I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
You abuse others, and when you get a rather mild rebuke, your response is two four-letter words joined together?
It'll be funny if a Labour government decides to introduce National Service in about 3 years' time. That's the sort of thing that happens in politics, like Labour introducing tuition fees in 1998 when everyone thought it would be the Tories who were more likely to do so.
I think it’s inevitable. Whoever is PM is going to be increasingly embarrassed at NATO summits as the rest of Europe actually starts to prepare for possible war if we continue not to.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
Yes and no. It’s use isn’t anything like as widespread as smoking and I think it would be far greater if it was legal. If you ban smoking it goes down the same route, but I’d say at least with cannabis you high. What do you get from tobacco (if you are not addicted?) I think smoking is very harmful to health and should be banned. I am less bothered about cannabis, although it’s not completely safe and smoking it has risks too. I’m a big fan of David Nutt. He talks a lot of sense about risks of drugs.
There's no logic whatsoever to alcohol being legal but cannabis not. Do you want to try?
As for cannabis' use, you don't know - because its only use is illegal. But anecdotally young people take a lot more drugs than smoke. Just imagine how much tax we could get from that.
Why bring alcohol into this? Lots of evidence that alcohol can be very bad if too much taken, some evidence that light use can be a good thing, although the evidence is mixed. Cannabis can have harms. I have met people who have done a lot of cannabis and I would suggest that they have been affected by it. But no, I think cannabis ought to be legal, sold by the state and taxed. Other drugs should be looked at. Is ecstasy particularly dangerous? I’ve seen some studies that there can be a risk for people with pre-existing cardio problems. And there have always been deaths, but as others would point out, those are normally from dirty drugs, no pure ecstasy. Magic mushrooms should be fine. Ayahusaca too.
But we have always had odd attitudes to which drugs are ok and which are not.
I bring alcohol into it because it is legal despite being a dangerous drug. So if you want to ban drugs, you should start with alcohol.
I would not ban any drug - just tax them a lot. I am consistent, the Tories and Labour are not.
Better a glass of wine with dinner than a dopehead.
Oooh, can I play this game? "Better an occasional spliff than a wife-beating pisshead dead from cirrhosis at the age of 50." How did I do?
You obviously mix with some odious people. I have never been in contact with a wife beater nor anyone who died from cirrhosis of the liver at any age , so unable to mark your card. Further being unable to be a wife and having never had a spliff it would be wrong of me to even guess, but would have a spliff personally.
"mix with odious people"? Only on here
But yeah, ok, better from you. I was just reflecting back the way you seemed to be diminishing one drug and demonising another. Personally, I drink alcohol and don't smoke weed, but I'm not under any pretence that booze is better. It's about having a healthy relationship with it, not letting it control you. It doesn't do well to pick friendly examples of one and horror tales of another just for rhetorical purposes. That's what I thought you were doing, apologies if I read it wrong.
No problem, I am like yourself , though have a family member who haa Schizophrenia, which was likely caused by cannabis so not so keen on drugs, though though many are just as bad with excess alcohol. As you say neither are funny when abused.
Am genuinely a bit concerned about @Casino_Royale now, he does seem angrier than usual. Hope he's alright and sending best wishes to him and his family. Once again am very sorry about the school closing, that is sad news.
He should be angry , especially with some of the arseholes on here enjoying his son having to go find a new school, get split from friends etc.
What's his excuse the rest of the time?
Oh do leave him alone Andy. What is this achieving?
It's not achieving anything but I'm not willing to go along with painting him as some sort of paragon of virtue when I've seen the nastiness that he regularly dishes out. In my opinion there's nothing that I've seen aimed at him that isn't what he aims at other posters (if there's been any abuse the mods have got to before I've seen them then I withdraw that statement).
I’m afraid this is a good point. CR is extremely nasty to others with whom he disagrees. Worse than anyone else on here by some distance.
And like a lot of bullies who dish it out to others, he hates it when it’s turned back on him.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
I have thought for some time now that there's a bullying culture on this site, where we jump on certain people above and beyond a bit of light bantering. I thought at first this was a political issue but actually it's just certain people being nasty to others.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
I know why Casino is angry about the proposed closure of his kids' school - its personal. Of course its personal, you want whats best for your kids.
But - and its a very big but - if VAT is the difference between the school thriving and the school closing then I have to ask how they expect all other businesses to cope with similar increases in their costs which they can't pass on.
We need to have principles and create rules which apply evenly and equally. We charge VAT on services - and a private school provides a service. We say "market forces" when businesses fail and don't support bailing them out or preferential tax treatments to protect them. Every other school gets stuck with the local demographic impacts and budget constraints.
So when it's your kids, its personal. Get that. But does the same principle not apply to all kids? Or just your own? The argument seems to be "this will cost the state" because private school kids will transfer to the state sector. OK, thats fine. As happens all the time already when schools close.
So youre for VAT on university fees ?
Universities are state sector.
OK, so your for subsidising failing state institutions and hammering private ones ?
If only we were subsiding universities. The opposite - taken the money off them and told them to fill the hole with rich chinese students, and now want to ban them as well.
+20% is a big hit. But one that the state should pay for? Significant numbers of businesses have had bigger cost increases than that and haven't had cash thrown at them - and the ones who did are going bust in increasing numbers.
Make a case for why private schools are a special case and deserve preferential treatment. Fine. But don't say its outrageous to suggest they pay their way.
Equality - Private schools should be treated the same as state - no VAT Double taxation - the parents pay for education twice - fees and general taxation Choice - if people want to pay for something fifferent let them. Variety - private schools offer services the state doesnt eg boarding Cost efficient - the state doesnt have to pay for more schools and teachers.
As for universities the LDs in coalition help bring in in higher fees. What we were told would be £6500 a year turned out to be £9500. The Unis have had a 50% inflationary start and pissed it up the wall.
No, higher fees has to be balanced off against lower funding.
Im afraid the Unis stuck their noses in the troughs. In 2012 No Brain Willetts convinced himself unis would charge fees of £6k ish. In the event they all maxed out from day one and charged £3k more.
What did we get for that ? My son went to Bath where he had the pleasure of the VC earning three times more than the Prime Minister. Apart from giving the Students Union something to moan about he got no value from it,
Unis have had a decade of higher fees which inflation has now eaten in to. They have spent their money unwisely in some instances and are now getting out the begging bowls.
This absolutely sums up the University sector. Institutions run by, for, and to the benefit of the management and administrators. Students are only of interest in so far as they are the customers that pay for it by their presence. Academics are a burden. Research is a waste of resource.
Yes, it's very hard to see £9k as good value for what students actually get - certainly compared to what state school pupils get for the £7500 per head spent on them.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health.
p.s. I’m not here that much (thankfully tbh seeing the intemperate arguments this pm) so haven’t been following any of this school closing thing.
PMSL at your I am not here that much, you are omnipresent talking up Labour from all corners of the world and sometimes on the same day.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
I have thought for some time now that there's a bullying culture on this site, where we jump on certain people above and beyond a bit of light bantering. I thought at first this was a political issue but actually it's just certain people being nasty to others.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
CHB, you've had good days. Today you lump hypocrisy and bad manners together and label yourself some sort of a paragon. Particularly given your long history here I'd have thought you might have grown up a little bit.
I know why Casino is angry about the proposed closure of his kids' school - its personal. Of course its personal, you want whats best for your kids.
But - and its a very big but - if VAT is the difference between the school thriving and the school closing then I have to ask how they expect all other businesses to cope with similar increases in their costs which they can't pass on.
We need to have principles and create rules which apply evenly and equally. We charge VAT on services - and a private school provides a service. We say "market forces" when businesses fail and don't support bailing them out or preferential tax treatments to protect them. Every other school gets stuck with the local demographic impacts and budget constraints.
So when it's your kids, its personal. Get that. But does the same principle not apply to all kids? Or just your own? The argument seems to be "this will cost the state" because private school kids will transfer to the state sector. OK, thats fine. As happens all the time already when schools close.
So youre for VAT on university fees ?
Universities are state sector.
OK, so your for subsidising failing state institutions and hammering private ones ?
If only we were subsiding universities. The opposite - taken the money off them and told them to fill the hole with rich chinese students, and now want to ban them as well.
+20% is a big hit. But one that the state should pay for? Significant numbers of businesses have had bigger cost increases than that and haven't had cash thrown at them - and the ones who did are going bust in increasing numbers.
Make a case for why private schools are a special case and deserve preferential treatment. Fine. But don't say its outrageous to suggest they pay their way.
Equality - Private schools should be treated the same as state - no VAT Double taxation - the parents pay for education twice - fees and general taxation Choice - if people want to pay for something fifferent let them. Variety - private schools offer services the state doesnt eg boarding Cost efficient - the state doesnt have to pay for more schools and teachers.
As for universities the LDs in coalition help bring in in higher fees. What we were told would be £6500 a year turned out to be £9500. The Unis have had a 50% inflationary start and pissed it up the wall.
No, higher fees has to be balanced off against lower funding.
Im afraid the Unis stuck their noses in the troughs. In 2012 No Brain Willetts convinced himself unis would charge fees of £6k ish. In the event they all maxed out from day one and charged £3k more.
