Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
I predict that that the extra tax would be paid for partly out of price increases, partly by reducing activities currently done for the wider community as part of charitable status, and partly by withdrawing the ~£500m-£1bn currently spent by Independent Schools on helping poorer pupils.
IMO it is a nutty policy by Starmer.
Yeah this is all really unimpressive. This private school bashing is the only actual policy the labour party is confident enough to announce, as well as cracking down on people taking their children out of school to go on holiday. I told the advisor to our prospective labour MP that they have lost my vote because of it. When our son was in school in the UK all the conscientious parents took their children out of school to go on holiday because of the extortionate cost of holidays . They don't want to pay £2k for center parks at half term when it is £500 any other week and the reality is that it makes no difference to their life chances whether they miss a week of primary school or not. Also the secondary schools are bad here and many parents aspire to sending their kids to private schools post 11. This policy benefits sneering parents in areas with high house prices and good state schools, it is a tax on the aspiring middle class in other areas.
It's a shame you have withdrawn your vote from Labour over term-time holidays, as Rishi has leapt on the bandwagon so you can't vote for the blue team either.
Yeah but not on the private school bashing. The whole thing is connected to the wider disaster that is policy on schooling in England, in my view. In Finland you can miss school to go on holiday (within reason) and there is only 3 hours of classes a day after school starts at age 7, but somehow the educational outcomes are the same. Probably because school in England is largely a performance to satisfy the irrational fetishes of the elderly population.
If you can't count how many chains and furlongs for a given number of acres, you're basically useless in the modern workforce.
And if that turns out not to be true (god forfend), then the ERG will make it so.
Good God! Are you to leave them ignorant of the rod and the hide, to measure land!!!
It would certainly be hard to count the number of chains and furlongs in an area. Now if one were to count a unit of area defined by a furlong long x a chain wide ...
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
These parents are the best of Britain, we pay our taxes so the kids of proles can be educated and nobly make sure the state sector doesn't have to educate our kids so the proles can get all the attention.
But being serious for a moment, there are a lot of families who really couldn't afford the hike, so the state has to educate more kids with less.
What I would do is grandfather current kids in private schools and apply VAT to all new entrants.
I can afford the VAT hike and think that whilst state schools crumble I shouldn't get a tax break not all parents are as lucky as me.
I'd like a new Ferrari but I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the car plus the VAT, I can't afford the car.
If I wished to send my children to private school I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the fees and the VAT, I can't afford the school. Instead I might become a stakeholder in the best state school I could find and ensure the place was optimally funded to furnish my children with a top state education. An education similarly funded to mine 45 to 50 years ago.
Anyway I would have thought you would have been quite relieved to see the riff-raff fall off the elite education ladder.
Nope, one of the reasons I've done well in life was the fantastic education I received, and I want every child to have that.
Class sizes of 14ish is the way to do it.
One of my faint positives for the gen-AI stuff is that it can act as a personal tutor for a lot of kids - even if it's just at the level of satisfying (or continuing) a kids curiosity. Whether that plays out or not is another matter. But there's a chance it can be a net-positive on that front.
Though I remember being obsessed with 3D trig at secondary school and asking my maths teacher about some of the stuff I'd learned from books I'd found in the library and being told "You don't do unless you go to university".
End of conversation. I should have doffed my cap and known my station in life.
I wasn't allowed to do my GCSE computing project in assembler (6502) because my teacher didn't understand it...
To be fair, assembler was a bit of overkill for the task. I can't even remember what the project was.
Similar story here. I did my computing final essay on 'Ray Tracing' (part of my 3D trig obsession) and was told by the computing teacher "There is no such thing. Fail.".
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
I predict that that the extra tax would be paid for partly out of price increases, partly by reducing activities currently done for the wider community as part of charitable status, and partly by withdrawing the ~£500m-£1bn currently spent by Independent Schools on helping poorer pupils.
IMO it is a nutty policy by Starmer.
Yeah this is all really unimpressive. This private school bashing is the only actual policy the labour party is confident enough to announce, as well as cracking down on people taking their children out of school to go on holiday. I told the advisor to our prospective labour MP that they have lost my vote because of it. When our son was in school in the UK all the conscientious parents took their children out of school to go on holiday because of the extortionate cost of holidays . They don't want to pay £2k for center parks at half term when it is £500 any other week and the reality is that it makes no difference to their life chances whether they miss a week of primary school or not. Also the secondary schools are bad here and many parents aspire to sending their kids to private schools post 11. This policy benefits sneering parents in areas with high house prices and good state schools, it is a tax on the aspiring middle class in other areas.
It's a shame you have withdrawn your vote from Labour over term-time holidays, as Rishi has leapt on the bandwagon so you can't vote for the blue team either.
Yeah but not on the private school bashing. The whole thing is connected to the wider disaster that is policy on schooling in England, in my view. In Finland you can miss school to go on holiday (within reason) and there is only 3 hours of classes a day after school starts at age 7, but somehow the educational outcomes are the same. Probably because school in England is largely a performance to satisfy the irrational fetishes of the elderly population.
If you can't count how many chains and furlongs for a given number of acres, you're basically useless in the modern workforce.
And if that turns out not to be true (god forfend), then the ERG will make it so.
Good God! Are you to leave them ignorant of the rod and the hide, to measure land!!!
It would certainly be hard to count the number of chains and furlongs in an area. Now if one were to count a unit of area defined by a furlong long x a chain wide ...
