Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
There may well be more to this story than a small number of influential males in central London enjoying all-male company every so often in their lives - and paying to have access to all-male spaces where doubtless the snowflakes feel ever so safe and cosy.
It's already more than just about lawyers.
Not sure what has happened to the quotes there but I didn't actually say what you have me saying. I did, however, agree with it. And you make a valid point. These senior silks were members of the Garrick because of the contacts it gave them and the boost that gave to their prospects of being appointed. That is not a good thing.
Apologies for messing up the quotes. I'm not sure what happened.
Agreed - it's all about contacts. Exclusivity doesn't pinpoint what these institutions are about.
Though isn't it all the more problematic to have exclusive clubs with contacts that could impact upon peoples careers based upon protected characteristics?
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats.
No 'may be' about it. If they win one seat they've had a fantastic night.
A more interesting question is, what if they peel off votes to Labour's left and allow the Tories to hold seats that might otherwise be lost?
I'm not convinced by that reasoning (I think if you're mad enough to vote Green in a Tory/Labour marginal you'd have abstained if they didn't stand) but fear of it was one factor in Corbyn's election (see here for @NickPalmer stating it was one reason he voted for him).
There would be a JPF/PFJ vibe to such a scenario, but considering the Brexit party may have saved Labour double-digit numbers of seats last time there would be karma to it.
The Tory party is doing so poorly nationally I don't really see it being an issue that the Green vote will help keep them in place. Maybe in the Isle of Wight a Tory will still win and the combined Green and Labour vote could have beaten it, but that island is weird.
The problem is thinking that Labours net gains don't involve some losses. Some 2019 Labour voters will not be voting Labour - nor will they be voting Conservative. If in certain seats enough of them jump to the Greens (whether that be due to Palestine, green infrastructure spending, general anti-austerity politics, etc.) then I think Greens can win some seats. The Labour party has, under SKS, shown active disdain for a not insignificant slice of its electorate base. The Greens are best placed to capitalise on that.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats.
No 'may be' about it. If they win one seat they've had a fantastic night.
A more interesting question is, what if they peel off votes to Labour's left and allow the Tories to hold seats that might otherwise be lost?
I'm not convinced by that reasoning (I think if you're mad enough to vote Green in a Tory/Labour marginal you'd have abstained if they didn't stand) but fear of it was one factor in Corbyn's election (see here for @NickPalmer stating it was one reason he voted for him).
There would be a JPF/PFJ vibe to such a scenario, but considering the Brexit party may have saved Labour double-digit numbers of seats last time there would be karma to it.
The Tory party is doing so poorly nationally I don't really see it being an issue that the Green vote will help keep them in place. Maybe in the Isle of Wight a Tory will still win and the combined Green and Labour vote could have beaten it, but that island is weird.
The problem is thinking that Labours net gains don't involve some losses. Some 2019 Labour voters will not be voting Labour - nor will they be voting Conservative. If in certain seats enough of them jump to the Greens (whether that be due to Palestine, green infrastructure spending, general anti-austerity politics, etc.) then I think Greens can win some seats. The Labour party has, under SKS, shown active disdain for a not insignificant slice of its electorate base. The Greens are best placed to capitalise on that.
The Greens will win about as many seats in 2024 as UKIP won in 2010 or 2015.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
With a name like Tristram, he probably should have gone to Eton.
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
Arrgh, spotted too late. There, of course, not their.
For me, the most interesting part of the book was where he described how politicians had tipped the scale against nuclear power -- and in favor of fossil fuels, which just happened to benefit, among others, the Brown family in California. After reading the book, I was expecting lawsuits from some of those he accused of having opposed nuclear power -- for their own profit, but haven't seen any.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
I don't think the class privilege reinforced by the likes of Eton is mitigated by a few more middle class parents using lower tier private schools.
Of course it's right to say this policy is no silver bullet for that either. There's no quick and easy way to fix something so deeply embedded.
What about by councils using private schools for children with EHCPs, now at over 50% of the intake in some schools?
This might be mitigated of course by councils taking such schools over. But they're very resistant to doing so. Taxpayers and the DfE both get very stuffy about it.
Interesting. So councils pay the private school fees for those children? Does that work on a VFM basis as compared to provision in the state sector?
Probably, when you consider that it also makes life much easier for everyone - the child with the EHCP, who gets a quieter environment and smaller classes, the teachers in the state sector, who don't have to deal with those complex needs so can concentrate on the others.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
The Garrick could solve its problem in a minute by throwing open its doors to women but staying exactly as it is. Dull, stuffy, with poor food and billiards tables
No women will join anyway, but the Guardian won’t have anything to moan about
Interesting how far we've moved -and generally in the right direction. I was looking for an article where Quentin Letts of the Daily Mail referred to Ed Milliband's 'huge conk' and wondered whether in today's climate even the Mail might fire him. I couldn't locate it but found this instead which is quite impressive by Medhi Hassan (Scroll down to Question Time)
There may well be more to this story than a small number of influential males in central London enjoying all-male company every so often in their lives - and paying to have access to all-male spaces where doubtless the snowflakes feel ever so safe and cosy.
It's already more than just about lawyers.
Not sure what has happened to the quotes there but I didn't actually say what you have me saying. I did, however, agree with it. And you make a valid point. These senior silks were members of the Garrick because of the contacts it gave them and the boost that gave to their prospects of being appointed. That is not a good thing.
Apologies for messing up the quotes. I'm not sure what happened.
Agreed - it's all about contacts. Exclusivity doesn't pinpoint what these institutions are about.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
With a name like Tristram, he probably should have gone to Eton.
But no, he went to University College School.
Bollocks.
It is not my fault I is thick though. I was at a cumprehensive.
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
Rail is an absolutely fantastic means to transport bulky goods that are going point to point.
The problem with rail freight is that rail is simply a very inefficient means to transport goods that are going not very long distances to multiple destinations and from multiple sources.
Rail worked extraordinarily well in the age of coal where a trainload of coal could be picked up at a mine and dropped off at a power station.
But nowadays that isn't our modern, developed economy. An HGV on the road might be going to dozens of stops in its route and it can go directly to each in a way that a train just can't.
Our economy isn't going back to the age of coal and 19th century economics.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
At my younger daughter’s private school, the bursar tells me that they have unmeetable demand at current prices.
They could double the price - but that would simply make the student body 100% mega rich plus scholarships.
They have concerns about the resulting social structure in the school, which they reckon would have a negative outcome in the medium term.
As it is, they are at 20% of 100% equivalent scholarships. That is, the scholarship funding is equivalent to 20% of places fully funded, but is spread more than that.
Artfully covering all the angles there, that Bursar!
Yes - he has the luxury of nearly infinite demand (very good school) and no shareholders to pressure for a maximum short term return.
All of which leads to a reputation among alumni such that they pour money into the foundation setup to fund the scholarships.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
With a name like Tristram, he probably should have gone to Eton.
But no, he went to University College School.
Bollocks.
It is not my fault I is thick though. I was at a cumprehensive.
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
With a name like Tristram, he probably should have gone to Eton.
But no, he went to University College School.
Bollocks.
It is not my fault I is thick though. I was at a cumprehensive.
Surprising that it is still legal for any organisation to refuse membership on the basis of gender.
You'd ban the Women's Institute ?
Quite. I'd be wary of banning such clubs and societies. Recently at the level of cricket that my ageing body aspires to, we have seen more and more girls and women playing in men's teams (they were never actually mens teams, but in practice that has been the situation for hundreds of years at club level. On the one hand its great - spreading the love of the greatest game etc. On another level - one of the reasons for still playing at 51 is the banter with your mates. And with women there its different. Not worse necessarily, and don't get the impression of old misogenistic dinosaurs, but its different.
I believe that a group of men have the right to form a club that excludes women. I believe that a group of women have the right to form a club that excludes men.
Thats equality.