What did we get for that ? My son went to Bath where he had the pleasure of the VC earning three times more than the Prime Minister. Apart from giving the Students Union something to moan about he got no value from it,
Unis have had a decade of higher fees which inflation has now eaten in to. They have spent their money unwisely in some instances and are now getting out the begging bowls.
This absolutely sums up the University sector. Institutions run by, for, and to the benefit of the management and administrators. Students are only of interest in so far as they are the customers that pay for it by their presence. Academics are a burden. Research is a waste of resource.
Yes, it's very hard to see £9k as good value for what students actually get - certainly compared to what state school pupils get for the £7500 per head spent on them.
A lot of it depends on the subject. A lot of the arts and social sciences are of questionable value.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
I have thought for some time now that there's a bullying culture on this site, where we jump on certain people above and beyond a bit of light bantering. I thought at first this was a political issue but actually it's just certain people being nasty to others.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
It is only the internet, at worst you just tell people to F*** off. Go and join Mumsnet if you want decency and courtesy. people are here to express opinions and argue their point as well as some joviality. No need to take everything personally.
I know why Casino is angry about the proposed closure of his kids' school - its personal. Of course its personal, you want whats best for your kids.
But - and its a very big but - if VAT is the difference between the school thriving and the school closing then I have to ask how they expect all other businesses to cope with similar increases in their costs which they can't pass on.
We need to have principles and create rules which apply evenly and equally. We charge VAT on services - and a private school provides a service. We say "market forces" when businesses fail and don't support bailing them out or preferential tax treatments to protect them. Every other school gets stuck with the local demographic impacts and budget constraints.
So when it's your kids, its personal. Get that. But does the same principle not apply to all kids? Or just your own? The argument seems to be "this will cost the state" because private school kids will transfer to the state sector. OK, thats fine. As happens all the time already when schools close.
So youre for VAT on university fees ?
Universities are state sector.
OK, so your for subsidising failing state institutions and hammering private ones ?
If only we were subsiding universities. The opposite - taken the money off them and told them to fill the hole with rich chinese students, and now want to ban them as well.
+20% is a big hit. But one that the state should pay for? Significant numbers of businesses have had bigger cost increases than that and haven't had cash thrown at them - and the ones who did are going bust in increasing numbers.
Make a case for why private schools are a special case and deserve preferential treatment. Fine. But don't say its outrageous to suggest they pay their way.
Equality - Private schools should be treated the same as state - no VAT Double taxation - the parents pay for education twice - fees and general taxation Choice - if people want to pay for something fifferent let them. Variety - private schools offer services the state doesnt eg boarding Cost efficient - the state doesnt have to pay for more schools and teachers.
As for universities the LDs in coalition help bring in in higher fees. What we were told would be £6500 a year turned out to be £9500. The Unis have had a 50% inflationary start and pissed it up the wall.
No, higher fees has to be balanced off against lower funding.
Im afraid the Unis stuck their noses in the troughs. In 2012 No Brain Willetts convinced himself unis would charge fees of £6k ish. In the event they all maxed out from day one and charged £3k more.
What did we get for that ? My son went to Bath where he had the pleasure of the VC earning three times more than the Prime Minister. Apart from giving the Students Union something to moan about he got no value from it,
Unis have had a decade of higher fees which inflation has now eaten in to. They have spent their money unwisely in some instances and are now getting out the begging bowls.
This absolutely sums up the University sector. Institutions run by, for, and to the benefit of the management and administrators. Students are only of interest in so far as they are the customers that pay for it by their presence. Academics are a burden. Research is a waste of resource.
Yes, it's very hard to see £9k as good value for what students actually get - certainly compared to what state school pupils get for the £7500 per head spent on them.
CHB, you've had good days. Today you lump hypocrisy and bad manners together and label yourself some sort of a paragon. Particularly given your long history here I'd have thought you might have grown up a little bit.
I don't know who "CHB" is.
But my point stands, people are just being nasty and quite personal for no reason. By all means attack the politics people hold but just going after somebody's personal circumstances is beyond the pale for me and just falls into bullying.
It's disappointing you can't see that - and it makes me question your judgment in future. Let's leave it here.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
You'd like that, wouldn't you?
Rest assured I'm going to be on here every day now until polling day calling out the Starmer love-in and the Labour spin lines night and day: I won't let you get a moment's peace. And I'm certainly not going to desert the site.
I won't take any lectures from you - someone who is happy to dish out ad hominem, and watch it meted out to others you consider to be political opponents, but only pops up to condemn when they hit back.
Sanctimonious shit.
It's genuinely a shame your lad's school has gone under, but unsuccessful organisations fail every day and people lose their jobs. It's going to be tough over the next six weeks for you, and you should bear in mind that nothing any of us on this site says makes a blind bit of difference to anything out in the real world. It just doesn't matter. You'll be worn out wading through all that blood, so take it easy on yourself.
Senior Tory source: “Yesterday the PM hit the campaign trail 2 hours before Sir Keir surfaced. Today there’s no sign of Starmer and we’re just 4 days into the campaign. Campaigns are tough, tiring things and it's understandable that he may be weary. But being PM is a 24/7 job.”
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
I have thought for some time now that there's a bullying culture on this site, where we jump on certain people above and beyond a bit of light bantering. I thought at first this was a political issue but actually it's just certain people being nasty to others.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
Yep, there's a difference between a debate and just piling on someone.
Incidentally, I don't know if it got lost in the very active GE 2024 being announced thread, but I did apologise to state_go_away for calling him an idiot the other day, which I'm not very proud of. That happened because I was already very riled up by being called 'despicable' by someone else on this site.
The site's a bit crap once we descend into slinging personal insults, and it's something we all need to watch out for, including myself. There's no need for it.
CHB, you've had good days. Today you lump hypocrisy and bad manners together and label yourself some sort of a paragon. Particularly given your long history here I'd have thought you might have grown up a little bit.
I don't know who "CHB" is.
But my point stands, people are just being nasty and quite personal for no reason. By all means attack the politics people hold but just going after somebody's personal circumstances is beyond the pale for me and just falls into bullying.
It's disappointing you can't see that - and it makes me question your judgment in future. Let's leave it here.
No your point doesn't stand - you are deliberately trying to be a bully. You're trying to hurt others in the way that others have hurt you in the past. Such actions caused you great distress in the past and now you wish to be the cause of such distress to others. You know it's wrong.
This feels like a mis-step to me. This is not the right way to advocate for this policy.
6500 teachers across 25k schools in England (Ed being devolved) is a bit thin as a game changer.
It is the same ridiculous nonsense as the non doms supposedly fixing the NHS by raising £3.2bn or...roughly 1.6% of the current budget. These "brave" policies are frankly trivial gestures. They are recognition that there just isn't any more money and that things are not going to change very much.
There must be plenty of scope to cut waste and save significant amounts David.
Yep, there's a difference between a debate and just piling on someone.
Incidentally, I don't know if it got lost in the very active GE 2024 being announced thread, but I did apologise to state_go_away for calling him an idiot the other day, which I'm not very proud of. That happened because I was already very riled up by being called 'despicable' by someone else on this site.
The site's a bit crap once we descend into slinging personal insults, and it's something we all need to watch out for, including myself. There's no need for it.
I am sure I have been the cause of much of it in the past and have contributed to it - I myself am trying to do better too.
Anyway, I have said my piece, I don't want to overflow the site any further so will go back to the politics.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
I have thought for some time now that there's a bullying culture on this site, where we jump on certain people above and beyond a bit of light bantering. I thought at first this was a political issue but actually it's just certain people being nasty to others.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
Weirdly reminded of Mars attacks now… But yes, it ought to be possible to debate politely and with passion. Nick Palmer is an excellent example of this. Others less so. I sense there are a few labour supporters on PB who feel that they have had to wade through the sh1t for the last 14 years and can sense the world turning and want to vent.
My biggest beef is the posts claiming x or y is thick, or stupid or whatever. I think this is overdone. Many times it results from interactions with the media, and with x or y trying not to say stuff, and the media desperately try8ng to drag things out. For sure politicians do need scrutiny, but I miss the gentler probing interviews of former decades. We might learn far more from a 90 minute long form chat, than an inquisitorial 5 mins on Newsnught, with hack aiming for a gotcha moment.
CHB, you've had good days. Today you lump hypocrisy and bad manners together and label yourself some sort of a paragon. Particularly given your long history here I'd have thought you might have grown up a little bit.
I don't know who "CHB" is.
But my point stands, people are just being nasty and quite personal for no reason. By all means attack the politics people hold but just going after somebody's personal circumstances is beyond the pale for me and just falls into bullying.
It's disappointing you can't see that - and it makes me question your judgment in future. Let's leave it here.
No your point doesn't stand - you are deliberately trying to be a bully. You're trying to hurt others in the way that others have hurt you in the past. Such actions caused you great distress in the past and now you wish to be the cause of such distress to others. You know it's wrong.
I am totally lost what point you are making and who you think I am bullying. I am standing up to the appalling way Casino has been treated today.
I think you are completely off base with your post - my point does stand as you have not in any way been able to defeat it.
I am ending this discussion with you here as you're just being silly.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Can't you see he is hurting? Just leave him alone, this is really quite pathetic behaviour now and just has descended to kicking a man whilst he's down. It's what I would expect a child to do, not an adult.
