likes talking about 'lifestyle choices'. He thinks that homosexuality is one of those choices. I wonder if Suella agrees.
See the link below for Pete Buttigieg's response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22VWUf2NA-M
Basically, no change on the previous poll by the same pollsters in August, but this is the highest DUP result since the last Assembly election, and the lowest UUP or TUV result.
Criticising a weather forecast for a positional error on a rain shower of perhaps as little as a few km is a bit harsh.
If you want a nowcast then look at the rainfall radar or satellite pictures (or out of the window).
No surprise Labour again proposing measures against private schools by ending their VAT exemption as Blair ended assisted places. Despite the fact that just makes access to private schools even more restricted and reduces their incentive to share facilities with the local community.
Starmer is of course himself privately educated, as most Labour general election winning PMs are, see also Attlee and Blair. Only Harold Wilson of election winning Labour PMs had his school education entirely in state schools
In reality the Overton window for election winning is very narrow. It involves: massive state management of society, highly regulated private enterprise, an expensive welfare/health state, absolute commitment to defence of the the west and law and order. This is not where either Tory or Labour membership is, but the voters are.
It’s odd that some of the AI chickenlickens are also in favour of preserving our thumb on the scale education system. If we (or more likely subsequent generations) are looking at long years of inactivity, presumably we’ll need cataclysmic change in our methods of educating people. I suspect they instinctively think they should reap as much advantage for their genetic line as possible while they can.
The most significant learning revelation I experienced in my 40 year career was when I grudgingly attended a 'Diversity' course (I know) and found out that it was focused on diversity of thinking and experience rather than ethnicity, gender, disability etc.
Of course those latter factors drive the former but it is the diversity of views that can deliver innovative business success.
For guidance on how VAT is applied to education go to https://www.gov.uk/guidance/vat-on-education-and-vocational-training-notice-70130.
AFAIK every business that has an income falls into one of three classes as far as VAT is concerned once the VAT annual turn-over threshold is reached or you choose to register:
1. Exempt - no need to fill in VAT returns, you do not put VAT on your invoices and you cannot recover any VAT you have paid on your purchases.
2. Standard rated - you add VAT at the appropriate rate to your invoices and at the end of each period you add up the VAT on your invoices and the VAT on your purchases and pay or recover the difference from the VAT people.
3. Zero rated - you add VAT at 0% to your invoices and recover the VAT you have paid on your purchases from the VAT people.
SKS can, along with all the people who are calling for a ceasefire, condemn the events of the 7th of October and the holding of hostages by Hamas (hostages that some reports are suggesting Hamas is trying to give back and Israel is refusing to negotiate for) and condemn the mass slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians. He can accept that there are innocent victims in Israel and Palestine, and not condone the killing of thousands of children. SKS has access to all the information I have - of Israeli ministers saying that all Palestinians should be nuked, "sent to Ireland or the desert"; that they are "human animals"; of missiles hitting Gazan hospitals, schools, refugee camps. He is a human rights lawyer; he is not blind. And yet he won't call for the bare minimum - as cessation of violence to potentially discuss peace terms. Should that not be the aim?
My wider point was that trying to legislate some of the best schools in the world out of existence, won’t simply lead to them closing and everyone going to state school. They’ll pop up somewhere else, and the global elites will send their kids there instead.
The main losers will be the kids of the UK middle classes, who can no longer afford to send their kids to those schools.
I’ll have to learn to chill about calling them scum.