From this you can tell I am a treacherous remain type. I have basically outed myself.
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
These parents are the best of Britain, we pay our taxes so the kids of proles can be educated and nobly make sure the state sector doesn't have to educate our kids so the proles can get all the attention.
But being serious for a moment, there are a lot of families who really couldn't afford the hike, so the state has to educate more kids with less.
What I would do is grandfather current kids in private schools and apply VAT to all new entrants.
I can afford the VAT hike and think that whilst state schools crumble I shouldn't get a tax break not all parents are as lucky as me.
I'd like a new Ferrari but I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the car plus the VAT, I can't afford the car.
If I wished to send my children to private school I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the fees and the VAT, I can't afford the school. Instead I might become a stakeholder in the best state school I could find and ensure the place was optimally funded to furnish my children with a top state education. An education similarly funded to mine 45 to 50 years ago.
Anyway I would have thought you would have been quite relieved to see the riff-raff fall off the elite education ladder.
Nope, one of the reasons I've done well in life was the fantastic education I received, and I want every child to have that.
Class sizes of 14ish is the way to do it.
Some of the minor, minor local private schools, normally prefixed with St., that the social climbing peasantry send their children to are on class sizes in the mid twenties and above. An economic requirement for them to survive. If you want to send your kids to St. Chardonnays that's fine by me, but it isn't a bloody charity, it's a business!
My excellent 1970s comprehensive had classes of less than 25. My children's almost as good Roman Catholic comp had a similar number less than a decade ago. Fund non-selective state schools properly. It's what Mrs Thatcher would have wanted.
Although no milk. Milk is commie.
(My actual memory of milk at school is small cartons of above room-temp 'milk' that was probably reconstituted milk powder or UHT. So hurrah for Thatcher!)
In Worcestershire it was mini Russian doll versions of the pint bottle of the day. Later we had the Jubilee type cartons. And it was genuine pasteurised blue top (but with a silver top).
When I was going to school, small cartons the norm. Free or not, depended on family income, not anyone could tell the difference in the cafeteria; was pretty cheap anyway.
In USA, strong linkage between school lunches and agricultural surpluses (ditto between surpluses and foreign food aid). With US dairy industry a major player (and political donor) as part of mega-agribusiness.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Adding to the point others have already raised, it's not really that different to people pleading to a lesser sentence even if they know they did not do something, gambling that it would be less painful in the end, given what was going on. Even without an overt threat at the beginning, they may have guessed where things would end up, and given how many did get convicted, it may well have been the right choice on a personal level.
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
These parents are the best of Britain, we pay our taxes so the kids of proles can be educated and nobly make sure the state sector doesn't have to educate our kids so the proles can get all the attention.
But being serious for a moment, there are a lot of families who really couldn't afford the hike, so the state has to educate more kids with less.
What I would do is grandfather current kids in private schools and apply VAT to all new entrants.
I can afford the VAT hike and think that whilst state schools crumble I shouldn't get a tax break not all parents are as lucky as me.
I'd like a new Ferrari but I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the car plus the VAT, I can't afford the car.
If I wished to send my children to private school I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the fees and the VAT, I can't afford the school. Instead I might become a stakeholder in the best state school I could find and ensure the place was optimally funded to furnish my children with a top state education. An education similarly funded to mine 45 to 50 years ago.
Anyway I would have thought you would have been quite relieved to see the riff-raff fall off the elite education ladder.
Nope, one of the reasons I've done well in life was the fantastic education I received, and I want every child to have that.
Class sizes of 14ish is the way to do it.
Some of the minor, minor local private schools, normally prefixed with St., that the social climbing peasantry send their children to are on class sizes in the mid twenties and above. An economic requirement for them to survive. If you want to send your kids to St. Chardonnays that's fine by me, but it isn't a bloody charity, it's a business!
My excellent 1970s comprehensive had classes of less than 25. My children's almost as good Roman Catholic comp had a similar number less than a decade ago. Fund non-selective state schools properly. It's what Mrs Thatcher would have wanted.
Although no milk. Milk is commie.
(My actual memory of milk at school is small cartons of above room-temp 'milk' that was probably reconstituted milk powder or UHT. So hurrah for Thatcher!)
In Worcestershire it was mini Russian doll versions of the pint bottle of the day. Later we had the Jubilee type cartons. And it was genuine pasteurised blue top (but with a silver top).
When I was going to school, small cartons the norm. Free or not, depended on family income, not anyone could tell the difference in the cafeteria; was pretty cheap anyway.
In USA, strong linkage between school lunches and agricultural surpluses (ditto between surpluses and foreign food aid). With US dairy industry a major player (and political donor) as part of mega-agribusiness.
Hmm! You mean just like the pats of butter labelled EEC Intervention Board or similar which we used to get at school. The sort of commie stuff proud Usonian capitalists screamed about as unfair subsidy.
It's better put than usual way of putting the point, but no matter how well put I don't really think 'politician has varied their opinions over time' is a very strong criticism, if that's the best they've got to go with.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Pay up or do time?
Well some, like Alan Bates, did refuse to pay up and the PO simply closed him down overnight and sold the business to somebody else. They thereby pocketed the £65,000 he had paid for the business. I suspect this was most if not all of his life savings.
He did of course do the right thing but it must have been a tough decision for him at the time and you can understand others choosing differently.