I agree entirely with this. I think this bullying of the Garrick is deeply unpleasant. It’s a private institution not a state run organisation and as such it can do what it likes if it complies with the law. I will grant that there is a unique issue with the Garrick in that so many senior male members of the legal profession are members. The sensible response would be for all of the other senior legal people to join another Club. I’m sure the Reform would be pleased to take them.
Apropos of nothing I gave up my membership of one male only Club because I usually go out of an evening with mixed groups so it was extremely awkward to use.
bullying of the garrick lmao, they should have the balls to continue to act as if Queen Victoria is on the throne if that is what their members desire.
The design that Bill Gates has chosen for his nuclear power plant in Wyoming includes energy storage.
How so? When the demand for electricity is less, the plant is designed to allow the coolant to heat up from its usual operating temperature, instead of generating electricity. As I recall, it can go from 500 up to 800 degrees Farenheit. (You can find more info at the Terrapower site: https://www.terrapower.com/ )
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
That would be remarkable. The number is a lot more than four. ..The four judges were among dozens in the legal profession now known to have been members. Their number included a further four appeal court judges, five more high court judges, dozens of serving and retired judges, current and former ministers in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and numerous senior solicitors...
Is all this a trial run before going for the Freemasons?
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
That would be remarkable. The number is a lot more than four. ..The four judges were among dozens in the legal profession now known to have been members. Their number included a further four appeal court judges, five more high court judges, dozens of serving and retired judges, current and former ministers in the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and numerous senior solicitors...
Is all this a trial run before going for the Freemasons?
Nah, different clientele.
Garrick members, as befits a club named for a thespian, are the Movers.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
I don't think the class privilege reinforced by the likes of Eton is mitigated by a few more middle class parents using lower tier private schools.
Of course it's right to say this policy is no silver bullet for that either. There's no quick and easy way to fix something so deeply embedded.
What about by councils using private schools for children with EHCPs, now at over 50% of the intake in some schools?
This might be mitigated of course by councils taking such schools over. But they're very resistant to doing so. Taxpayers and the DfE both get very stuffy about it.
Interesting. So councils pay the private school fees for those children? Does that work on a VFM basis as compared to provision in the state sector?
Probably, when you consider that it also makes life much easier for everyone - the child with the EHCP, who gets a quieter environment and smaller classes, the teachers in the state sector, who don't have to deal with those complex needs so can concentrate on the others.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
Not that hard a question imo. Spend per pupil is much higher there. Other reasons too, no doubt, but that's the crux of it.
Surprising that it is still legal for any organisation to refuse membership on the basis of gender.
You'd ban the Women's Institute ?
Quite. I'd be wary of banning such clubs and societies. Recently at the level of cricket that my ageing body aspires to, we have seen more and more girls and women playing in men's teams (they were never actually mens teams, but in practice that has been the situation for hundreds of years at club level. On the one hand its great - spreading the love of the greatest game etc. On another level - one of the reasons for still playing at 51 is the banter with your mates. And with women there its different. Not worse necessarily, and don't get the impression of old misogenistic dinosaurs, but its different.
I believe that a group of men have the right to form a club that excludes women. I believe that a group of women have the right to form a club that excludes men.
Thats equality.
I agree entirely with this. I think this bullying of the Garrick is deeply unpleasant. It’s a private institution not a state run organisation and as such it can do what it likes if it complies with the law. I will grant that there is a unique issue with the Garrick in that so many senior male members of the legal profession are members. The sensible response would be for all of the other senior legal people to join another Club. I’m sure the Reform would be pleased to take them.
Apropos of nothing I gave up my membership of one male only Club because I usually go out of an evening with mixed groups so it was extremely awkward to use.
bullying of the garrick lmao, they should have the balls to continue to act as if Queen Victoria is on the throne if that is what their members desire.
I'm not sure that social pressure on an influence-monging club to cease excluding women constitutes bullying.
There's no proposal to make all-male spaces illegal, is there?
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
Slightly academic, though, in that 'canal freight' in the original context here would include rivers - 'inland waterways' is the phrase (though coastal traffic would also be applicable in the context, come to think of it). And a lot of navigable rivers have been de facto canalised in parts. I can think of the Crossrail waste traffic on the Thames, for instance.
Edit: though narrow boats are just too inefficient. (Unless you count self-loading freight such as cruisers and tourists/dining & drinking barge outings.)
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
Giles Coren has just been rejected by the Garrick. So 'not bothered' that he made it the sole subject of his Saturday column in the Times.
Interesting: 'The FBI has told passengers on the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max that lost a door-plug panel in midflight that they might be victims of a crime.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
The gender gaps in Western voting patterns is really interesting to me, and shows (quite clearly to me) the social nature of gender and how it is and was constructed. Post industrial revolution until very recently (the last 50 years) it was considered the "man's job" to be the breadwinner - the sole provider for the household. This was, in part, the message sold to men to give them a special status within capitalism - prior to capitalism (and for the most poor and underprivileged populations) both men and women having to work was common. By shifting the spaces in which "men" and "women" worked - the wage space for men and the house for women - it privileged men and reinforced a stricter gender and familial hierarchy.
So with footbinding in China, female genital mutilation, and say the village council (mir) system in Russia, hierarchy (or patriarchy to use a more precise word) wasn't so strict before capitalism?
148 was talking specifically about the west.
It's certainly true that the policing of gender norms - and the exclusion of women* from political power (one of the regressive aspects of the Great Reform Bill) - increased in early 19thC Britain.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
Slightly academic, though, in that 'canal freight' in the original context here would include rivers - 'inland waterways' is the phrase (though coastal traffic would also be applicable in the context, come to think of it). And a lot of navigable rivers have been de facto canalised in parts. I can think of the Crossrail waste traffic on the Thames, for instance.
In fact, I thought the last narrowboats worked on the Thames, but on a careful check it was actually the Grand Junction Canal:
Just spent 3 weeks completely avoiding British news and to say it was a refreshing experience would be a huge understatement. It looks like the only significant event in that time was the defection of an MP to the Reform Party.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
I assure you that most of our public schools are perfectly capable of funding scholarships and bursaries without their endowments. Eton uses its endowments mostly to pay for maintaining its buildings, for example.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
Giles Coren has just been rejected by the Garrick. So 'not bothered' that he made it the sole subject of his Saturday column in the Times.
Sounds about right. He does appear somewhat fragile at time.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
At my younger daughter’s private school, the bursar tells me that they have unmeetable demand at current prices.
They could double the price - but that would simply make the student body 100% mega rich plus scholarships.
They have concerns about the resulting social structure in the school, which they reckon would have a negative outcome in the medium term.
As it is, they are at 20% of 100% equivalent scholarships. That is, the scholarship funding is equivalent to 20% of places fully funded, but is spread more than that.
Artfully covering all the angles there, that Bursar!
Yes - he has the luxury of nearly infinite demand (very good school) and no shareholders to pressure for a maximum short term return.
All of which leads to a reputation among alumni such that they pour money into the foundation setup to fund the scholarships.
Well that's a sweet spot then, pre and post Labour's policy. Course it would be a state school if I had my way but 'my way' is not yet even in the Overton window so you don't need to worry.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
I assure you that most of our public schools are perfectly capable of funding scholarships and bursaries without their endowments. Eton uses its endowments mostly to pay for maintaining its buildings, for example.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
It's also odd, while we are at it, for our resident Tories to crow about the much increased percentage of foreign students at such schools (PB passim) while complaining about them at the next stage of the educational progress (PB passim).
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Norwich South possibly ?
Last election:
Labour Clive Lewis 27,766 53.7% Conservative Michael Spencer 15,006 29.0% Liberal Democrats James Wright 4,776 9.2% Green Catherine Rowett 2,469 4.8% Brexit Party Sandy Gilchrist 1,656 3.2%
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
When I was travelling the England canal network (2011-2012) there were large (for English canals) boats delivering gas to Leeds pretty much daily. That was on the Aire and Calder Navigation and I would be very surprised if that has stopped. Although it is a "Navigation" significant parts of it are canal.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
When I was travelling the England canal network (2011-2012) there were large (for English canals) boats delivering gas to Leeds pretty much daily. That was on the Aire and Calder Navigation and I would be very surprised if that has stopped. Although it is a "Navigation" significant parts of it are canal.