It's now descending into bullying and that's something I won't have.
It's not bullying. The individual concerned can't tolerate people with different views, be it a recommendation in a bookshop, a menu in his pub, an advert at Waterloo station, someone referring to the King as Chaz. All have been the subject of unhinged rants in the past. He thinks he's God's gift but if you've read PB as long as I have you know that you only need to trigger the short fuse to get a volley of personal abuse. The school saga is just the latest in a long line of rants.
I am conflicted. As a member of Surrey I am disappointed but having lived in Hampshire much of my early life and so being a supporter because of that, I am also happy.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
However given I already pay circa 4x my state pension in tax , when is enough enough for greedy whining arseholes like BCH. Personally I say F*** right off and go earn your own money loser, rather than wanting to sponge of pensioners.
“Sunak’s pledge to reintroduce compulsory UK national service, including assigning up to 30,000 18-year-olds to the military, was rejected last week by one his own defence ministers….”
This feels like a mis-step to me. This is not the right way to advocate for this policy.
6500 teachers across 25k schools in England (Ed being devolved) is a bit thin as a game changer.
It is the same ridiculous nonsense as the non doms supposedly fixing the NHS by raising £3.2bn or...roughly 1.6% of the current budget. These "brave" policies are frankly trivial gestures. They are recognition that there just isn't any more money and that things are not going to change very much.
There must be plenty of scope to cut waste and save significant amounts David.
In the NHS? yes, plenty of scope but anything more than the most minor of changes gets politicians all upset. A good example is in maternity, smaller units both cost more per pathway and tend to provide a worse service but woe betide anyone brave enough to propose closing a constituency's local maternity hospital.
Yes and no. It’s use isn’t anything like as widespread as smoking and I think it would be far greater if it was legal. If you ban smoking it goes down the same route, but I’d say at least with cannabis you high. What do you get from tobacco (if you are not addicted?) I think smoking is very harmful to health and should be banned. I am less bothered about cannabis, although it’s not completely safe and smoking it has risks too. I’m a big fan of David Nutt. He talks a lot of sense about risks of drugs.
There's no logic whatsoever to alcohol being legal but cannabis not. Do you want to try?
As for cannabis' use, you don't know - because its only use is illegal. But anecdotally young people take a lot more drugs than smoke. Just imagine how much tax we could get from that.
Why bring alcohol into this? Lots of evidence that alcohol can be very bad if too much taken, some evidence that light use can be a good thing, although the evidence is mixed. Cannabis can have harms. I have met people who have done a lot of cannabis and I would suggest that they have been affected by it. But no, I think cannabis ought to be legal, sold by the state and taxed. Other drugs should be looked at. Is ecstasy particularly dangerous? I’ve seen some studies that there can be a risk for people with pre-existing cardio problems. And there have always been deaths, but as others would point out, those are normally from dirty drugs, no pure ecstasy. Magic mushrooms should be fine. Ayahusaca too.
But we have always had odd attitudes to which drugs are ok and which are not.
I bring alcohol into it because it is legal despite being a dangerous drug. So if you want to ban drugs, you should start with alcohol.
I would not ban any drug - just tax them a lot. I am consistent, the Tories and Labour are not.
Better a glass of wine with dinner than a dopehead.
Oooh, can I play this game? "Better an occasional spliff than a wife-beating pisshead dead from cirrhosis at the age of 50." How did I do?
You obviously mix with some odious people. I have never been in contact with a wife beater nor anyone who died from cirrhosis of the liver at any age , so unable to mark your card. Further being unable to be a wife and having never had a spliff it would be wrong of me to even guess, but would have a spliff personally.
"mix with odious people"? Only on here
But yeah, ok, better from you. I was just reflecting back the way you seemed to be diminishing one drug and demonising another. Personally, I drink alcohol and don't smoke weed, but I'm not under any pretence that booze is better. It's about having a healthy relationship with it, not letting it control you. It doesn't do well to pick friendly examples of one and horror tales of another just for rhetorical purposes. That's what I thought you were doing, apologies if I read it wrong.
No problem, I am like yourself , though have a family member who haa Schizophrenia, which was likely caused by cannabis so not so keen on drugs, though though many are just as bad with excess alcohol. As you say neither are funny when abused.
One of the reasons I'd like to see weed legalised is because I have this idea that it's the strong stuff that's the problem. When you buy something illegal through a dealer, you have zero knowledge of the provenance and manufacture of it. You could be getting anything, of any strength. Bringing weed into licensed distribution, a la alcohol, would allow for state-regulated quality control, meaning people who want to use it can do so safely, and predict how much it'll affect them. I'm not super-confident that I'm right about the above strength-mental health link, so if I'm wrong and weaker stuff is just as likely to cause harm, someone please keep me honest.
I was at Uni when the changeover to skunk and the other super strength stuffed occurred.
Everyone smoked weed - but when they tried the extra strength stuff, nearly everyone rejected it. The comment was it was like a harsh vodka vs beer.
I suppose those who’ve grown up with the mega strength stuff are ok with it. But it was interesting to see how people reacted.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
I have thought for some time now that there's a bullying culture on this site, where we jump on certain people above and beyond a bit of light bantering. I thought at first this was a political issue but actually it's just certain people being nasty to others.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
It is only the internet, at worst you just tell people to F*** off. Go and join Mumsnet if you want decency and courtesy. people are here to express opinions and argue their point as well as some joviality. No need to take everything personally.
Oh don't be silly Malc, no one from PB would find Mumsnet a remotely hospitable place.
Mumsnet is a site inhabited by people with ridiculous pseudonyms, some of whom are obsessed with shoes, some with bragging about their overseas travels, some with private schools, others with the trials and tribulations of being a stepmum. But nothing, at all, gets them as riled up as the trans issue.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
Contribution is a red herring. Older people should be treated with dignity not as a result of some transactional tax history, but because it's the right thing to do. State pensions need to be higher, clearly. That needs to come out of the pockets of those of us who work.
That said, the triple lock should be scrapped. There needs to be a rapid uplift to a sensible level, then it needs to be linked to wages and or inflation. The 2.5% part should go. It's only there as a ratchet. We shouldn't pussyfoot our way towards it. Pensioners need a dignified income now, not "eventually".
That won’t happen, politically. Funding big jump in pensions won’t fly.
The triple lock system was invented to increase the state pension gradually and *inexorably*. To create a political lock.
I am conflicted. As a member of Surrey I am disappointed but having lived in Hampshire much of my early life and so being a supporter because of that, I am also happy.
Slightly worrying for the England test team how poorly Surrey have batted in this game, but no tests for a while, and the only WI and Sri Lanka. I’ve been Hants since my teenage years watching Robin and Chris Smith, Malcolm Marshal, Paul Terry, David Gower etc. The last few years have been good in the shorter formats, and recently assembled a decent County Champs side. Doing well with the weather today - Taunton is a washout.
I am conflicted. As a member of Surrey I am disappointed but having lived in Hampshire much of my early life and so being a supporter because of that, I am also happy.
Slightly worrying for the England test team how poorly Surrey have batted in this game, but no tests for a while, and the only WI and Sri Lanka. I’ve been Hants since my teenage years watching Robin and Chris Smith, Malcolm Marshal, Paul Terry, David Gower etc. The last few years have been good in the shorter formats, and recently assembled a decent County Champs side. Doing well with the weather today - Taunton is a washout.
I really like Taunton as a ground, I'm a big fan of James Rew who I think is a future star.
Ah the joys of 'banter'. If you dish it out then you had better be ready to take it back. Also, if you enjoyed taunting people in the past then don't be surprised if you get it back when the boot is on the other foot. The edgier the troll the thinner the skin in my experience.
Yes and no. It’s use isn’t anything like as widespread as smoking and I think it would be far greater if it was legal. If you ban smoking it goes down the same route, but I’d say at least with cannabis you high. What do you get from tobacco (if you are not addicted?) I think smoking is very harmful to health and should be banned. I am less bothered about cannabis, although it’s not completely safe and smoking it has risks too. I’m a big fan of David Nutt. He talks a lot of sense about risks of drugs.
There's no logic whatsoever to alcohol being legal but cannabis not. Do you want to try?
As for cannabis' use, you don't know - because its only use is illegal. But anecdotally young people take a lot more drugs than smoke. Just imagine how much tax we could get from that.
Why bring alcohol into this? Lots of evidence that alcohol can be very bad if too much taken, some evidence that light use can be a good thing, although the evidence is mixed. Cannabis can have harms. I have met people who have done a lot of cannabis and I would suggest that they have been affected by it. But no, I think cannabis ought to be legal, sold by the state and taxed. Other drugs should be looked at. Is ecstasy particularly dangerous? I’ve seen some studies that there can be a risk for people with pre-existing cardio problems. And there have always been deaths, but as others would point out, those are normally from dirty drugs, no pure ecstasy. Magic mushrooms should be fine. Ayahusaca too.
But we have always had odd attitudes to which drugs are ok and which are not.
I bring alcohol into it because it is legal despite being a dangerous drug. So if you want to ban drugs, you should start with alcohol.
I would not ban any drug - just tax them a lot. I am consistent, the Tories and Labour are not.