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
These parents are the best of Britain, we pay our taxes so the kids of proles can be educated and nobly make sure the state sector doesn't have to educate our kids so the proles can get all the attention.
But being serious for a moment, there are a lot of families who really couldn't afford the hike, so the state has to educate more kids with less.
What I would do is grandfather current kids in private schools and apply VAT to all new entrants.
I can afford the VAT hike and think that whilst state schools crumble I shouldn't get a tax break not all parents are as lucky as me.
I'd like a new Ferrari but I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the car plus the VAT, I can't afford the car.
If I wished to send my children to private school I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the fees and the VAT, I can't afford the school. Instead I might become a stakeholder in the best state school I could find and ensure the place was optimally funded to furnish my children with a top state education. An education similarly funded to mine 45 to 50 years ago.
Anyway I would have thought you would have been quite relieved to see the riff-raff fall off the elite education ladder.
Nope, one of the reasons I've done well in life was the fantastic education I received, and I want every child to have that.
Class sizes of 14ish is the way to do it.
Some of the minor, minor local private schools, normally prefixed with St., that the social climbing peasantry send their children to are on class sizes in the mid twenties and above. An economic requirement for them to survive. If you want to send your kids to St. Chardonnays that's fine by me, but it isn't a bloody charity, it's a business!
My excellent 1970s comprehensive had classes of less than 25. My children's almost as good Roman Catholic comp had a similar number less than a decade ago. Fund non-selective state schools properly. It's what Mrs Thatcher would have wanted.
Although no milk. Milk is commie.
(My actual memory of milk at school is small cartons of above room-temp 'milk' that was probably reconstituted milk powder or UHT. So hurrah for Thatcher!)
In Worcestershire it was mini Russian doll versions of the pint bottle of the day. Later we had the Jubilee type cartons. And it was genuine pasteurised blue top (but with a silver top).
When I was going to school, small cartons the norm. Free or not, depended on family income, not anyone could tell the difference in the cafeteria; was pretty cheap anyway.
In USA, strong linkage between school lunches and agricultural surpluses (ditto between surpluses and foreign food aid). With US dairy industry a major player (and political donor) as part of mega-agribusiness.
Hmm! You mean just like the pats of butter labelled EEC Intervention Board or similar which we used to get at school. The sort of commie stuff proud Usonian capitalists screamed about as unfair subsidy.
Analysis of Trump's Lawyer arguing that a President who orders the assassination of an opponent should not be automatically liable for criminal prosecution.
About the 20th story down on fox, where the tagline is "Trump attorney argues Biden is ‘prosecuting his number one political opponent’ at immunity hearing".
Every fourth story Biden bashing, a decent chunk of the rest Clinton bashing.
It looks quite carefully lawyered now !
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
It's better put than usual way of putting the point, but no matter how well put I don't really think 'politician has varied their opinions over time' is a very strong criticism, if that's the best they've got to go with.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
Analysis of Trump's Lawyer arguing that a President who orders the assassination of an opponent should not be automatically liable for criminal prosecution.
About the 20th story down on fox, where the tagline is "Trump attorney argues Biden is ‘prosecuting his number one political opponent’ at immunity hearing".
Every fourth story Biden bashing, a decent chunk of the rest Clinton bashing.
It looks quite carefully lawyered now !
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
ADDENDUM: Juxtaposition bit too odd - and twisted? - for true wit.
Not to mention US-style proms are a fairly recent cultural import. Older voters will have had school discos, and even older ones, well, the debs' balls for the posh ones.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Because the alternative was potentially a custodial sentence. The real kicker is the Post Office kept this money like some kind of protection racket operation. To be honest, that's exactly what it was.
It was certainly a racket. I'm not sure about 'protection', but certainly demanding money with menaces.
If the Government is even half serious about putting matters right it would make the Post Office, which it owns, pay back all the money it has extorted but I suspect it is so deeply implicated itself that it will do no such thing.
Analysis of Trump's Lawyer arguing that a President who orders the assassination of an opponent should not be automatically liable for criminal prosecution.
About the 20th story down on fox, where the tagline is "Trump attorney argues Biden is ‘prosecuting his number one political opponent’ at immunity hearing".
Every fourth story Biden bashing, a decent chunk of the rest Clinton bashing.
It looks quite carefully lawyered now !
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
I bet Fox viewers never get to see Trump talking about putting on his pants...
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
These parents are the best of Britain, we pay our taxes so the kids of proles can be educated and nobly make sure the state sector doesn't have to educate our kids so the proles can get all the attention.
But being serious for a moment, there are a lot of families who really couldn't afford the hike, so the state has to educate more kids with less.
What I would do is grandfather current kids in private schools and apply VAT to all new entrants.
I can afford the VAT hike and think that whilst state schools crumble I shouldn't get a tax break not all parents are as lucky as me.
I'd like a new Ferrari but I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the car plus the VAT, I can't afford the car.
If I wished to send my children to private school I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the fees and the VAT, I can't afford the school. Instead I might become a stakeholder in the best state school I could find and ensure the place was optimally funded to furnish my children with a top state education. An education similarly funded to mine 45 to 50 years ago.
Anyway I would have thought you would have been quite relieved to see the riff-raff fall off the elite education ladder.
Nope, one of the reasons I've done well in life was the fantastic education I received, and I want every child to have that.
Class sizes of 14ish is the way to do it.