It's not a narrow canal, although I'm happy to add it.
Plus I had of course forgotten the Crinan and Caledonian canals which still carry some freight.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
I don't think the class privilege reinforced by the likes of Eton is mitigated by a few more middle class parents using lower tier private schools.
Of course it's right to say this policy is no silver bullet for that either. There's no quick and easy way to fix something so deeply embedded.
What about by councils using private schools for children with EHCPs, now at over 50% of the intake in some schools?
This might be mitigated of course by councils taking such schools over. But they're very resistant to doing so. Taxpayers and the DfE both get very stuffy about it.
Interesting. So councils pay the private school fees for those children? Does that work on a VFM basis as compared to provision in the state sector?
Probably, when you consider that it also makes life much easier for everyone - the child with the EHCP, who gets a quieter environment and smaller classes, the teachers in the state sector, who don't have to deal with those complex needs so can concentrate on the others.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
I may be wrong but I’m fairly sure that whilst a parent can name an independent special school in their child’s EHCP application, the local authority will only fund the place if the parents can prove that a maintained school preferred by the LA cannot meet the child’s needs… i.e. it’s not a right to choose
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
Giles Coren has just been rejected by the Garrick. So 'not bothered' that he made it the sole subject of his Saturday column in the Times.
It’s really quite dull. If you like the company of lawyers, accountants, businessmen and civil servants in a noble building with school food it’s ok. But it’s the reason they invented the Groucho and Soho House etc - to get away from those people
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
They could well end up with zero seats after the next election. That will be a setback because having Lucas in parliament has been very good for their media profile. Conversely they are much better endowed with councillors in local government than in the past and that - given what they ought to be concerned with policy-wise (not always what they are actually concerned with) - should help them extend their influence.
I don't think this election is their best opportunity at all. I think it's one of the worst: a relatively popular Labour party in a Tory vs Labour change election. Their opportunity will come if Labour manage to hold on to power for 2 terms or more, and at a point where people are a. becoming disillusioned with them, particularly on the left or on green issues, b. complacent about the risk of the Tories getting back in.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Norwich South possibly ?
Last election:
Labour Clive Lewis 27,766 53.7% Conservative Michael Spencer 15,006 29.0% Liberal Democrats James Wright 4,776 9.2% Green Catherine Rowett 2,469 4.8% Brexit Party Sandy Gilchrist 1,656 3.2%
It would be a brave prediction.
Norwich South has the ingredients to be one of the biggest Labour majorities in the next election. It has perfect conditions for a squeeze of the Lib Dem vote at the same time as the Tory drops. Wouldn't be surprised to see Lewis returned with 65%+ of the vote.
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
Giles Coren has just been rejected by the Garrick. So 'not bothered' that he made it the sole subject of his Saturday column in the Times.
It’s really quite dull. If you like the company of lawyers, accountants, businessmen and civil servants in a noble building with school food it’s ok. But it’s the reason they invented the Groucho and Soho House etc - to get away from those people
I avoid UK news for 3 weeks (partly by being in the USA) and find that people are talking excitedly about the Garrick Club. Sort of proves why it was the right thing to do.
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
I'm clearly not part of the elite. I don't think I want to be.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
I don't think the class privilege reinforced by the likes of Eton is mitigated by a few more middle class parents using lower tier private schools.
Of course it's right to say this policy is no silver bullet for that either. There's no quick and easy way to fix something so deeply embedded.
What about by councils using private schools for children with EHCPs, now at over 50% of the intake in some schools?
This might be mitigated of course by councils taking such schools over. But they're very resistant to doing so. Taxpayers and the DfE both get very stuffy about it.
Interesting. So councils pay the private school fees for those children? Does that work on a VFM basis as compared to provision in the state sector?
Probably, when you consider that it also makes life much easier for everyone - the child with the EHCP, who gets a quieter environment and smaller classes, the teachers in the state sector, who don't have to deal with those complex needs so can concentrate on the others.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
I may be wrong but I’m fairly sure that whilst a parent can name an independent special school in their child’s EHCP application, the local authority will only fund the place if the parents can prove that a maintained school preferred by the LA cannot meet the child’s needs… i.e. it’s not a right to choose
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
One of the Norwich seats?
It's been pointed out that they lost their deposit in both Norwich seats in 2019. They do quite well in local elections in Norwich, but that goes back to the early 2000s and they are a little off their peak. So they aren't the fresh new thing in Norwich, and won't be in the game.
The whole idea of Green inroads against Labour this time is a bit of a fantasy world. It's a change election, Labour are change, and Owen Jones being Owen Jones doesn't really change that. They just aren't going to be losing seats to the Greens this time. Whether the Greens get some reasonably second places from where they can challenge an unpopular Labour government in four or eight years time is another matter, but not one for this year.
I extend that to include Bristol Central. Yes, Greens are strong there. But Thangam Debbonnaire is a strong MP, she got a 28k majority on admittedly better boundaries in 2019, and she'll be okay.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Isle of Wight - 2019 saw the Tories get 56%, Labour get 24% and Greens get 15%; voters on the island are weird and Greens on the island are a mixture of lefties and conservationists. Bristol Central - beat Thangham due to Labour people voting Green, which we can also see from local elections favouring greens Brighton - hold the seat Caroline is vacating. Norwich - Greens currently second largest party at local level, with 4 Labour cllrs crossing over to Greens. Adrian Ramsey is currently leader of Greens at the local council and it's a new Waveney Valley constituency that incorporates some of the strong Green areas.
These would all need to go towards Greens to get to that 4 figure. I also think that due to weird polling and FPTP that Greens could capitalise on Labour being seen as obviously winning at a national level, a Tory extinction and Labour moving so far to the centre / right that some people will vote Green anyway and that could lead to a weird win somewhere. Again, optimistic.
Am I alone in finding it remarkable that 4 judges thought continued membership was consistent with their status until now? Better the sinner that repents etc but jeez, you would have thought that was obvious.
Have you ever BEEN to the Garrick? The main problem is the unutterable DULLNESS
Yes, see my further comment. I was quite impressed but in an out of town tourist kind of way.
The premises are magnificent. And the location. And the history
But that’s where it ends
Yep, that is pretty much what I saw and it was impressive. I couldn't imagine popping in their of an evening on a regular basis.
Giles Coren has just been rejected by the Garrick. So 'not bothered' that he made it the sole subject of his Saturday column in the Times.
It’s really quite dull. If you like the company of lawyers, accountants, businessmen and civil servants in a noble building with school food it’s ok. But it’s the reason they invented the Groucho and Soho House etc - to get away from those people
Never been.
The point of a club is to walk in and know 20-40% of the people there. If you are an accountant and you know other accountants there then that is job done. If you believe yourself to be a non-conformist type who is better at a club where you aren't allowed to wear a tie and 50% of the people there are constantly looking over your shoulder in case they spot that bloke in the Persil advert (with or without his mixed family) and you like a crowded place where you can't hear youself think when you might as well be in the French House, then the Groucho is for you.
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Road pricing is the obvious way to go as we move to electric vehicles.
You could strip the duty away from fuel and add on the difference (In the round) set during the MOT which accounts for
1) Mileage during the year (The MOT defines this) * a CO2 factor 2) Kerb weight * mileage.
That would better account for road wear and carbon emissions tbh.
Foreign vehicles would submit odometer checks on and off the ferry, as could anyone doing European motoring so they're not taxed twice.
Should be the 4th power of axle weight times the number of axles [which is proportional to road wear].
Though that might see VW releasing a 10 wheeled Golf...
I thought about that but vehicle tax on lorries would have to go up to about 10 grand a vehicle which would add to food inflation ?
Might encourage rail or canal freight...
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
There has been no inland canal freight in this country since 1981, and if we're talking about the narrow canal network it would be since the 1960s.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
When I was travelling the England canal network (2011-2012) there were large (for English canals) boats delivering gas to Leeds pretty much daily. That was on the Aire and Calder Navigation and I would be very surprised if that has stopped. Although it is a "Navigation" significant parts of it are canal.