Better a glass of wine with dinner than a dopehead.
Oooh, can I play this game? "Better an occasional spliff than a wife-beating pisshead dead from cirrhosis at the age of 50." How did I do?
You obviously mix with some odious people. I have never been in contact with a wife beater nor anyone who died from cirrhosis of the liver at any age , so unable to mark your card. Further being unable to be a wife and having never had a spliff it would be wrong of me to even guess, but would have a spliff personally.
"mix with odious people"? Only on here
But yeah, ok, better from you. I was just reflecting back the way you seemed to be diminishing one drug and demonising another. Personally, I drink alcohol and don't smoke weed, but I'm not under any pretence that booze is better. It's about having a healthy relationship with it, not letting it control you. It doesn't do well to pick friendly examples of one and horror tales of another just for rhetorical purposes. That's what I thought you were doing, apologies if I read it wrong.
No problem, I am like yourself , though have a family member who haa Schizophrenia, which was likely caused by cannabis so not so keen on drugs, though though many are just as bad with excess alcohol. As you say neither are funny when abused.
One of the reasons I'd like to see weed legalised is because I have this idea that it's the strong stuff that's the problem. When you buy something illegal through a dealer, you have zero knowledge of the provenance and manufacture of it. You could be getting anything, of any strength. Bringing weed into licensed distribution, a la alcohol, would allow for state-regulated quality control, meaning people who want to use it can do so safely, and predict how much it'll affect them. I'm not super-confident that I'm right about the above strength-mental health link, so if I'm wrong and weaker stuff is just as likely to cause harm, someone please keep me honest.
I was at Uni when the changeover to skunk and the other super strength stuffed occurred.
Everyone smoked weed - but when they tried the extra strength stuff, nearly everyone rejected it. The comment was it was like a harsh vodka vs beer.
I suppose those who’ve grown up with the mega strength stuff are ok with it. But it was interesting to see how people reacted.
Personally I've never taken any drugs.
Except for alcohol in moderation, and coffee if it counts.
Just a question that I don't fully understand, how is a private school in such a dire state that it needs a tax exemption to survive? Do we do this for other businesses that have gone bust?
Most businesses would go bust if you suddenly introduced a 20% tax on them. And most private schools aren't businesses. They aren't there to make a profit.
But it's introducing a tax which all businesses pay already. My point is that if a business today goes bust, we don't say "it's because VAT was charged".
I think youre forgetting VAT was eased in. It started at 10% with lots of exceptions. It wasnt a 20% hit at once.
Ah, but VAT was doubled by the first Thatcher government, in one hit, from 8 to 15 per cent (ok, technically they kept their pledge not to double it).
Yes and no. It’s use isn’t anything like as widespread as smoking and I think it would be far greater if it was legal. If you ban smoking it goes down the same route, but I’d say at least with cannabis you high. What do you get from tobacco (if you are not addicted?) I think smoking is very harmful to health and should be banned. I am less bothered about cannabis, although it’s not completely safe and smoking it has risks too. I’m a big fan of David Nutt. He talks a lot of sense about risks of drugs.
There's no logic whatsoever to alcohol being legal but cannabis not. Do you want to try?
As for cannabis' use, you don't know - because its only use is illegal. But anecdotally young people take a lot more drugs than smoke. Just imagine how much tax we could get from that.
Why bring alcohol into this? Lots of evidence that alcohol can be very bad if too much taken, some evidence that light use can be a good thing, although the evidence is mixed. Cannabis can have harms. I have met people who have done a lot of cannabis and I would suggest that they have been affected by it. But no, I think cannabis ought to be legal, sold by the state and taxed. Other drugs should be looked at. Is ecstasy particularly dangerous? I’ve seen some studies that there can be a risk for people with pre-existing cardio problems. And there have always been deaths, but as others would point out, those are normally from dirty drugs, no pure ecstasy. Magic mushrooms should be fine. Ayahusaca too.
But we have always had odd attitudes to which drugs are ok and which are not.
I bring alcohol into it because it is legal despite being a dangerous drug. So if you want to ban drugs, you should start with alcohol.
I would not ban any drug - just tax them a lot. I am consistent, the Tories and Labour are not.
Better a glass of wine with dinner than a dopehead.
Oooh, can I play this game? "Better an occasional spliff than a wife-beating pisshead dead from cirrhosis at the age of 50." How did I do?
You obviously mix with some odious people. I have never been in contact with a wife beater nor anyone who died from cirrhosis of the liver at any age , so unable to mark your card. Further being unable to be a wife and having never had a spliff it would be wrong of me to even guess, but would have a spliff personally.
"mix with odious people"? Only on here
But yeah, ok, better from you. I was just reflecting back the way you seemed to be diminishing one drug and demonising another. Personally, I drink alcohol and don't smoke weed, but I'm not under any pretence that booze is better. It's about having a healthy relationship with it, not letting it control you. It doesn't do well to pick friendly examples of one and horror tales of another just for rhetorical purposes. That's what I thought you were doing, apologies if I read it wrong.
No problem, I am like yourself , though have a family member who haa Schizophrenia, which was likely caused by cannabis so not so keen on drugs, though though many are just as bad with excess alcohol. As you say neither are funny when abused.
One of the reasons I'd like to see weed legalised is because I have this idea that it's the strong stuff that's the problem. When you buy something illegal through a dealer, you have zero knowledge of the provenance and manufacture of it. You could be getting anything, of any strength. Bringing weed into licensed distribution, a la alcohol, would allow for state-regulated quality control, meaning people who want to use it can do so safely, and predict how much it'll affect them. I'm not super-confident that I'm right about the above strength-mental health link, so if I'm wrong and weaker stuff is just as likely to cause harm, someone please keep me honest.
I was at Uni when the changeover to skunk and the other super strength stuffed occurred.
Everyone smoked weed - but when they tried the extra strength stuff, nearly everyone rejected it. The comment was it was like a harsh vodka vs beer.
I suppose those who’ve grown up with the mega strength stuff are ok with it. But it was interesting to see how people reacted.
Personally I've never taken any drugs.
Except for alcohol in moderation, and coffee if it counts.
Why would you (unless for medical reasons)?
Why do we drink alcohol? Acts to help people relax, and socialise (up to a point). Drugs do different things. I used to play snooker with a chap who smoked weed rather than drank - he found it relaxed him, made him mellow. Other drugs give euphoric highs. The ability to alter how you feel is the thing for many people. We have and always have had sclerotic laws about drugs. Their legal status is clearly not based on accurate assessment of risk and harm.
“Sunak’s pledge to reintroduce compulsory UK national service, including assigning up to 30,000 18-year-olds to the military, was rejected last week by one his own defence ministers….”
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school
Labour are not in Government
And, yet, they've still managed to close my son's school.
No. They haven't. If it's the school on the Times front page they acknowledge that pupil numbers have been dwindling for some time. A school near here, St Mary's Shaftesbury closed a few years ago for the same reason. Was that one shut by Labour too?
It is that school but, with respect, you know nothing about it other than keen to find an angle that absolves Labour of all blame. It'd otherwise compell you to engage with the complexities of a nasty and unpleasant policy that you'd prefer not to.
The 20% price demand shock has been sufficient to kill it off, whereas otherwise it would have survived, and the disruption its going to cause to my son and his friends, and all the job losses it causes - including several pre-school teachers who are family friends - can be laid entirely at the door of SKS. Everyone knows he's going to win and that's having real world effects now.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
I doubt VAT on private schools is going to raise much money for the government as it will move some pupils back to the state sector.
But in the upcoming decades we're going to have to see more taxes raised and lower spending on pretty much all of the country.
And it will be easier for many of the disadvantaged groups to lose out if some of those at the top are visibly doing so as well.
Even if its unfortunate and unpleasant for your family.
The credit crunch killed off about thirty schools in the UK, and that was a one or two year blip. Assume Labour in power for ten years and the policy won't be reversed until at least 2034, and you're potentially looking at a prolonged depression that kills off (ballpark figure here) 300 private schools.
All those kids have to go somewhere. Some of them will be absorbed into other private schools, but even then, imagine if an additional 100-ish state schools need to be built to accommodate kids from private schools that have closed down, on top of an extra 10-20% demand created by parents who would have sent their kids to private schools, but are no longer able to. More schools will have to be built, meaning the cost will probably be greater than the extra £6k per child.
The truth is we don't know exactly how this policy is going to play out, but I did some calculations a few weeks ago and worked out that it's likely to have a creeping, cumulative effect, as parents will pay for kids with three or four years left to go, but be less likely to pay for 5 year olds with 13 years to go, creating a progressive hollowing out of the system that will lead to more and more private schools closing over time.
In short, I reckon Labour's tax wheeze may generate a windfall at first, but will slowly become net negative in terms of tax take over time.
But it won't be the top public schools closing down. It will be the minor schools favoured by the middle classes. So we'll end up with an even more divided system than we have now.
For those reasons, I think it's a bad policy. It will cost the taxpayer more than it brings in revenue, and actually increase division in society by limiting educational choices to an even smaller, more privileged elite.