Some of the minor, minor local private schools, normally prefixed with St., that the social climbing peasantry send their children to are on class sizes in the mid twenties and above. An economic requirement for them to survive. If you want to send your kids to St. Chardonnays that's fine by me, but it isn't a bloody charity, it's a business!
My excellent 1970s comprehensive had classes of less than 25. My children's almost as good Roman Catholic comp had a similar number less than a decade ago. Fund non-selective state schools properly. It's what Mrs Thatcher would have wanted.
Although no milk. Milk is commie.
(My actual memory of milk at school is small cartons of above room-temp 'milk' that was probably reconstituted milk powder or UHT. So hurrah for Thatcher!)
In Worcestershire it was mini Russian doll versions of the pint bottle of the day. Later we had the Jubilee type cartons. And it was genuine pasteurised blue top (but with a silver top).
When I was going to school, small cartons the norm. Free or not, depended on family income, not anyone could tell the difference in the cafeteria; was pretty cheap anyway.
In USA, strong linkage between school lunches and agricultural surpluses (ditto between surpluses and foreign food aid). With US dairy industry a major player (and political donor) as part of mega-agribusiness.
Hmm! You mean just like the pats of butter labelled EEC Intervention Board or similar which we used to get at school. The sort of commie stuff proud Usonian capitalists screamed about as unfair subsidy.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Pay up or do time?
Well some, like Alan Bates, did refuse to pay up and the PO simply closed him down overnight and sold the business to somebody else. They thereby pocketed the £65,000 he had paid for the business. I suspect this was most if not all of his life savings.
He did of course do the right thing but it must have been a tough decision for him at the time and you can understand others choosing differently.
One can. Most are and were in an invidious position. Compensation isn't the half of it. Heads need to roll.
Analysis of Trump's Lawyer arguing that a President who orders the assassination of an opponent should not be automatically liable for criminal prosecution.
About the 20th story down on fox, where the tagline is "Trump attorney argues Biden is ‘prosecuting his number one political opponent’ at immunity hearing".
Every fourth story Biden bashing, a decent chunk of the rest Clinton bashing.
It looks quite carefully lawyered now !
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
I bet Fox viewers never get to see Trump talking about putting on his pants...
It's better put than usual way of putting the point, but no matter how well put I don't really think 'politician has varied their opinions over time' is a very strong criticism, if that's the best they've got to go with.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
I beg to differ
Well, reasonable people will differ on whether the message works. I know people who dislike Starmer (without being Corbynite) becase they think he doesn't mean anything he says.
But I would maintain that even if they can get it to work for some people, it is more difficult in some ways than arguing an opponent is dangerous, or crazy, because whilst it may be an easier sell, even if you persuade people there is truth to it, not all of those people will agree it is a problem.
Analysis of Trump's Lawyer arguing that a President who orders the assassination of an opponent should not be automatically liable for criminal prosecution.
About the 20th story down on fox, where the tagline is "Trump attorney argues Biden is ‘prosecuting his number one political opponent’ at immunity hearing".
Every fourth story Biden bashing, a decent chunk of the rest Clinton bashing.
It looks quite carefully lawyered now !
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
Analysis of Trump's Lawyer arguing that a President who orders the assassination of an opponent should not be automatically liable for criminal prosecution.
About the 20th story down on fox, where the tagline is "Trump attorney argues Biden is ‘prosecuting his number one political opponent’ at immunity hearing".
Every fourth story Biden bashing, a decent chunk of the rest Clinton bashing.
It looks quite carefully lawyered now !
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
Really? What would they be left with?
Less actionable BS.
Pretty much everything he spews is actionable BS.
They'd be left with shots of him looking deranged.
It's better put than usual way of putting the point, but no matter how well put I don't really think 'politician has varied their opinions over time' is a very strong criticism, if that's the best they've got to go with.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
And a lot of it is down to existing public prejudice. The same behaviours can be viewed as good or bad, depending on who is doing them and when.
There's the apocraphal story of Politician-on-the-skids (I first heard it in the context of John Major, but I'm sure it's older than that.) They were visiting the zoo when a lion escaped from its enclosure. Thinking nothing of their safety, they manhandled the lion into submission and saved the day. The newspaper headlines the following morning went POLITICIAN ATTACKS BELOVED ENDANGERED ANIMAL AT ZOO.
OK, that's an extreme and made up example. But it's also true that the things we admire people on the up for are the same things we condemn them for on the way down. Maggie's determination became stubborness. Blair's ability to inspire became a Messiah Complex. Brown's lack of flash became dour gloom, and so on.
All of which makes life confusing and difficult for politicians; the things that people used to love become the things they hate. But also infuriating for partisans.
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Because the alternative was potentially a custodial sentence. The real kicker is the Post Office kept this money like some kind of protection racket operation. To be honest, that's exactly what it was.
I've just watched the first episode but managed to get angry and tear up just in that.
I want Fujitsu and the Post Office to pay back all of these people in full, with compensation on top, and Alan Bates to get the CBE - not them.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Adding to the point others have already raised, it's not really that different to people pleading to a lesser sentence even if they know they did not do something, gambling that it would be less painful in the end, given what was going on. Even without an overt threat at the beginning, they may have guessed where things would end up, and given how many did get convicted, it may well have been the right choice on a personal level.