When the Southern Entrance at Leeds City railway station was constructed, a lot of material was delivered to the job site on the Aire.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
They could well end up with zero seats after the next election. That will be a setback because having Lucas in parliament has been very good for their media profile. Conversely they are much better endowed with councillors in local government than in the past and that - given what they ought to be concerned with policy-wise (not always what they are actually concerned with) - should help them extend their influence.
I don't think this election is their best opportunity at all. I think it's one of the worst: a relatively popular Labour party in a Tory vs Labour change election. Their opportunity will come if Labour manage to hold on to power for 2 terms or more, and at a point where people are a. becoming disillusioned with them, particularly on the left or on green issues, b. complacent about the risk of the Tories getting back in.
They may well lose Lucas's seat because of the ballsup the Greens made of running Brighton Council, which is probably behind her decision to stand down. And the only other one they are alleged to be seriously in contention for is Bristol West.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
Interesting: 'The FBI has told passengers on the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max that lost a door-plug panel in midflight that they might be victims of a crime.
(FWIW, Boeing does randomly drug test its workers who do repairs, but not its workers who do manufacturing.)
I suspect FBI means Alaska passengers may be victims of a regulated business not observing the relevant law. And the FBI gets to investigate because this is federal law.
Possibly related. Boeing is subject to a Default Prosecution Agreement, which looks to likely to be called in. They are potentially in serious legal trouble as well as the other issues
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Interesting: 'The FBI has told passengers on the Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 Max that lost a door-plug panel in midflight that they might be victims of a crime.
(FWIW, Boeing does randomly drug test its workers who do repairs, but not its workers who do manufacturing.)
More to do, I suspect with the fact that, if the whistleblower story is correct, Boeing and Spirit were doing end runs around required documentation. They were using an elaborate bullshit process to avoid doing things properly.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Norwich South possibly ?
Last election:
Labour Clive Lewis 27,766 53.7% Conservative Michael Spencer 15,006 29.0% Liberal Democrats James Wright 4,776 9.2% Green Catherine Rowett 2,469 4.8% Brexit Party Sandy Gilchrist 1,656 3.2%
It would be a brave prediction.
It was more on the basis of the local green councillor base which is very much skewed to this seat. It was not a prediction I hasten to add.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Norwich South possibly ?
Last election:
Labour Clive Lewis 27,766 53.7% Conservative Michael Spencer 15,006 29.0% Liberal Democrats James Wright 4,776 9.2% Green Catherine Rowett 2,469 4.8% Brexit Party Sandy Gilchrist 1,656 3.2%
It would be a brave prediction.
It was more on the basis of the local green councillor base which is very much skewed to this seat. It was not a prediction I hasten to add.
Also boundary changes and a local candidate rather than a big national name this time around.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
I assure you that most of our public schools are perfectly capable of funding scholarships and bursaries without their endowments. Eton uses its endowments mostly to pay for maintaining its buildings, for example.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
Not if they then have to divert extra funds to fund the maintenance of their historic buildings.
Of course many schools, including Clifton, also share some of their sports facilities with the local community and professional sports clubs
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Its still a service and as someone else said why should users of other services have to pay vat and private schools not.
@christopherhope BREAKING Rishi Sunak is facing another by-election in a red wall seat after Scott Benton resigned today as a MP, GB News can reveal. Benton, the independent MP for Blackpool South MP, was already facing a recall petition and potentially a by-election after MPs have approved a motion to suspend from the Commons for 35 days. Benton lost the Tory whip last April after suggesting to undercover reporters at The Times that he would be willing to break lobbying rules for money. An independent panel upheld a decision by the Standards Committee, which Mr Benton had appealed against. In a letter today, Benton said: "It's with a heavy heart that I have written to the Chancellor this morning to tender my resignation as your MP. "I'd like to thank the hundreds of residents who have sent supportive messages, cards and letters over the last few months and who have urged me to continue and fight the next election." Benton has previously said he was "deeply disappointed" and claimed there had been a "lack of integrity" throughout the process, which was "prone" to leaks. In 2019, Benton won a majority of 3,690 in a seat that had voted Labour since 1997.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
I assure you that most of our public schools are perfectly capable of funding scholarships and bursaries without their endowments. Eton uses its endowments mostly to pay for maintaining its buildings, for example.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
Not if they then have to divert extra funds to fund the maintenance of their historic buildings.
Of course many schools, including Clifton, also share some of their sports facilities with the local community and professional sports clubs
@christopherhope BREAKING Rishi Sunak is facing another by-election in a red wall seat after Scott Benton resigned today as a MP, GB News can reveal. Benton, the independent MP for Blackpool South MP, was already facing a recall petition and potentially a by-election after MPs have approved a motion to suspend from the Commons for 35 days. Benton lost the Tory whip last April after suggesting to undercover reporters at The Times that he would be willing to break lobbying rules for money. An independent panel upheld a decision by the Standards Committee, which Mr Benton had appealed against. In a letter today, Benton said: "It's with a heavy heart that I have written to the Chancellor this morning to tender my resignation as your MP. "I'd like to thank the hundreds of residents who have sent supportive messages, cards and letters over the last few months and who have urged me to continue and fight the next election." Benton has previously said he was "deeply disappointed" and claimed there had been a "lack of integrity" throughout the process, which was "prone" to leaks. In 2019, Benton won a majority of 3,690 in a seat that had voted Labour since 1997.
The interest here will be who comes second: CON or REF.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Its still a service and as someone else said why should users of other services have to pay vat and private schools not.
And as an example, the state doesnt provide home cleaning services. If I hire one I have to pay vat on it so not convinced your answer holds up
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Its still a service and as someone else said why should users of other services have to pay vat and private schools not.
Not all users of services pay VAT. For example private medical care is not VATable, (though purely cosmetic private medical care is).
VAT rules are bizarre and idiosyncratic, so expecting consistency from them is a pointless task. Pasty tax for example...
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Its still a service and as someone else said why should users of other services have to pay vat and private schools not.
And as an example, the state doesnt provide home cleaning services. If I hire one I have to pay vat on it so not convinced your answer holds up
Only on the agency fee element if they're above the threshold. And only if using an agency
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Isle of Wight - 2019 saw the Tories get 56%, Labour get 24% and Greens get 15%; voters on the island are weird and Greens on the island are a mixture of lefties and conservationists. Bristol Central - beat Thangham due to Labour people voting Green, which we can also see from local elections favouring greens Brighton - hold the seat Caroline is vacating. Norwich - Greens currently second largest party at local level, with 4 Labour cllrs crossing over to Greens. Adrian Ramsey is currently leader of Greens at the local council and it's a new Waveney Valley constituency that incorporates some of the strong Green areas.
These would all need to go towards Greens to get to that 4 figure. I also think that due to weird polling and FPTP that Greens could capitalise on Labour being seen as obviously winning at a national level, a Tory extinction and Labour moving so far to the centre / right that some people will vote Green anyway and that could lead to a weird win somewhere. Again, optimistic.
On the Isle of Wight, the Green vote was down in 2019 despite the Lib Dems standing aside for them, and they got two out of 39 councillors in 2021 on a reduced vote.
In Bristol, we've been here before - they went in all guns blazing in 2019 and were on the wrong end of a 28k majority. The MP is strong, Labour are on the up - it just isn't happening. Extrapolating a win from a low stakes, low turnout local election is a bit naive.
Norwich - Greens lost their deposit in both Norwich constituencies in 2019, and their local government presence there is nothing new.
Waveney - we will, of course see if a very blue area does more than pat the Greens on the head and give them a few district council seats in a low turnout election. Maybe if Consevratives do badly enough, but it's a stretch.
Brighton - they may, of course, hold a seat they won comfortably last time. Their activists would be wise to focus on that seat, though, as they fouled up running the Council and need all the help they can get with a change of candidate.