Except. We are facing a baby bust. The birth rate fell off a cliff around 2013. Primary Schools are already facing closure because of falling rolls. This will feed into Secondary very soon. More kids in the system leads to the much cheaper option of State schools staying open rather than the costs of closing them down.
I'm actually deeply unconvinced of this, based on my very unscientific study of who's at the school gates of the primary schools near me.
We've yet to see how the birthrate changes, taking into account the preferences of recent immigrants. They may well, due to cultural values, place much higher emphasis on having children than we do.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick in the birthrate in the next decade.
Not enough immigrants to change the figures that much. The underlying issue is that people of normal child-raising age can't afford to have children, because their finances are so stretched by mortgage payments.
Which is probably at least as big an issue for parents in the private school market.
It means that the state primary I went to is closing, because the area doesn't have enough children in it any more. Which is a bit sad, but not worth wading through blood for.
It is not just a UK problem though, across the developed world parents are having less children.
The UK fertility rate of 1.6 is actually higher than that in Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, South Korea and China and the same as in Australia and only just below the 1.7 fertility rate in the US in 2024. Only France and Ireland at an average of 1.8 children per mother and Argentina at 1.9 are close to replacement rate of 2.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
252,000 abortions in England Wales last year. Up 17% in a single year and the highest ever. You are way too sanguine.
Well we could certainly look at the time limit even if we don't go full GOP and try and ban it completely
I wouldn't put anything past the leadership of whatever is left of the Conservative Party after the election, but having a mad tilt at the abortion laws seems pretty low down the list of likely priorities. One advantage we have over the Americans is that the bulk of British society has no time for religion, and it's attendant hypocrisies, cruelty and oppression.
You can be an atheist and anti abortion and religious and not want to ban it, the Church of England and Church of Scotland for example don't want to ban it but reduce the numbers of abortions which most people in the UK would agree with.
The most senior anti abortion politician in the UK now is of course evangelical SNP Deputy FM Kate Forbes
We all know the VAT on private schools is red meat for the left wing of the party / country. If it was solely about raising revenue for the country, there are loads of easy way you could extract similar amounts. Play with IC thresholds at top end, IHT, wealth tax, reform council taxes.
IMO, there are lots more important issues facing the country, and potential downside of a load of disruption, loads of extra kids in state schools etc. And if your concern is about unfair advantages that privately educated have, I have long said the fairest way of doing university applications is post A-level results. Shift the calendar, make it post results, then none of this predicted grade nonsense, unis can see all the results, see how a kid did, see how they did in relation to their year at that school.
No need to shift the calendar. One of Leon's AI machines could match students with places in a few seconds once the results are known. What we need to do is get rid of time-wasting and unreliable interviews and personal statements that waste so much of students' and academics' time every spring.
Josh Kerr has just broken the UK record for the mile, which Steve Cram had held for ....39 years. What an incredibly golden period UK athletics had in my youth. Coe, Ovett and Cram. We got used to Brits being at the very peak of middle distance running.
Kerr also beat the Olympic Champion in doing so, as he did to win the World title last year. He has to be favourite for the Olympics 1500m. Its nice to see.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
Contribution is a red herring. Older people should be treated with dignity not as a result of some transactional tax history, but because it's the right thing to do. State pensions need to be higher, clearly. That needs to come out of the pockets of those of us who work.
That said, the triple lock should be scrapped. There needs to be a rapid uplift to a sensible level, then it needs to be linked to wages and or inflation. The 2.5% part should go. It's only there as a ratchet. We shouldn't pussyfoot our way towards it. Pensioners need a dignified income now, not "eventually".
That won’t happen, politically. Funding big jump in pensions won’t fly.
The triple lock system was invented to increase the state pension gradually and *inexorably*. To create a political lock.
The 2.5% bit is very rarely initiated, it should definitely go, at least to quell the baying mob on here every November
From the point of view of extremists on both sides, indeed on all sides, the important thing is to keep the conflict going. Victory not peace, is their motto.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
There are plenty of people on here who probably merit some delicacy and forbearance. That fucking psycho isn't one of them.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
Contribution is a red herring. Older people should be treated with dignity not as a result of some transactional tax history, but because it's the right thing to do. State pensions need to be higher, clearly. That needs to come out of the pockets of those of us who work.
That said, the triple lock should be scrapped. There needs to be a rapid uplift to a sensible level, then it needs to be linked to wages and or inflation. The 2.5% part should go. It's only there as a ratchet. We shouldn't pussyfoot our way towards it. Pensioners need a dignified income now, not "eventually".
That won’t happen, politically. Funding big jump in pensions won’t fly.
The triple lock system was invented to increase the state pension gradually and *inexorably*. To create a political lock.
Yes, acknowledged. But the 3L will need to go at some point, you do see that, don't you? If it persists forever, it'll swamp wages, savings, everything. That's a long way off, perhaps, but it has to be seen as temporary.
Will soon be back to 2.5% maximum when BoE tames inflation.
Josh Kerr has just broken the UK record for the mile, which Steve Cram had held for ....39 years. What an incredibly golden period UK athletics had in my youth. Coe, Ovett and Cram. We got used to Brits being at the very peak of middle distance running.
Kerr also beat the Olympic Champion in doing so, as he did to win the World title last year. He has to be favourite for the Olympics 1500m. Its nice to see.
Keely Hodgkinson also beat the 800m World champ in a World leading time. Gemma Reekie 3rd
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school
Labour are not in Government
And, yet, they've still managed to close my son's school.
No. They haven't. If it's the school on the Times front page they acknowledge that pupil numbers have been dwindling for some time. A school near here, St Mary's Shaftesbury closed a few years ago for the same reason. Was that one shut by Labour too?
It is that school but, with respect, you know nothing about it other than keen to find an angle that absolves Labour of all blame. It'd otherwise compell you to engage with the complexities of a nasty and unpleasant policy that you'd prefer not to.
The 20% price demand shock has been sufficient to kill it off, whereas otherwise it would have survived, and the disruption its going to cause to my son and his friends, and all the job losses it causes - including several pre-school teachers who are family friends - can be laid entirely at the door of SKS. Everyone knows he's going to win and that's having real world effects now.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
I doubt VAT on private schools is going to raise much money for the government as it will move some pupils back to the state sector.
But in the upcoming decades we're going to have to see more taxes raised and lower spending on pretty much all of the country.
And it will be easier for many of the disadvantaged groups to lose out if some of those at the top are visibly doing so as well.
Even if its unfortunate and unpleasant for your family.
The credit crunch killed off about thirty schools in the UK, and that was a one or two year blip. Assume Labour in power for ten years and the policy won't be reversed until at least 2034, and you're potentially looking at a prolonged depression that kills off (ballpark figure here) 300 private schools.
All those kids have to go somewhere. Some of them will be absorbed into other private schools, but even then, imagine if an additional 100-ish state schools need to be built to accommodate kids from private schools that have closed down, on top of an extra 10-20% demand created by parents who would have sent their kids to private schools, but are no longer able to. More schools will have to be built, meaning the cost will probably be greater than the extra £6k per child.
The truth is we don't know exactly how this policy is going to play out, but I did some calculations a few weeks ago and worked out that it's likely to have a creeping, cumulative effect, as parents will pay for kids with three or four years left to go, but be less likely to pay for 5 year olds with 13 years to go, creating a progressive hollowing out of the system that will lead to more and more private schools closing over time.
In short, I reckon Labour's tax wheeze may generate a windfall at first, but will slowly become net negative in terms of tax take over time.
But it won't be the top public schools closing down. It will be the minor schools favoured by the middle classes. So we'll end up with an even more divided system than we have now.
For those reasons, I think it's a bad policy. It will cost the taxpayer more than it brings in revenue, and actually increase division in society by limiting educational choices to an even smaller, more privileged elite.
Except. We are facing a baby bust. The birth rate fell off a cliff around 2013. Primary Schools are already facing closure because of falling rolls. This will feed into Secondary very soon. More kids in the system leads to the much cheaper option of State schools staying open rather than the costs of closing them down.
I'm actually deeply unconvinced of this, based on my very unscientific study of who's at the school gates of the primary schools near me.
We've yet to see how the birthrate changes, taking into account the preferences of recent immigrants. They may well, due to cultural values, place much higher emphasis on having children than we do.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick in the birthrate in the next decade.
Not enough immigrants to change the figures that much. The underlying issue is that people of normal child-raising age can't afford to have children, because their finances are so stretched by mortgage payments.
Which is probably at least as big an issue for parents in the private school market.
It means that the state primary I went to is closing, because the area doesn't have enough children in it any more. Which is a bit sad, but not worth wading through blood for.
It is not just a UK problem though, across the developed world parents are having less children.
The UK fertility rate of 1.6 is actually higher than that in Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, South Korea and China and the same as in Australia and only just below the 1.7 fertility rate in the US in 2024. Only France and Ireland at an average of 1.8 children per mother and Argentina at 1.9 are close to replacement rate of 2.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
252,000 abortions in England Wales last year. Up 17% in a single year and the highest ever. You are way too sanguine.
Well we could certainly look at the time limit even if we don't go full GOP and try and ban it completely
I wouldn't put anything past the leadership of whatever is left of the Conservative Party after the election, but having a mad tilt at the abortion laws seems pretty low down the list of likely priorities. One advantage we have over the Americans is that the bulk of British society has no time for religion, and it's attendant hypocrisies, cruelty and oppression.