Part of the explanation goes back to the old paper balancing system, which was a b****r to complete. At the end of your Wednesday balance, if it didn’t, but was out by a small amount, it normally meant you’d made a mistake, like miscounting the cash or the stamp stock. Or you or your staff had moved some cash between your shop and the Post Office till and forgotten to balance it back. You were supposed to check everything again, but after a long workday it was commonplace to make the cash good, in either direction, knowing that your miscount would unwind the following week. A lot of the SPMRs have said they were simply waiting for the shortfalls to reverse themselves.
Partly it’s that many didn’t really understand the computer system or indeed computers in general - some actually assumed it was right, and they were wrong, and therefore didn’t mind making good, at least when the amounts were small and hence credible.
Bates, of course, did the “right” thing and refused to sign off his balance, challenging the PO to prove there was an error. But that takes stubbornness and strength of character that many people don’t have - as evidenced by the large number who did the opposite. Remember that the consequences of failing to balance were often that your office was shut down straight away, then in many cases you were suspended or even sacked, and eventually (but rarely right away, despite the way it was dramatised) auditors would arrive leading eventually to legal action. Bates lost his office in that way, and subsequently devoted his time to campaigning.
It's better put than usual way of putting the point, but no matter how well put I don't really think 'politician has varied their opinions over time' is a very strong criticism, if that's the best they've got to go with.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
I beg to differ
Slalom Sir Keir can say the literal opposite of what he said before and it's magnificent political swerving
None of his supporters know what he'll do once inevitably in power, and they don't seem to care
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Given that this Government has made 327 U-turns since December 2019 - I don't think SKS has much to worry about
It's better put than usual way of putting the point, but no matter how well put I don't really think 'politician has varied their opinions over time' is a very strong criticism, if that's the best they've got to go with.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
I beg to differ
Well, reasonable people will differ on whether the message works. I know people who dislike Starmer (without being Corbynite) becase they think he doesn't mean anything he says.
But I would maintain that even if they can get it to work for some people, it is more difficult in some ways than arguing an opponent is dangerous, or crazy, because whilst it may be an easier sell, even if you persuade people there is truth to it, not all of those people will agree it is a problem.
I’ve never known one as blatant as Sir Keir, he is truly remarkable. And remark upon him I do!
I think that is why I obsess about it, it’s so blatant, in your face, all captured on film, yet seemingly sensible people defend it or say it didn’t happen. It must be because he seems so stodgily boring and competent, like a quiet filing clerk in an old fashioned office, that it’s hard to believe he is such a flagrant, bare faced liar
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Given that this Government has made 327 U-turns since December 2019 - I don't think SKS has much to worry about
And it keeps coming back to this because everyone is so desperate to get the Tories out they don't want to hear about Starmer's weaknesses, or anyone else's, lest it get in the way of that.
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Given that this Government has made 327 U-turns since December 2019 - I don't think SKS has much to worry about
I was expecting the few remaining Tories to be fighting this election on culture wars. Instead they seem to have chosen a mix of integrity, flip flopping and blaming the opposition for the mess the country is in. A complete lack of self awareness.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
“If you have £17,600 then you must have £21,100” is interesting logic. I must try it with my bank manager.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
Mate, it is even shitter than the Gordon Brittas nickname some PBers gave him a few years ago.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
Mate, it is even shitter than the Gordon Brittas nickname some PBers gave him a few years ago.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
Mate, it is even shitter than the Gordon Brittas nickname some PBers gave him a few years ago.
From Mr "Can You Handle Two Elections" Fnnaarr Fnnaarr Finbarr Eagles?
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Given that this Government has made 327 U-turns since December 2019 - I don't think SKS has much to worry about
And it keeps coming back to this because everyone is so desperate to get the Tories out they don't want to hear about Starmer's weaknesses, or anyone else's, lest it get in the way of that.
But exist it does. And real it is.
Starmer may fundamentally be the most evil man in the UK, but he has at least a track record of success. A knighthood bestowed by David Cameron confirms this.
Four years ago we elected a clown so inadequate for high office that catastrophe was inevitable. You were quite comfortable with this inarticulate comic who hid in a fridge continuing as PM.
Remind me, who came next? And how did that work out?
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
“If you have £17,600 then you must have £21,100” is interesting logic. I must try it with my bank manager.
Almost as good as if you get all those parents sending their kids to state schools suddenly they will all became magically better through the power of their chat as if the other 93% don't count.
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Given that this Government has made 327 U-turns since December 2019 - I don't think SKS has much to worry about
And it keeps coming back to this because everyone is so desperate to get the Tories out they don't want to hear about Starmer's weaknesses, or anyone else's, lest it get in the way of that.
But exist it does. And real it is.
Starmer may fundamentally be the most evil man in the UK, but he has at least a track record of success. A knighthood bestowed by David Cameron confirms this.
Four years ago we elected a clown so inadequate for high office that catastrophe was inevitable. You were quite comfortable with this inarticulate comic who hid in a fridge continuing as PM.
Remind me, who came next? And how did that work out?
I was not and did not vote for him as Tory leader. I voted Hunt and then Sunak. I backed May in 2016.
You can keep trying to turn it round as much as you like but Starmer is a tedious tactical triangulator and very shortly you won't be able to escape that, no matter how hard you try.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
At a different time, with a different opponent, it would probably have more purchase.
But given that May governed as an anti-Cameron, Johnson as an anti-May, Truss as... whatever it was and Sunak as an anti-Truss, Starmer can swerve quite a lot and still be much more stable than his opponent. That's before we consider Rishi's changes of tone since he's been at the top. One of the reasons that the Conservative government, 2010-24(?) seems set to leave so little legacy is that so much of what Mumble achieved was conciously reversed by Bumble.