@christopherhope BREAKING Rishi Sunak is facing another by-election in a red wall seat after Scott Benton resigned today as a MP, GB News can reveal. Benton, the independent MP for Blackpool South MP, was already facing a recall petition and potentially a by-election after MPs have approved a motion to suspend from the Commons for 35 days. Benton lost the Tory whip last April after suggesting to undercover reporters at The Times that he would be willing to break lobbying rules for money. An independent panel upheld a decision by the Standards Committee, which Mr Benton had appealed against. In a letter today, Benton said: "It's with a heavy heart that I have written to the Chancellor this morning to tender my resignation as your MP. "I'd like to thank the hundreds of residents who have sent supportive messages, cards and letters over the last few months and who have urged me to continue and fight the next election." Benton has previously said he was "deeply disappointed" and claimed there had been a "lack of integrity" throughout the process, which was "prone" to leaks. In 2019, Benton won a majority of 3,690 in a seat that had voted Labour since 1997.
The interest here will be who comes second: CON or REF.
If Reform can't come at least second in 67.5% Leave Blackpool on current polls, where can they?
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Its still a service and as someone else said why should users of other services have to pay vat and private schools not.
And as an example, the state doesnt provide home cleaning services. If I hire one I have to pay vat on it so not convinced your answer holds up
Only on the agency fee element if they're above the threshold. And only if using an agency
Incorrect if I put out an ad for a cleaner I am legally meant be charged vat on her fee regardless of if she is part of an agency. The fact many don't bother doesnt make a difference
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Given car fuel expenditure does not correlate at all well with income, its a highly regressive tax.
Poor drivers spend a far higher proportion of their income on fuel than well off drivers do.
And poorer drivers currently tend to have less efficient vehicles too.
There's no need to replace it with tax on driving, driving should be no more heavily taxed than rail use or any other transportation.
Although poorer people yet have no access to a car, and have to walk, cycle or bus.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
Let’s go to the source (HMRC)
EP195 Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they would be excluded, and following you logic only those paying directly would be subject to it.
Hence I quite like you idea as you’ve just raised a few more quid for the Government without actually achieving your aim of getting all students to pay
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
Let’s go to the source (HMRC)
EP195 Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they are excluded
Tuition fees are not government funded though...so they should have vat applied. The loan to pay them is government funded so does not attract vat.
Example A) rich student pays fees without a loan...no government funding so should be vattable Example Poor student pays fees but gets a loan to pay the fees. The fee should be vattable the loan not so much.
I missed the previous thread on the Greens, but I do think that this will be the main opportunity for more Green MPs and if it doesn't happen at this GE then it won't happen.
I say this because the Green target seats like Bristol West (the only one I've canvassed for) are in areas where a) the Tories will never win and b) Labour centrism isn't appreciated by the core voters. I remember door knocking in Bristol at the last GE and heard many on the door say "Thangham's okay, but I'm really voting for Corbyn". Those voters are easy pick ups for the Greens, who are already doing well in local elections in these areas as well.
This may be wishful thinking, but I really think we could see 4-5 Green MPs in the next parliament that pick off some of the most left wing typically Labour seats. I doubt that would actually worry SKS that much, but (in my mind) it would change the nature of the parties - with Labour taking the spot of One Nation / Cameroon Toryism, Reform taking up the right flank, the LDs taking up the centre / left and the Greens being the clear left party. I do not see how the Tory party survives without it merging with Reform - and at this point it is possible that the Tory brand is worse regarded and therefore will die.
Where are these 4-5 Green wins over Labour going to come from? They're targetting the Bristol seat and holding Brighton, but what other Labour seats or could-be-Labour marginals are they seriously fighting?
Isle of Wight - 2019 saw the Tories get 56%, Labour get 24% and Greens get 15%; voters on the island are weird and Greens on the island are a mixture of lefties and conservationists. Bristol Central - beat Thangham due to Labour people voting Green, which we can also see from local elections favouring greens Brighton - hold the seat Caroline is vacating. Norwich - Greens currently second largest party at local level, with 4 Labour cllrs crossing over to Greens. Adrian Ramsey is currently leader of Greens at the local council and it's a new Waveney Valley constituency that incorporates some of the strong Green areas.
These would all need to go towards Greens to get to that 4 figure. I also think that due to weird polling and FPTP that Greens could capitalise on Labour being seen as obviously winning at a national level, a Tory extinction and Labour moving so far to the centre / right that some people will vote Green anyway and that could lead to a weird win somewhere. Again, optimistic.
In Bristol and Norwich Labour got more than 50% in 2019. On current polling, how on earth could Labour drop below 50%?
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
Let’s go to the source (HMRC)
EP195 Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they are excluded
Tuition fees are not government funded though...so they should have vat applied. The loan to pay them is government funded so does not attract vat.
Example A) rich student pays fees without a loan...no government funding so should be vattable Example Poor student pays fees but gets a loan to pay the fees. The fee should be vattable the loan not so much.
Nope the money is paid directly to the university the student never sees it.
Money goes Government (> quango) > university Repayments go student > HMRC > quango
The relationship between the fee and the loan is indirect
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
One difference is that there's no state provision for university.
Its still a service and as someone else said why should users of other services have to pay vat and private schools not.
Not all users of services pay VAT. For example private medical care is not VATable, (though purely cosmetic private medical care is).
VAT rules are bizarre and idiosyncratic, so expecting consistency from them is a pointless task. Pasty tax for example...
Large swathes of services are not VATable, including financial services, insurance services, social care services and education services.
Surprising that it is still legal for any organisation to refuse membership on the basis of gender.
You'd ban the Women's Institute ?
Quite. I'd be wary of banning such clubs and societies. Recently at the level of cricket that my ageing body aspires to, we have seen more and more girls and women playing in men's teams (they were never actually mens teams, but in practice that has been the situation for hundreds of years at club level. On the one hand its great - spreading the love of the greatest game etc. On another level - one of the reasons for still playing at 51 is the banter with your mates. And with women there its different. Not worse necessarily, and don't get the impression of old misogenistic dinosaurs, but its different.
I believe that a group of men have the right to form a club that excludes women. I believe that a group of women have the right to form a club that excludes men.
Thats equality.
I agree entirely with this. I think this bullying of the Garrick is deeply unpleasant. It’s a private institution not a state run organisation and as such it can do what it likes if it complies with the law. I will grant that there is a unique issue with the Garrick in that so many senior male members of the legal profession are members. The sensible response would be for all of the other senior legal people to join another Club. I’m sure the Reform would be pleased to take them.
Apropos of nothing I gave up my membership of one male only Club because I usually go out of an evening with mixed groups so it was extremely awkward to use.
bullying of the garrick lmao, they should have the balls to continue to act as if Queen Victoria is on the throne if that is what their members desire.
I'm not sure that social pressure on an influence-monging club to cease excluding women constitutes bullying.
There's no proposal to make all-male spaces illegal, is there?
If a Garrick Club member transitioned, would their membership be terminated?
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
State sector heads would be very happy to have an influx of ex-private school kids to their schools. Their parents would be a valuable resource in putting pressure on governments to increase resources and raise standards further.
However, I suspect it won't happen. By some sort of magic, despite the bleating, private school parents will find the resources to pay the extra VAT. And/or the schools will find a way of not adding it all on to fees by making cost savings, as state schools have to do. Perish the thought.
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
Let’s go to the source (HMRC)
EP195 Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they are excluded
Tuition fees are not government funded though...so they should have vat applied. The loan to pay them is government funded so does not attract vat.
Example A) rich student pays fees without a loan...no government funding so should be vattable Example Poor student pays fees but gets a loan to pay the fees. The fee should be vattable the loan not so much.
Nope the money is paid directly to the university the student never sees it.
Money goes Government (> quango) > university Repayments go student > HMRC > quango
And in the case of someone who doesnt take the loan it goes nowhere near the quango
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
Let’s go to the source (HMRC)
EP195 Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they would be excluded, and following you logic only those paying directly would be subject to it.