You can be an atheist and anti abortion and religious and not want to ban it, the Church of England and Church of Scotland for example don't want to ban it but reduce the numbers of abortions which most people in the UK would agree with.
The most senior anti abortion politician in the UK now is of course evangelical SNP Deputy FM Kate Forbes
I'm loathe to venture into such a issue of personal morality but imagine say a reduction in the current 22 week limit to 18 or 16 weeks. Does that actually reduce the number of abortions or would it tend to increase them by putting more time pressure on the decision to abort or not? The number of abortions didn't go down when the 24 week limit became a 22 week limit.
I think this is perhaps the oddest day in politics in my lifetime. Whipping out, seemingly at random, a re-introduction of national service!? Labour going full on strange.
What is one to make of it all?!
Personally I haven't got a clue.
I heard an interview with Caroline Lucas on the radio a few days back - she reminded me that it was possible to be a Green and have some grasp on reality. No doubt the LDs could trundle out someone of at least temporary sanity too.
I think the best bet all round is to buy an Island, and before the furniture is installed make sure that you have a runway with Vulcan bombers fully nuclear armed (I don't trust the Americans and their B52). It'd be nice to be able to get a bit of a break then to install the chandeliers etc, but if not then a note of request for clarification should be issued to the rest of humanity.
According to that GB News clip with Portillo someone linked to, CCHQ has lined up a whole series of game-changing policy announcements to be dropped into the campaign at propitious moments, catching Labour completely off guard, but also catching the Conservatives completely off guard.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
Contribution is a red herring. Older people should be treated with dignity not as a result of some transactional tax history, but because it's the right thing to do. State pensions need to be higher, clearly. That needs to come out of the pockets of those of us who work.
That said, the triple lock should be scrapped. There needs to be a rapid uplift to a sensible level, then it needs to be linked to wages and or inflation. The 2.5% part should go. It's only there as a ratchet. We shouldn't pussyfoot our way towards it. Pensioners need a dignified income now, not "eventually".
That won’t happen, politically. Funding big jump in pensions won’t fly.
The triple lock system was invented to increase the state pension gradually and *inexorably*. To create a political lock.
Yes, acknowledged. But the 3L will need to go at some point, you do see that, don't you? If it persists forever, it'll swamp wages, savings, everything. That's a long way off, perhaps, but it has to be seen as temporary.
Simple mathematics dictates that, but nobody wants to be the one to wield the axe and enrage the pensioner bloc vote. So the fiction that it is sustainable in perpetuity will be maintained, right up until the moment of collapse.
I spoke to my Dad. Focus group of 1, but an important demographic.
He did National Service, and in his words "it changed his life". Afforded him opportunities he would never other wise have had, broadened his horizons, gave him qualifications and made friends for life.
He thinks it is a great idea.
The bad news is he is a more ardent Conservative than Casino will ever be, so no votes shifted...
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
However given I already pay circa 4x my state pension in tax , when is enough enough for greedy whining arseholes like BCH. Personally I say F*** right off and go earn your own money loser, rather than wanting to sponge of pensioners.
Wow, you must have quite the pension if you’re paying £46k in tax. More proof that money doesn’t buy happiness I guess, since you appear to spend your days venting your spleen at all & sundry here on PB instead of being out there enjoying a retirement income that puts you in the top 1% of UK households.
“I see that you are thinking of voting Reform, or not at all. Now, I know you think we’ve failed on immigration (your most important issue) and crime (your second). But what about a royal commission on your 278th, which we are on the record criticising?”
This feels like a mis-step to me. This is not the right way to advocate for this policy.
6500 teachers across 25k schools in England (Ed being devolved) is a bit thin as a game changer.
It is the same ridiculous nonsense as the non doms supposedly fixing the NHS by raising £3.2bn or...roughly 1.6% of the current budget. These "brave" policies are frankly trivial gestures. They are recognition that there just isn't any more money and that things are not going to change very much.
There must be plenty of scope to cut waste and save significant amounts David.
You'd think so wouldn't you? In so many public services productivity seems to have crashed since Covid so we are spending more than ever and getting less. That is the real problem for the next government (and indeed in Holyrood) but no politician seems to even want to talk about it. How do we boost productivity in the public sector?
There are no magic wands. There is a relentless grind on costs and efficiencies, a focus on what is really needed and what adds to the front facing part of the services provided and what does not. Hard work with few easy headlines. Not something that attracts our political class of any stripe.
"Campaigner and widower of Jo Cox backs National Service proposals
The widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox has backed the Conservatives’ plan for a new National Service, as the plan could help “reconnect across divides”.
Brendan Cox, a campaigner, said that the proposals, which have been rejected by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, “should be taken seriously whoever wins”.
Mr Cox wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “In (an) election campaign this will become a political football, but it’s an idea that should be taken seriously whoever wins.
“We urgently need to reconnect across divides & this could be part of it.”"
“Sunak’s pledge to reintroduce compulsory UK national service, including assigning up to 30,000 18-year-olds to the military, was rejected last week by one his own defence ministers….”
Tanner is now something important in Team Rishi. It wouldn't surprise me at all if yesterday's not-crisis meeting included a plea for attention-grabbing ideas, and this one was available off-the-shelf. Except the point of think tanks is to think the unthinkable... Their ideas generally need some dilution if the public is going to swallow them.
Incidentally, anyone know what this (h/t John Elledge) is referring to?
A number of things, quite apart from the fact the Prime Minister had vanished, and also the all-pervading sense of panic, suggest to me that this was done in a hurry. (I almost said “on the back of a fag packet”, but that is of course a place Rishi Sunak would never do anything.) The smallest of these is that the embargoed press release doing the rounds before the announcement, which a friend forwarded to me with the phrase “Jonn they’re actually doing it”, had a number of typos and some severely weird phrasing in it, suggesting they might have skipped some of the usual stages of the policy-making process.
Senior Tory source: “Yesterday the PM hit the campaign trail 2 hours before Sir Keir surfaced. Today there’s no sign of Starmer and we’re just 4 days into the campaign. Campaigns are tough, tiring things and it's understandable that he may be weary. But being PM is a 24/7 job.”
I think this is perhaps the oddest day in politics in my lifetime. Whipping out, seemingly at random, a re-introduction of national service!? Labour going full on strange.
What is one to make of it all?!
Personally I haven't got a clue.
I heard an interview with Caroline Lucas on the radio a few days back - she reminded me that it was possible to be a Green and have some grasp on reality. No doubt the LDs could trundle out someone of at least temporary sanity too.
I think the best bet all round is to buy an Island, and before the furniture is installed make sure that you have a runway with Vulcan bombers fully nuclear armed (I don't trust the Americans and their B52). It'd be nice to be able to get a bit of a break then to install the chandeliers etc, but if not then a note of request for clarification should be issued to the rest of humanity.
According to that GB News clip with Portillo someone linked to, CCHQ has lined up a whole series of game-changing policy announcements to be dropped into the campaign at propitious moments, catching Labour completely off guard, but also catching the Conservatives completely off guard.
I guess the idea is to capture the Reform/UKIP type vote again. Alas you can't fix our defence issues with a lot of consciptees. Given the state of the armed forces it seems likely to be almost negative in its effect.
"Campaigner and widower of Jo Cox backs National Service proposals
The widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox has backed the Conservatives’ plan for a new National Service, as the plan could help “reconnect across divides”.
Brendan Cox, a campaigner, said that the proposals, which have been rejected by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, “should be taken seriously whoever wins”.
Mr Cox wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “In (an) election campaign this will become a political football, but it’s an idea that should be taken seriously whoever wins.
“We urgently need to reconnect across divides & this could be part of it.”"
This feels like a mis-step to me. This is not the right way to advocate for this policy.
6500 teachers across 25k schools in England (Ed being devolved) is a bit thin as a game changer.
It is the same ridiculous nonsense as the non doms supposedly fixing the NHS by raising £3.2bn or...roughly 1.6% of the current budget. These "brave" policies are frankly trivial gestures. They are recognition that there just isn't any more money and that things are not going to change very much.
There must be plenty of scope to cut waste and save significant amounts David.
You'd think so wouldn't you? In so many public services productivity seems to have crashed since Covid so we are spending more than ever and getting less. That is the real problem for the next government (and indeed in Holyrood) but no politician seems to even want to talk about it. How do we boost productivity in the public sector?
There are no magic wands. There is a relentless grind on costs and efficiencies, a focus on what is really needed and what adds to the front facing part of the services provided and what does not. Hard work with few easy headlines. Not something that attracts our political class of any stripe.
You know the problem there.
We're backed into the corner where increasing throughput reduces efficiency. As @Malmesbury likes to point out, 1% spare capacity is hideously inefficient, because of the queuing and knock-on effects. Having professionals doing their own admin is cheaper than giving them secretaries, but a lousy use of expensive skills. Knackered IT is a huge time sink, but upgrades cost upfront.
In the short term, making things better and more efficient is going to cost more. And if there were no money left,chat would be better than the inheritance Starmer and Reeves are likely to get.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Can't you see he is hurting? Just leave him alone, this is really quite pathetic behaviour now and just has descended to kicking a man whilst he's down. It's what I would expect a child to do, not an adult.