To win, you don't have to be great (and to repeat a point that gets forgotten, there don't seem to be that many people who think Starmer is great), you just have to be better than the alternative.
Ed Davey's defence sounds a bit pathetic: "I deeply regret that I was lied to on such a scale … I hope they understand that I pushed really hard on the Post Office for answers and I got the same answers time and again."
I suspect Davey will go soon enough as a sacrificial offering. As for Sir Keir, the Tory posters write themselves: 'If he didn't intervene to prevent the Post Office scandals, he sure as hell won't intervene to stop the boats. Keir Starmer: currying favour to those on the wrong side of justice.'
Farage and the Express are tripling down on Starmer. Farage scents blood. Davey and Starmer's scalps would be remarkably good fortune for Rishi.
Neither 30p or Ric Holden have picked up the gauntlet I threw down. Unless Rishi uses the. Starmer gambit at PMQs it looks like Starmer having to resign might be dying on its arse.
Some of this looks like test flights for a general election.
James O'Brien has started a feature called "Keir Smear" where he calls out right wing press accusations against Starmer. He was withering in his criticism of Boris Johnson cuck, Harry Cole.
It's curious. When the Tory leader is useless/despised, you normally get elements of the Right flirting with the Labour leader. This happened with Blair, Brown and even Ed Miliband. But Sir Keir isn't being given any slack whatsoever. Why the universal antipathy? It's not as if he's even saying anything that scary. Is it a Brexit thing?
2 things, I think:
1. Unlike Blair, I think he is viewed with more suspicion, partly because of his support for Corbyn perhaps, partly also because he has not tried to court the Tory media in the same way Blair did.
2. I think there is a fear that, now he occupies more of the aspirational middle ground, it is showing up the Tories as having abandoned so much of what used to give them their appeal. Hence now the right wing media majors on cultural topics, because the Tories have lost their reputation for sound money, free enterprise, open markets and national renewal.
He's viewed with more suspicion because everyone thinks he's just putting on a performance and is not sincere.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
Given that this Government has made 327 U-turns since December 2019 - I don't think SKS has much to worry about
And it keeps coming back to this because everyone is so desperate to get the Tories out they don't want to hear about Starmer's weaknesses, or anyone else's, lest it get in the way of that.
But exist it does. And real it is.
Starmer may fundamentally be the most evil man in the UK, but he has at least a track record of success. A knighthood bestowed by David Cameron confirms this.
Four years ago we elected a clown so inadequate for high office that catastrophe was inevitable. You were quite comfortable with this inarticulate comic who hid in a fridge continuing as PM.
Remind me, who came next? And how did that work out?
I was not and did not vote for him as Tory leader. I voted Hunt and then Sunak. I backed May in 2016.
You can keep trying to turn it round as much as you like but Starmer is a tedious tactical triangulator and very shortly you won't be able to escape that, no matter how hard you try.
I genuinely don't like Starmer and if our Nige can pin the Post Office scandal solely on him, I would laugh heartily with you. But your bunch since 2016 have been catastrophic.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
3 reasons:-
1. Their contracts - which made them liable for all losses, unless they could show it was not their fault, which of course they couldn't.
2. Being bullied into it with the threat of prosecution.
3. After 2005 the Post Office changed the system so that the SPMs had to agree the accounts in order to be able to open for business the following day. So that made them liable to a charge of false accounting because they could not dispute the figures Horizon gave them. Alan Bates avoided this because he disputed the numbers shown by Horizon and never signed off the accounts. That option was deliberately removed by the Post Office. They knew what they were doing.
Ugh, Starmer really hates aspiration and those parents who want to do best for their kids.
Labour would block parents from dodging VAT on private school fees through paying for years of schooling upfront, Bridget Phillipson has suggested.
The shadow education secretary said that the Labour Party would ensure that its planned legislation, which would charge 20 per cent VAT on fees if enacted, leaves no loopholes for parents to avoid paying the tax.
Schools have warned they could have to close because tens of thousands of pupils in England will be priced out of private education under a Labour government.
The party’s policy means that parents paying average non-boarding secondary school fees of around £17,600 a year could need to find around an extra £3,500 for each child.
My heart bleeds. Obviously the 93% who don't send their kids to private school lack aspiration and don't want to do their best for their kids.
Though I reckon anybody who can afford £17,600 a year could probably rustle up another £3,500 from the back of the sofa. Or the schools could take the hit by reducing their costs.
These parents are the best of Britain, we pay our taxes so the kids of proles can be educated and nobly make sure the state sector doesn't have to educate our kids so the proles can get all the attention.
But being serious for a moment, there are a lot of families who really couldn't afford the hike, so the state has to educate more kids with less.
What I would do is grandfather current kids in private schools and apply VAT to all new entrants.
I can afford the VAT hike and think that whilst state schools crumble I shouldn't get a tax break not all parents are as lucky as me.
I'd like a new Ferrari but I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the car plus the VAT, I can't afford the car.
If I wished to send my children to private school I would expect to pay the VAT. If I couldn't afford the fees and the VAT, I can't afford the school. Instead I might become a stakeholder in the best state school I could find and ensure the place was optimally funded to furnish my children with a top state education. An education similarly funded to mine 45 to 50 years ago.
Anyway I would have thought you would have been quite relieved to see the riff-raff fall off the elite education ladder.