Hence I quite like you idea as you’ve just raised a few more quid for the Government without actually achieving your aim of getting all students to pay
The curious one is that FE and sixth form colleges are caught in the VAT system.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
We will still have twats like Mogg, Johnson, Tristram Hunt (Eton) Acland-Hood (St Paul's) Spielman (Roedean) Simon Case (Bristol Grammar School) Jeremy Hunt (Charterhouse).
How much this policy will raise on that basis as against the extra cost to the state elsewhere is questionable.
Hence why my idea was to disendow the public schools.
Public school endowments help fund scholarships and bursaries, so that wouldn't be a good policy either
I assure you that most of our public schools are perfectly capable of funding scholarships and bursaries without their endowments. Eton uses its endowments mostly to pay for maintaining its buildings, for example.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
Not if they then have to divert extra funds to fund the maintenance of their historic buildings.
Of course many schools, including Clifton, also share some of their sports facilities with the local community and professional sports clubs
For many - replace with some or if you were actually honest a few
Not all public schools are equal. My old school accepted lots of kids from the local area, and the headmaster had a policy of accepting some kids who had been thrown out of school - as long as they passed entrance. With one exception I know of, they turned their lives around.
It also felt like the heart of the community - particularly considering the two famous businesses that dominated the area.
Could they have done more for the community? Perhaps; I was outside it. Would the community have missed it? From talikng to locals at the time; yes.
Mr. S, fuel duty matters less all the time, though, as electric vehicles rise.
It brings in less as usage drops, but until the government finds a replacement source (and all the suggestions to date have been controversial) the maths would suggest they should really be increasing fuel duty rates to compensate, rather than holding them down. But they cannot do that politically.
And petrol prices are, in cash terms, still at the level of about 12 years ago, low 140s around my way.
Which is far too high for what it is.
The fact that they were even worse in real terms 12 years ago is no excuse, but the Treasury needs to be diversifying it's revenue and sourcing it from the general public equitably and not fleecing drivers.
Given car ownership correlates closely with income (and age), it's a highly progressive tax. Difficult to replace equitably.
I'd replace it entirely with congestion/urban taxation, linked to the value and/or weight of the vehicle. That would retain the progressive nature of fuel duty, transform it into a Pigou tax, as well as give people who live in rural areas (the 20%) much cheaper fuel.
Given car fuel expenditure does not correlate at all well with income, its a highly regressive tax.
Poor drivers spend a far higher proportion of their income on fuel than well off drivers do.
And poorer drivers currently tend to have less efficient vehicles too.
There's no need to replace it with tax on driving, driving should be no more heavily taxed than rail use or any other transportation.
Although poorer people yet have no access to a car, and have to walk, cycle or bus.
Indeed, though plenty of working poor on minimum wage do have access to a car and use their car to get to work.
Progressive or regressive is not determined by the extremes alone of society.
The fact remains that as you progress through the deciles of income, then fuel expenditure is proportionately less for higher deciles and more for lower deciles. QED the tax is regressive.
Nick Ferrari decides to lead on the people we really should be sorry for: those who would have to pay VAT on their private school fees.
I went to two private schools. The idea VAT shouldn't be paid is absurd.
Well, it's not, because introducing VAT for private schools is going to lead to worse outcomes. It will be revenue negative: it will cost more (in having to fund the state school places of kids who would have previously gone private) than it raises. And to take a very self-interested view: it will be harder for my youngest to get into the (state) senior school her sisters attend because there will be more parents seeking state school places.
It seems curiously self-destructive to implement a policy you see as logical which will harm many and benefit no-one. I'd happily stick with an illogical position over a bad position.
VAT on school fees is a policy that polls well and that's why Labour have it.
The evidence such as it is the policy will raise more revenue than the additional cost to the state sector to educate students of parents who can no longer afford the fees. Albeit it may not raise that much net revenue.
The policy is unique in ticking all the following:
Polls well with target voters Appeals to the left Easy to implement Revenue neutral to positive
Political gold dust.
Yes, it doesn't raise that much in the grand scheme of things but it's excellent PR. When it comes to the spectacle of a handful of sobbing upper middle class parents being forced to send their Oscars and Jemimas to Dumpsville Comp, there's no violin in the world small enough.
Be the making of them!
I was talking about the politics of it but I do happen to approve of the policy too. In general I'd say a person will like this policy if they consider the overall impact of private schools on our society to be negative. If they don't, they won't.
True poshos should be in favour of the policy.
It puts a private education at a second-rate no-name day school well and truly out of the reach of those despicable middle class oiks with airs and graces, and ensures only the truly well-heeled who can afford to send their offspring to one of the great public schools without a moment's thought about the cost will benefit from a private education.
It creates even more division in society between the elite public school educated at the top and the rest...
It will disincentivise something which is harmful to society. That it won't completely eliminate the problem doesn't mean it's not worth doing. That would be to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But I'm not a true posho so this doesn't speak to your point. My hunch is most true poshos would not support the policy but I could be wrong. Do we have any here who could comment?
I jest, but I don't think you need to be a paid-up member of the signet ring and red trousers crowd to figure (or, more likely these days, one of the uber-rich international oligarch types who, like the grey squirrel, are slowly usurping our home-grown posh types) to figure out what this policy does.
The parents who won't be able to afford a 20% increase will be the firmly lower-to-middle middle classes, in mid-level middle class jobs, who live in new builds in the dreary suburbs and spend a disproportionate part of their incomes on doing what they think is right for their kids, giving them the best possible education, probably sacrificing other things to do so - foreign holidays, new car every three years, etc. This will put private education, almost certainly at one of the "lesser" day schools out of their reach, putting a lot of those lesser schools out of business, too (note how many of the no-name day schools went out of business post 2008 after the GFC).
What you'll be left with is a bifurcated system, where those for whom educating their children privately isn't a struggle will continue to send their kids to Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Stowe, etc. Which is probably what most people think of when they think of approvingly about this kind of red-meat, eat-the-rich policy. They won't stop or change their behaviour at all. Unlike the dreary middle class yobbos I've mentioned above, who will probably end up spending the money on a house in a better catchment area (nice side effect there, rising house prices, got to keep that scam going) and after-hours private tuition to make sure their kids can still get into a good uni.
Net result is you'll have a smaller, more elite group of people who went to private schools, with all the advantages that confers. The sort of people for whom private education is a kind of veblen good, where the more expensive it is, and more out of reach of the ordinaries, the better it is.
The short of it is, the unintended consequence of this policy will be to make private school education even more of an elitist thing, and it won't hurt the really rich who can afford to send their kids to the major schools - which is what most people think of when they think of private school types - a jot. They are buying into a network and that's what matters to them. The middle class parents who are sacrificing expenditure in one area to buy their kids a better start in life will be the ones most affected.
I don't think the class privilege reinforced by the likes of Eton is mitigated by a few more middle class parents using lower tier private schools.
Of course it's right to say this policy is no silver bullet for that either. There's no quick and easy way to fix something so deeply embedded.
What about by councils using private schools for children with EHCPs, now at over 50% of the intake in some schools?
This might be mitigated of course by councils taking such schools over. But they're very resistant to doing so. Taxpayers and the DfE both get very stuffy about it.
Interesting. So councils pay the private school fees for those children? Does that work on a VFM basis as compared to provision in the state sector?
Probably, when you consider that it also makes life much easier for everyone - the child with the EHCP, who gets a quieter environment and smaller classes, the teachers in the state sector, who don't have to deal with those complex needs so can concentrate on the others.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
Not that hard a question imo. Spend per pupil is much higher there. Other reasons too, no doubt, but that's the crux of it.
Well it’s a bit more complicated than that (as always, and as you acknowledge).
Back in the 80s and 90s, as I recall, spend per pupil at yer bog standard private school wasn’t much different to that at state schools. And private schools still attracted people. Two main reasons, as far as I can see: 1) because they were selective, they didn’t have to take any ‘challenging’ pupils, and 2) because they were fee paying, they were responsive to the demands of parents rather than those of local authorities.