It's now descending into bullying and that's something I won't have.
It's not bullying. The individual concerned can't tolerate people with different views, be it a recommendation in a bookshop, a menu in his pub, an advert at Waterloo station, someone referring to the King as Chaz. All have been the subject of unhinged rants in the past. He thinks he's God's gift but if you've read PB as long as I have you know that you only need to trigger the short fuse to get a volley of personal abuse. The school saga is just the latest in a long line of rants.
"Campaigner and widower of Jo Cox backs National Service proposals
The widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox has backed the Conservatives’ plan for a new National Service, as the plan could help “reconnect across divides”.
Brendan Cox, a campaigner, said that the proposals, which have been rejected by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, “should be taken seriously whoever wins”.
Mr Cox wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “In (an) election campaign this will become a political football, but it’s an idea that should be taken seriously whoever wins.
“We urgently need to reconnect across divides & this could be part of it.”"
Yes we definitely need more teens familiar with how to kill with guns!!
Not MPs Obvs
FFS bloke is a nutter
That's not what the proposal is though, is it?
"The proposed new scheme would not be conscription, where people are legally required to join the armed forces for a period.
But it would compel people by law to complete a community programme over a 12-month period, or enrol in a year-long military training scheme, when they turn 18."
CHB, you've had good days. Today you lump hypocrisy and bad manners together and label yourself some sort of a paragon. Particularly given your long history here I'd have thought you might have grown up a little bit.
I don't know who "CHB" is.
But my point stands, people are just being nasty and quite personal for no reason. By all means attack the politics people hold but just going after somebody's personal circumstances is beyond the pale for me and just falls into bullying.
It's disappointing you can't see that - and it makes me question your judgment in future. Let's leave it here.
No your point doesn't stand - you are deliberately trying to be a bully. You're trying to hurt others in the way that others have hurt you in the past. Such actions caused you great distress in the past and now you wish to be the cause of such distress to others. You know it's wrong.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
Calm down dear. It's only an election.
You forget, Chris, it's not: my son is losing his school and his teachers their jobs. The town, a school that's been at the centre of the community for almost 90 years.
This is deeply deeply real. It's not a game. It's not a ding-dong.
Real people, real lives, real impact.
Learn it.
If you think Keir Starmer "is dirt" and you would "wade through blood" to stop him, because a school is closing, then quite frankly I think you need professional help.
I suspect that saying those kinds of things would have the police knocking at your door if you belonged to some minority communities.
Don't ever address me on this site again.
Wankfuck.
Ah, that familiar refrain.
You’ve not been great today.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Some of the invective against Casino on this subject has been pretty mean spirited, tbh. It's an issue that goes beyond abstract political debate for him, and has personally affected his family. We lash out when we're angry. All of us do.
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
There are plenty of people on here who probably merit some delicacy and forbearance. That fucking psycho isn't one of them.
I think this is perhaps the oddest day in politics in my lifetime. Whipping out, seemingly at random, a re-introduction of national service!? Labour going full on strange.
What is one to make of it all?!
Personally I haven't got a clue.
I heard an interview with Caroline Lucas on the radio a few days back - she reminded me that it was possible to be a Green and have some grasp on reality. No doubt the LDs could trundle out someone of at least temporary sanity too.
I think the best bet all round is to buy an Island, and before the furniture is installed make sure that you have a runway with Vulcan bombers fully nuclear armed (I don't trust the Americans and their B52). It'd be nice to be able to get a bit of a break then to install the chandeliers etc, but if not then a note of request for clarification should be issued to the rest of humanity.
According to that GB News clip with Portillo someone linked to, CCHQ has lined up a whole series of game-changing policy announcements to be dropped into the campaign at propitious moments, catching Labour completely off guard, but also catching the Conservatives completely off guard.
Now there’s a good topic for a header, Mods. Ten amazing policies which will turn around Conservative fortunes. Or we could have a competition for the most pointless ‘Conservative policy’. How about bringing back dog-licences?*
*Up until around 1987 anyone who owned a dog was required to have a licence for same. Cost 7/6 , or 37.5p.
I spoke to my Dad. Focus group of 1, but an important demographic.
He did National Service, and in his words "it changed his life". Afforded him opportunities he would never other wise have had, broadened his horizons, gave him qualifications and made friends for life.
He thinks it is a great idea.
The bad news is he is a more ardent Conservative than Casino will ever be, so no votes shifted...
I think this is perhaps the oddest day in politics in my lifetime. Whipping out, seemingly at random, a re-introduction of national service!? Labour going full on strange.
What is one to make of it all?!
Personally I haven't got a clue.
I heard an interview with Caroline Lucas on the radio a few days back - she reminded me that it was possible to be a Green and have some grasp on reality. No doubt the LDs could trundle out someone of at least temporary sanity too.
I think the best bet all round is to buy an Island, and before the furniture is installed make sure that you have a runway with Vulcan bombers fully nuclear armed (I don't trust the Americans and their B52). It'd be nice to be able to get a bit of a break then to install the chandeliers etc, but if not then a note of request for clarification should be issued to the rest of humanity.
According to that GB News clip with Portillo someone linked to, CCHQ has lined up a whole series of game-changing policy announcements to be dropped into the campaign at propitious moments, catching Labour completely off guard, but also catching the Conservatives completely off guard.
Now there’s a good topic for a header, Mods. Ten amazing policies which will turn around Conservative fortunes. Or we could have a competition for the most pointless ‘Conservative policy’. How about bringing back dog-licences?*
*Up until around 1987 anyone who owned a dog was required to have a licence for same. Cost 7/6 , or 37.5p.
Senior Tory source: “Yesterday the PM hit the campaign trail 2 hours before Sir Keir surfaced. Today there’s no sign of Starmer and we’re just 4 days into the campaign. Campaigns are tough, tiring things and it's understandable that he may be weary. But being PM is a 24/7 job.”
FWIW, I have never seen any similar discussions in the US, though, of course there are private schools here -- and some -- at least in the past -- gave their students advantages.
I think this is perhaps the oddest day in politics in my lifetime. Whipping out, seemingly at random, a re-introduction of national service!? Labour going full on strange.
What is one to make of it all?!
Personally I haven't got a clue.
I heard an interview with Caroline Lucas on the radio a few days back - she reminded me that it was possible to be a Green and have some grasp on reality. No doubt the LDs could trundle out someone of at least temporary sanity too.
I think the best bet all round is to buy an Island, and before the furniture is installed make sure that you have a runway with Vulcan bombers fully nuclear armed (I don't trust the Americans and their B52). It'd be nice to be able to get a bit of a break then to install the chandeliers etc, but if not then a note of request for clarification should be issued to the rest of humanity.
According to that GB News clip with Portillo someone linked to, CCHQ has lined up a whole series of game-changing policy announcements to be dropped into the campaign at propitious moments, catching Labour completely off guard, but also catching the Conservatives completely off guard.
Now there’s a good topic for a header, Mods. Ten amazing policies which will turn around Conservative fortunes. Or we could have a competition for the most pointless ‘Conservative policy’. How about bringing back dog-licences?*
*Up until around 1987 anyone who owned a dog was required to have a licence for same. Cost 7/6 , or 37.5p.
A like for the header topic, not dog licences
Pity; I thought HYUFD might have been straight on the phone to CCHQ.
No one minds you having an opinion, and a strongly held well-argued one at that. But you just seem to lose it with anyone with whom you disagree, descending rapidly into ad hominem personal abuse.
Have a bit of a break for a few days? This can’t be very good for your health tbh.
Can't you see he is hurting? Just leave him alone, this is really quite pathetic behaviour now and just has descended to kicking a man whilst he's down. It's what I would expect a child to do, not an adult.
It's now descending into bullying and that's something I won't have.
It's not bullying. The individual concerned can't tolerate people with different views, be it a recommendation in a bookshop, a menu in his pub, an advert at Waterloo station, someone referring to the King as Chaz. All have been the subject of unhinged rants in the past. He thinks he's God's gift but if you've read PB as long as I have you know that you only need to trigger the short fuse to get a volley of personal abuse. The school saga is just the latest in a long line of rants.
It'll be funny if a Labour government decides to introduce National Service in about 3 years' time. That's the sort of thing that happens in politics, like Labour introducing tuition fees in 1998 when everyone thought it would be the Tories who were more likely to do so.
And I will oppose it as the stupid idea this is, if and when they do.
If we are at war with Russia, you won't have much choice in the matter, and neither will the Government of the day.
Labour have already closed my son's fucking school
Labour are not in Government
And, yet, they've still managed to close my son's school.
No. They haven't. If it's the school on the Times front page they acknowledge that pupil numbers have been dwindling for some time. A school near here, St Mary's Shaftesbury closed a few years ago for the same reason. Was that one shut by Labour too?
It is that school but, with respect, you know nothing about it other than keen to find an angle that absolves Labour of all blame. It'd otherwise compell you to engage with the complexities of a nasty and unpleasant policy that you'd prefer not to.
The 20% price demand shock has been sufficient to kill it off, whereas otherwise it would have survived, and the disruption its going to cause to my son and his friends, and all the job losses it causes - including several pre-school teachers who are family friends - can be laid entirely at the door of SKS. Everyone knows he's going to win and that's having real world effects now.