Nope, one of the reasons I've done well in life was the fantastic education I received, and I want every child to have that.
Class sizes of 14ish is the way to do it.
One of my faint positives for the gen-AI stuff is that it can act as a personal tutor for a lot of kids - even if it's just at the level of satisfying (or continuing) a kids curiosity. Whether that plays out or not is another matter. But there's a chance it can be a net-positive on that front.
Though I remember being obsessed with 3D trig at secondary school and asking my maths teacher about some of the stuff I'd learned from books I'd found in the library and being told "You don't do unless you go to university".
End of conversation. I should have doffed my cap and known my station in life.
This is becoming an issue for a prescribed curriculum. Have excluded special needs kids who take a particular interest in certain topics. Had a 45 minute discussion of North Korean politics with one. I said I'd love to visit, as it would be fascinating. He (12yo), came back with an absolute tsunami of facts as to why that would be a very bad idea. Very nuanced, with a vast range of sources. All gleamed off YouTube. But not wrong. Quite a PB level of knowledge. None of which will help him get 5 GCSE passes. So. Is utterly irrelevant to our education system.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Because the alternative was potentially a custodial sentence. The real kicker is the Post Office kept this money like some kind of protection racket operation. To be honest, that's exactly what it was.
I've just watched the first episode but managed to get angry and tear up just in that.
I want Fujitsu and the Post Office to pay back all of these people in full, with compensation on top, and Alan Bates to get the CBE - not them.
Regarding the Post Office scandal, I find it quite hard to process that the innocent SPM’s actually paid money out of their own pockets to square up the balance. I just can’t imagine I would do it, knowing I hadn’t stolen the money
Not saying for one minute they were guilty, just that how could you bring yourself to pay knowing you’d done nothing wrong?
Pay up or do time?
Well some, like Alan Bates, did refuse to pay up and the PO simply closed him down overnight and sold the business to somebody else. They thereby pocketed the £65,000 he had paid for the business. I suspect this was most if not all of his life savings.
He did of course do the right thing but it must have been a tough decision for him at the time and you can understand others choosing differently.
It comes down to one person who won't back down, more often than we think.
Sir Thomas More and Rosa Parks being notable example, from opposite ends of the social-economic, establishment-underdog spectrum.
Alan Bates is one more demonstration of the Power of One.
As in a butterfly flapping it's wings starts starts a wind that turns into a tornado.
Or a lonely cry for natural justice over long years, suddenly becomes a nationwide storm of outrage.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
At a different time, with a different opponent, it would probably have more purchase.
But given that May governed as an anti-Cameron, Johnson as an anti-May, Truss as... whatever it was and Sunak as an anti-Truss, Starmer can swerve quite a lot and still be much more stable than his opponent. That's before we consider Rishi's changes of tone since he's been at the top. One of the reasons that the Conservative government, 2010-24(?) seems set to leave so little legacy is that so much of what Mumble achieved was conciously reversed by Bumble.
To win, you don't have to be great (and to repeat a point that gets forgotten, there don't seem to be that many people who think Starmer is great), you just have to be better than the alternative.
It also helps to decide what your USP might be, and stick to it. Starmer was elected as the anti-Corbyn, steady, dull, cautious, reliable, and he’s mostly stuck to script, with added ruthlessness to purge the left of their influence. Sunak was supposed to be similar, with added competence, but has thrown it all away by making right-wing appointments, chasing after nutty right-wing schemes, and, well, not being very competent.
I wish that "Slalom Sir Keir" had been coined by someone else so that I could feel comfortable more effusively praising its brilliance as a political pun nickname
At a different time, with a different opponent, it would probably have more purchase.
But given that May governed as an anti-Cameron, Johnson as an anti-May, Truss as... whatever it was and Sunak as an anti-Truss, Starmer can swerve quite a lot and still be much more stable than his opponent. That's before we consider Rishi's changes of tone since he's been at the top. One of the reasons that the Conservative government, 2010-24(?) seems set to leave so little legacy is that so much of what Mumble achieved was conciously reversed by Bumble.
To win, you don't have to be great (and to repeat a point that gets forgotten, there don't seem to be that many people who think Starmer is great), you just have to be better than the alternative.
It also helps to decide what your USP might be, and stick to it. Starmer was elected as the anti-Corbyn, steady, dull, cautious, reliable, and he’s mostly stuck to script, with added ruthlessness to purge the left of their influence. Sunak was supposed to be similar, with added competence, but has thrown it all away by making right-wing appointments, chasing after nutty right-wing schemes, and, well, not being very competent.
Starmer was elected as Labour leader as the pro Corbyn candidate
Comments
Boy, how I loved secondary school.
Tom Tugendhat says Keir Starmer “has adopted more positions than the Karma Sutra, and not held any of them longer than a teenager on prom night”
https://x.com/christiancalgie/status/1744812270553649240?s=46
In USA, strong linkage between school lunches and agricultural surpluses (ditto between surpluses and foreign food aid). With US dairy industry a major player (and political donor) as part of mega-agribusiness.
ADDENDUM: Juxtaposition bit too odd - and twisted? - for true wit.
I mean, we kind of expect that, if only because it's slightly more interesting, so it's hard to make it seem like an egregious example, especially when it follows a leader whose problem was not adopting more positions and holding onto the ones they had way too long.
It just comes across as 'This guy is flexible and pragmatic' rather than 'this guy will say anything and believes nothing'.