Now, I concede that rough parity of funding is probably no longer true (not least because private schools are chasing an entirely different market to what they used to). But I don’t think that’s the main reason why many parents would rather, if allowed to do it for free, educate their children privately.
[A personal reflection: we’ve considered private for some of our kids – not least to give the best opportunities to sporty middle daughter, where private schools do tend to seriously outcompete the state sector. I had two main objections: first, the private school we looked around appeared to be very, very woke. I’ll grudgingly accept that they’ll get wokery from the state sector – though the state schools my kids go to seem considerably more balanced than this particular private school – but I’m buggered if I’m paying for a school to peddle that agenda at my kids; and secondly and more importantly, my kids at state schools are all friends with kids within walking distance with whom they can easily meet up; while my neighbour’s daughter at a private school has a friendship network who all live a few miles away in various directions, whom she rarely sees outside of school and which necessitates much parental ferrying-about. And whom she doesn’t actually seem to like that much.]
What we need to talk about is s4 of the Hate Crime and Public Order (S) Act 2021 which is due to come into force on 1st April 2024. This is apparently too long for a single post.
4 Offences of stirring up hatred (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and (b) either— (i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or (ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group. (2) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— ... (ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and (b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3). (3) The characteristics are— (a) age, (b) disability, (c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation, (d) sexual orientation, (e) transgender identity, (f) variations in sex characteristics.
I was going to wait for April Fools Day to bring this up.
It's shocking. The SNP are plunging the county into a form of authoritarian dystopia.
What push back is happening in Scotland over this. Will it damage the SNP electorally?
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
Does that mean we can report MalcolmG for throwing turnips at the english?
Part 2 (4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb. (6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if— (a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and (b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case. (7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour— (a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does, (b) may consist of— (i) a single act, or (ii) a course of conduct. (8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by— (a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material, (b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person, (c) making the material available to another person in any other way. (9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable— (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
I mean yes and thanks for the info but it is littered with "reasonable person" and doesn't this usually mean that vaguely sensible decisions are reached.
A question for people who support vat on private school fees. (note no skin in this game whatsoever as wont affect me). Do you also support vat on university fees as well which are also currently exempt and serve a minority of people in the country and also provide the networking effect.
If not justify why its different
For god's sake don't introduce logic into it all.
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
As each of them will arrive with five grand+ funding and, presumably, reasonably engaged parents, most heads will be delighted unless they are heavily over subscribed and Tristram only got in because said parents came to the admissions appeal armed with a top barrister…
Comments
The problem is thinking that Labours net gains don't involve some losses. Some 2019 Labour voters will not be voting Labour - nor will they be voting Conservative. If in certain seats enough of them jump to the Greens (whether that be due to Palestine, green infrastructure spending, general anti-austerity politics, etc.) then I think Greens can win some seats. The Labour party has, under SKS, shown active disdain for a not insignificant slice of its electorate base. The Greens are best placed to capitalise on that.
https://www.justsecurity.org/93876/trump-hush-money-charges/
Got to say paying Michael Cohen $420,000 to hide a $130,000 payment seems a bit dubious in and of itself
But no, he went to University College School.
I wonder what the average annual fuel duty paid by a 40 tonne HGV is? It must be well over 10k.
Their VED is currently too low cf cars (only about 2 or 3 times).
For me, the most interesting part of the book was where he described how politicians had tipped the scale against nuclear power -- and in favor of fossil fuels, which just happened to benefit, among others, the Brown family in California. After reading the book, I was expecting lawsuits from some of those he accused of having opposed nuclear power -- for their own profit, but haven't seen any.
However, I believe the point is that parents whose children have an EHCP have the right to chose where their child goes. Perhaps we should ask ourselves why the private sector is a popular choice?
https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/broadcast/quentin-letts-defends-mails-miliband-coverage-its-not-if-we-rooted-through-his-bins/
It is not my fault I is thick though. I was at a cumprehensive.
The problem with rail freight is that rail is simply a very inefficient means to transport goods that are going not very long distances to multiple destinations and from multiple sources.
Rail worked extraordinarily well in the age of coal where a trainload of coal could be picked up at a mine and dropped off at a power station.
But nowadays that isn't our modern, developed economy. An HGV on the road might be going to dozens of stops in its route and it can go directly to each in a way that a train just can't.
Our economy isn't going back to the age of coal and 19th century economics.
All of which leads to a reputation among alumni such that they pour money into the foundation setup to fund the scholarships.
I think the only canal still carrying freight now is the Manchester Ship Canal, and it's not substantial.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/at-least-four-judges-resign-from-men-only-garrick-club-after-backlash/ar-BB1kuy4B?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=18b4e7b64081470cb3d7275ff362cd42&ei=19
How so? When the demand for electricity is less, the plant is designed to allow the coolant to heat up from its usual operating temperature, instead of generating electricity. As I recall, it can go from 500 up to 800 degrees Farenheit. (You can find more info at the Terrapower site: https://www.terrapower.com/ )
Garrick members, as befits a club named for a thespian, are the Movers.
We all know the Masons are the Shakers.
There's no proposal to make all-male spaces illegal, is there?
Edit: though narrow boats are just too inefficient. (Unless you count self-loading freight such as cruisers and tourists/dining & drinking barge outings.)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/british-museum-evacuated-after-protesters-block-entrance-to-london-landmark/ar-BB1krQF2?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=d861a3d655d84b72a209ae26112393d9&ei=11
“I’m contacting you because we have identified you as a possible victim of a crime,” a victim specialist from the federal agency’s Seattle office wrote in the letters, which passengers received this week. “This case is currently under investigation by the FBI.”'
source: https://apnews.com/article/boeing-fbi-investigation-crime-lawsuit-oregon-a4ffddc43f2000dd9d9466a335df6a93
And that's all I know about the investigation.
(FWIW, Boeing does randomly drug test its workers who do repairs, but not its workers who do manufacturing.)
It's certainly true that the policing of gender norms - and the exclusion of women* from political power (one of the regressive aspects of the Great Reform Bill) - increased in early 19thC Britain.
*Largely aristocratic women.
https://www.ourdacorum.org.uk/content/towns-and-villages/hemel-hempstead/roses-lime-juice-at-boxmoor-wharf
Quite a fascinating story.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/19/boris-johnson-unused-water-cannon-sold-for-scrap-at-300000-loss
Just spent 3 weeks completely avoiding British news and to say it was a refreshing experience would be a huge understatement. It looks like the only significant event in that time was the defection of an MP to the Reform Party.
A more pertinent point is that many of our public schools don't really need to charge fees at all. Clifton could survive for decades without charging anyone a penny, it owns so much land.
Sounds about right. He does appear somewhat fragile at time.
Labour Clive Lewis 27,766 53.7%
Conservative Michael Spencer 15,006 29.0%
Liberal Democrats James Wright 4,776 9.2%
Green Catherine Rowett 2,469 4.8%
Brexit Party Sandy Gilchrist 1,656 3.2%
It would be a brave prediction.
Plus I had of course forgotten the Crinan and Caledonian canals which still carry some freight.
I don't think this election is their best opportunity at all. I think it's one of the worst: a relatively popular Labour party in a Tory vs Labour change election. Their opportunity will come if Labour manage to hold on to power for 2 terms or more, and at a point where people are a. becoming disillusioned with them, particularly on the left or on green issues, b. complacent about the risk of the Tories getting back in.
The whole idea of Green inroads against Labour this time is a bit of a fantasy world. It's a change election, Labour are change, and Owen Jones being Owen Jones doesn't really change that. They just aren't going to be losing seats to the Greens this time. Whether the Greens get some reasonably second places from where they can challenge an unpopular Labour government in four or eight years time is another matter, but not one for this year.
I extend that to include Bristol Central. Yes, Greens are strong there. But Thangam Debbonnaire is a strong MP, she got a 28k majority on admittedly better boundaries in 2019, and she'll be okay.
Bristol Central - beat Thangham due to Labour people voting Green, which we can also see from local elections favouring greens
Brighton - hold the seat Caroline is vacating.
Norwich - Greens currently second largest party at local level, with 4 Labour cllrs crossing over to Greens. Adrian Ramsey is currently leader of Greens at the local council and it's a new Waveney Valley constituency that incorporates some of the strong Green areas.
These would all need to go towards Greens to get to that 4 figure. I also think that due to weird polling and FPTP that Greens could capitalise on Labour being seen as obviously winning at a national level, a Tory extinction and Labour moving so far to the centre / right that some people will vote Green anyway and that could lead to a weird win somewhere. Again, optimistic.
The point of a club is to walk in and know 20-40% of the people there. If you are an accountant and you know other accountants there then that is job done. If you believe yourself to be a non-conformist type who is better at a club where you aren't allowed to wear a tie and 50% of the people there are constantly looking over your shoulder in case they spot that bloke in the Persil advert (with or without his mixed family) and you like a crowded place where you can't hear youself think when you might as well be in the French House, then the Groucho is for you.
If not justify why its different
Possibly related. Boeing is subject to a Default Prosecution Agreement, which looks to likely to be called in. They are potentially in serious legal trouble as well as the other issues
Like you I couldn't care less it sounds vaguely right not to have a tax exemption for the most privileged folk in the land (bless 'em). I think however that the (un?)intended consequences of the effect on the state sector will be one of those elements that those involved curse to high heaven while the Lab politicians put it away as job done.
What I wonder do the state sector heads think about the possible influx of more students into their midsts.
Of course many schools, including Clifton, also share some of their sports facilities with the local community and professional sports clubs
https://www.ccsl-cliftoncollege.com/sports-ground/professional-sports-clubs-use-clifton-college-sports-ground/
BREAKING
Rishi Sunak is facing another by-election in a red wall seat after Scott Benton resigned today as a MP, GB News can reveal.
Benton, the independent MP for Blackpool South MP, was already facing a recall petition and potentially a by-election after MPs have approved a motion to suspend from the Commons for 35 days.
Benton lost the Tory whip last April after suggesting to undercover reporters at The Times that he would be willing to break lobbying rules for money.
An independent panel upheld a decision by the Standards Committee, which Mr Benton had appealed against.
In a letter today, Benton said: "It's with a heavy heart that I have written to the Chancellor this morning to tender my resignation as your MP.
"I'd like to thank the hundreds of residents who have sent supportive messages, cards and letters over the last few months and who have urged me to continue and fight the next election."
Benton has previously said he was "deeply disappointed" and claimed there had been a "lack of integrity" throughout the process, which was "prone" to leaks.
In 2019, Benton won a majority of 3,690 in a seat that had voted Labour since 1997.
I note (bbc news) that Israel has banned UNWRA from their activities which will presumably send the Greens and Lab mad with rage.
VAT rules are bizarre and idiosyncratic, so expecting consistency from them is a pointless task. Pasty tax for example...
Prosecution want 40 years, defence plead for 6. The USA goes harder on white collar crime than we do. Be interesting to see what he gets.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/sam-bankman-fried-to-be-sentenced-for-multibillion-dollar-fraud-this-week/ar-BB1ktQHj?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=96d230f033dd4450823ad406ef063f03&ei=76
In Bristol, we've been here before - they went in all guns blazing in 2019 and were on the wrong end of a 28k majority. The MP is strong, Labour are on the up - it just isn't happening. Extrapolating a win from a low stakes, low turnout local election is a bit naive.
Norwich - Greens lost their deposit in both Norwich constituencies in 2019, and their local government presence there is nothing new.
Waveney - we will, of course see if a very blue area does more than pat the Greens on the head and give them a few district council seats in a low turnout election. Maybe if Consevratives do badly enough, but it's a stretch.
Brighton - they may, of course, hold a seat they won comfortably last time. Their activists would be wise to focus on that seat, though, as they fouled up running the Council and need all the help they can get with a change of candidate.
EP195
Supplies of training, or end-point assessment, which are paid by government funding including the apprenticeship levy, are exempt from VAT. This includes additional payments (see paragraphs EP98 to EP105). Prices entered onto the ILR must not include VAT.
So as student loans are from government funding - they would be excluded, and following you logic only those paying directly would be subject to it.
Hence I quite like you idea as you’ve just raised a few more quid for the Government without actually achieving your aim of getting all students to pay
Example A) rich student pays fees without a loan...no government funding so should be vattable
Example
Money goes Government (> quango) > university
Repayments go student > HMRC > quango
The relationship between the fee and the loan is indirect
4 Offences of stirring up hatred
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or
(ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and
(b) either—
(i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or
(ii) a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
...
(ii) communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive, and
(b) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3).
(3) The characteristics are—
(a) age,
(b) disability,
(c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
(d) sexual orientation,
(e) transgender identity,
(f) variations in sex characteristics.
However, I suspect it won't happen. By some sort of magic, despite the bleating, private school parents will find the resources to pay the extra VAT. And/or the schools will find a way of not adding it all on to fees by making cost savings, as state schools have to do. Perish the thought.
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), in determining whether behaviour or communication was reasonable, particular regard must be had to the importance of the right to freedom of expression by virtue of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the general principle that the right applies to the expression of information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (4), it is shown that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable if—
(a) evidence adduced is enough to raise an issue as to whether that is the case, and
(b) the prosecution does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is not the case.
(7) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(i) and (2)(a)(i), a person's behaviour—
(a) includes behaviour of any kind and, in particular, things that the person says, or otherwise communicates, as well as things that the person does,
(b) may consist of—
(i) a single act, or
(ii) a course of conduct.
(8) For the purposes of subsections (1)(a)(ii) and (2)(a)(ii), the ways in which a person may communicate material to another person are by—
(a) displaying, publishing or distributing the material,
(b) giving, sending, showing or playing the material to another person,
(c) making the material available to another person in any other way.
(9) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both), or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or a fine (or both).
The reason that this is not just another example of how Scotland has ceased to be a free country is that the view of the Scottish courts is that if anything is published that can be and is read in Scotland then the offence occurs when and where it is read. So posts on this forum, for example, read by me in Dundee, gives the Scottish courts jurisdiction.
You have been warned.
https://feweek.co.uk/no-plans-to-exempt-colleges-from-vat-says-treasury-secretary/
It also felt like the heart of the community - particularly considering the two famous businesses that dominated the area.
Could they have done more for the community? Perhaps; I was outside it. Would the community have missed it? From talikng to locals at the time; yes.
Progressive or regressive is not determined by the extremes alone of society.
The fact remains that as you progress through the deciles of income, then fuel expenditure is proportionately less for higher deciles and more for lower deciles. QED the tax is regressive.
Back in the 80s and 90s, as I recall, spend per pupil at yer bog standard private school wasn’t much different to that at state schools. And private schools still attracted people. Two main reasons, as far as I can see: 1) because they were selective, they didn’t have to take any ‘challenging’ pupils, and 2) because they were fee paying, they were responsive to the demands of parents rather than those of local authorities.
Now, I concede that rough parity of funding is probably no longer true (not least because private schools are chasing an entirely different market to what they used to). But I don’t think that’s the main reason why many parents would rather, if allowed to do it for free, educate their children privately.
[A personal reflection: we’ve considered private for some of our kids – not least to give the best opportunities to sporty middle daughter, where private schools do tend to seriously outcompete the state sector. I had two main objections: first, the private school we looked around appeared to be very, very woke. I’ll grudgingly accept that they’ll get wokery from the state sector – though the state schools my kids go to seem considerably more balanced than this particular private school – but I’m buggered if I’m paying for a school to peddle that agenda at my kids; and secondly and more importantly, my kids at state schools are all friends with kids within walking distance with whom they can easily meet up; while my neighbour’s daughter at a private school has a friendship network who all live a few miles away in various directions, whom she rarely sees outside of school and which necessitates much parental ferrying-about. And whom she doesn’t actually seem to like that much.]
It's shocking. The SNP are plunging the county into a form of authoritarian dystopia.
What push back is happening in Scotland over this. Will it damage the SNP electorally?