He did of course do the right thing but it must have been a tough decision for him at the time and you can understand others choosing differently.
I think even Fox have wound their neck in with publishing non-factchecked garbage ... since it cost them $787.5m in damages for Dominion for boosting false claims around the company's vote counting machines being manipulated.
I believe (have not checked) that interviews with Mr Trump are now recorded, not live. So they get to edit out some of the BS.
If he goes for more comments like that I think his end may be in sight.
If the Government is even half serious about putting matters right it would make the Post Office, which it owns, pay back all the money it has extorted but I suspect it is so deeply implicated itself that it will do no such thing.
But I would maintain that even if they can get it to work for some people, it is more difficult in some ways than arguing an opponent is dangerous, or crazy, because whilst it may be an easier sell, even if you persuade people there is truth to it, not all of those people will agree it is a problem.
They'd be left with shots of him looking deranged.
There's the apocraphal story of Politician-on-the-skids (I first heard it in the context of John Major, but I'm sure it's older than that.) They were visiting the zoo when a lion escaped from its enclosure. Thinking nothing of their safety, they manhandled the lion into submission and saved the day. The newspaper headlines the following morning went POLITICIAN ATTACKS BELOVED ENDANGERED ANIMAL AT ZOO.
OK, that's an extreme and made up example. But it's also true that the things we admire people on the up for are the same things we condemn them for on the way down. Maggie's determination became stubborness. Blair's ability to inspire became a Messiah Complex. Brown's lack of flash became dour gloom, and so on.
All of which makes life confusing and difficult for politicians; the things that people used to love become the things they hate. But also infuriating for partisans.
People are fickle. Them's the breaks.
A sincerety not helped by the fact he keeps chopping and changing his policy, or deliberately engineering a silence about them.
I want Fujitsu and the Post Office to pay back all of these people in full, with compensation on top, and Alan Bates to get the CBE - not them.
https://twitter.com/KieranMaguire/status/1744763587166679219
West Ham need to pay their way.
Partly it’s that many didn’t really understand the computer system or indeed computers in general - some actually assumed it was right, and they were wrong, and therefore didn’t mind making good, at least when the amounts were small and hence credible.
Bates, of course, did the “right” thing and refused to sign off his balance, challenging the PO to prove there was an error. But that takes stubbornness and strength of character that many people don’t have - as evidenced by the large number who did the opposite. Remember that the consequences of failing to balance were often that your office was shut down straight away, then in many cases you were suspended or even sacked, and eventually (but rarely right away, despite the way it was dramatised) auditors would arrive leading eventually to legal action. Bates lost his office in that way, and subsequently devoted his time to campaigning.
None of his supporters know what he'll do once inevitably in power, and they don't seem to care
BJO will probably be the only happy PBer
https://x.com/jdpoc/status/1743659122757685461?s=20 (merely to show I'm not the person who has documented every single 1, but that person has).
I think that is why I obsess about it, it’s so blatant, in your face, all captured on film, yet seemingly sensible people defend it or say it didn’t happen. It must be because he seems so stodgily boring and competent, like a quiet filing clerk in an old fashioned office, that it’s hard to believe he is such a flagrant, bare faced liar
But exist it does. And real it is.
Explains his absence.
NEW THREAD
Four years ago we elected a clown so inadequate for high office that catastrophe was inevitable. You were quite comfortable with this inarticulate comic who hid in a fridge continuing as PM.
Remind me, who came next? And how did that work out?
You can keep trying to turn it round as much as you like but Starmer is a tedious tactical triangulator and very shortly you won't be able to escape that, no matter how hard you try.
But given that May governed as an anti-Cameron, Johnson as an anti-May, Truss as... whatever it was and Sunak as an anti-Truss, Starmer can swerve quite a lot and still be much more stable than his opponent. That's before we consider Rishi's changes of tone since he's been at the top. One of the reasons that the Conservative government, 2010-24(?) seems set to leave so little legacy is that so much of what Mumble achieved was conciously reversed by Bumble.
To win, you don't have to be great (and to repeat a point that gets forgotten, there don't seem to be that many people who think Starmer is great), you just have to be better than the alternative.
1. Their contracts - which made them liable for all losses, unless they could show it was not their fault, which of course they couldn't.
2. Being bullied into it with the threat of prosecution.
3. After 2005 the Post Office changed the system so that the SPMs had to agree the accounts in order to be able to open for business the following day. So that made them liable to a charge of false accounting because they could not dispute the figures Horizon gave them. Alan Bates avoided this because he disputed the numbers shown by Horizon and never signed off the accounts. That option was deliberately removed by the Post Office. They knew what they were doing.
Have excluded special needs kids who take a particular interest in certain topics.
Had a 45 minute discussion of North Korean politics with one. I said I'd love to visit, as it would be fascinating. He (12yo), came back with an absolute tsunami of facts as to why that would be a very bad idea. Very nuanced, with a vast range of sources. All gleamed off YouTube. But not wrong. Quite a PB level of knowledge. None of which will help him get 5 GCSE passes.
So. Is utterly irrelevant to our education system.
I found episode three particularly distressing.
Sir Thomas More and Rosa Parks being notable example, from opposite ends of the social-economic, establishment-underdog spectrum.
Alan Bates is one more demonstration of the Power of One.
As in a butterfly flapping it's wings starts starts a wind that turns into a tornado.
Or a lonely cry for natural justice over long years, suddenly becomes a nationwide storm of outrage.