I'd walk through blood to stop the man. He has deeply angered me and ripped the heart out of one of the core pillars of our local community.
He is dirt.
I doubt VAT on private schools is going to raise much money for the government as it will move some pupils back to the state sector.
But in the upcoming decades we're going to have to see more taxes raised and lower spending on pretty much all of the country.
And it will be easier for many of the disadvantaged groups to lose out if some of those at the top are visibly doing so as well.
Even if its unfortunate and unpleasant for your family.
The credit crunch killed off about thirty schools in the UK, and that was a one or two year blip. Assume Labour in power for ten years and the policy won't be reversed until at least 2034, and you're potentially looking at a prolonged depression that kills off (ballpark figure here) 300 private schools.
All those kids have to go somewhere. Some of them will be absorbed into other private schools, but even then, imagine if an additional 100-ish state schools need to be built to accommodate kids from private schools that have closed down, on top of an extra 10-20% demand created by parents who would have sent their kids to private schools, but are no longer able to. More schools will have to be built, meaning the cost will probably be greater than the extra £6k per child.
The truth is we don't know exactly how this policy is going to play out, but I did some calculations a few weeks ago and worked out that it's likely to have a creeping, cumulative effect, as parents will pay for kids with three or four years left to go, but be less likely to pay for 5 year olds with 13 years to go, creating a progressive hollowing out of the system that will lead to more and more private schools closing over time.
In short, I reckon Labour's tax wheeze may generate a windfall at first, but will slowly become net negative in terms of tax take over time.
But it won't be the top public schools closing down. It will be the minor schools favoured by the middle classes. So we'll end up with an even more divided system than we have now.
For those reasons, I think it's a bad policy. It will cost the taxpayer more than it brings in revenue, and actually increase division in society by limiting educational choices to an even smaller, more privileged elite.
Except. We are facing a baby bust. The birth rate fell off a cliff around 2013. Primary Schools are already facing closure because of falling rolls. This will feed into Secondary very soon. More kids in the system leads to the much cheaper option of State schools staying open rather than the costs of closing them down.
I'm actually deeply unconvinced of this, based on my very unscientific study of who's at the school gates of the primary schools near me.
We've yet to see how the birthrate changes, taking into account the preferences of recent immigrants. They may well, due to cultural values, place much higher emphasis on having children than we do.
I wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick in the birthrate in the next decade.
Not enough immigrants to change the figures that much. The underlying issue is that people of normal child-raising age can't afford to have children, because their finances are so stretched by mortgage payments.
Which is probably at least as big an issue for parents in the private school market.
It means that the state primary I went to is closing, because the area doesn't have enough children in it any more. Which is a bit sad, but not worth wading through blood for.
It is not just a UK problem though, across the developed world parents are having less children.
The UK fertility rate of 1.6 is actually higher than that in Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, South Korea and China and the same as in Australia and only just below the 1.7 fertility rate in the US in 2024. Only France and Ireland at an average of 1.8 children per mother and Argentina at 1.9 are close to replacement rate of 2.1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_fertility_rate
252,000 abortions in England Wales last year. Up 17% in a single year and the highest ever. You are way too sanguine.
Well we could certainly look at the time limit even if we don't go full GOP and try and ban it completely
I wouldn't put anything past the leadership of whatever is left of the Conservative Party after the election, but having a mad tilt at the abortion laws seems pretty low down the list of likely priorities. One advantage we have over the Americans is that the bulk of British society has no time for religion, and it's attendant hypocrisies, cruelty and oppression.
You can be an atheist and anti abortion and religious and not want to ban it, the Church of England and Church of Scotland for example don't want to ban it but reduce the numbers of abortions which most people in the UK would agree with.
The most senior anti abortion politician in the UK now is of course evangelical SNP Deputy FM Kate Forbes
I'm loathe to venture into such a issue of personal morality but imagine say a reduction in the current 22 week limit to 18 or 16 weeks. Does that actually reduce the number of abortions or would it tend to increase them by putting more time pressure on the decision to abort or not? The number of abortions didn't go down when the 24 week limit became a 22 week limit.
Though we did arguably preserve more human life given many medics now believe a 22 week foetus is a human
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
By far the dumbest thing he's suggested is keeping that.
@BatteryCorrectHorse I know you have a thing about us Oldies screwing you youngsters and many of the issues are valid, but the state pension is a bit more nuanced. We have one of the lowest state pensions in the west. The triple lock is a way of gradually increasing it to a sensible level. For those on the basic pension this really isn't much money for them to live on. The way to claw it back from those of us who either have other pensions or like me with assets is through taxation.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
However given I already pay circa 4x my state pension in tax , when is enough enough for greedy whining arseholes like BCH. Personally I say F*** right off and go earn your own money loser, rather than wanting to sponge of pensioners.
Wow, you must have quite the pension if you’re paying £46k in tax. More proof that money doesn’t buy happiness I guess, since you appear to spend your days venting your spleen at all & sundry here on PB instead of being out there enjoying a retirement income that puts you in the top 1% of UK households.
You are a stupid clown Phil, I am still working and as happy as a sandboy. You clearly have no perception or understanding and I spend a miniscule amount of my time on here, luckily it has lots more intelligent than yourself for when I am here. @Phil
In unrelated news I appear to have adopted a German Shepherd. Existing dog, a Cavachon, is on the left, exhibiting the understandable shock of having another dog 10 times your weight appear in your home.
In unrelated news I appear to have adopted a German Shepherd. Existing dog, a Cavachon, is on the left, exhibiting the understandable shock of having another dog 10 times your weight appear in your home.
Surely the Cavachon is used to having a seal in the house which can be quite big buggers.
In unrelated news I appear to have adopted a German Shepherd. Existing dog, a Cavachon, is on the left, exhibiting the understandable shock of having another dog 10 times your weight appear in your home.
Surely the Cavachon is used to having a seal in the house which can quite big buggers.
I think this is perhaps the oddest day in politics in my lifetime. Whipping out, seemingly at random, a re-introduction of national service!? Labour going full on strange.
What is one to make of it all?!
Personally I haven't got a clue.
I heard an interview with Caroline Lucas on the radio a few days back - she reminded me that it was possible to be a Green and have some grasp on reality. No doubt the LDs could trundle out someone of at least temporary sanity too.
I think the best bet all round is to buy an Island, and before the furniture is installed make sure that you have a runway with Vulcan bombers fully nuclear armed (I don't trust the Americans and their B52). It'd be nice to be able to get a bit of a break then to install the chandeliers etc, but if not then a note of request for clarification should be issued to the rest of humanity.
According to that GB News clip with Portillo someone linked to, CCHQ has lined up a whole series of game-changing policy announcements to be dropped into the campaign at propitious moments, catching Labour completely off guard, but also catching the Conservatives completely off guard.
Now there’s a good topic for a header, Mods. Ten amazing policies which will turn around Conservative fortunes. Or we could have a competition for the most pointless ‘Conservative policy’. How about bringing back dog-licences?*
*Up until around 1987 anyone who owned a dog was required to have a licence for same. Cost 7/6 , or 37.5p.
A like for the header topic, not dog licences
Pity; I thought HYUFD might have been straight on the phone to CCHQ.
Given the number of vacancies I think he might be called up for National Tory Service in some constituency somewhere
Comments
Talk about a lack of self-awareness ...
It is telling to see the difference between those who have reached out across the political divide to offer words of consolation, and those who have used his personal misfortune as an opportunity to score points.
Might I suggest that rather than tell him to go into a period of self-enforced exile, some of the other posters tone it down a bit?
As you say neither are funny when abused.
And like a lot of bullies who dish it out to others, he hates it when it’s turned back on him.
We can do better than this, bullying is really something we should have no place for here. I am sure we have all been victims of it and it is not nice.
Can we just treat each other with a bit more decency and courtesy, please.
I'm sure you don't think £11,500 per annum is an excessive amount to live on and they did contribute to this their whole working lives.
But my point stands, people are just being nasty and quite personal for no reason. By all means attack the politics people hold but just going after somebody's personal circumstances is beyond the pale for me and just falls into bullying.
It's disappointing you can't see that - and it makes me question your judgment in future. Let's leave it here.
It's going to be tough over the next six weeks for you, and you should bear in mind that nothing any of us on this site says makes a blind bit of difference to anything out in the real world. It just doesn't matter.
You'll be worn out wading through all that blood, so take it easy on yourself.
https://x.com/KevinASchofield/status/1794731853775286709
Didn't Rishi take the day off yesterday?
Incidentally, I don't know if it got lost in the very active GE 2024 being announced thread, but I did apologise to state_go_away for calling him an idiot the other day, which I'm not very proud of. That happened because I was already very riled up by being called 'despicable' by someone else on this site.
The site's a bit crap once we descend into slinging personal insults, and it's something we all need to watch out for, including myself. There's no need for it.
Anyway, I have said my piece, I don't want to overflow the site any further so will go back to the politics.
But yes, it ought to be possible to debate politely and with passion. Nick Palmer is an excellent example of this. Others less so. I sense there are a few labour supporters on PB who feel that they have had to wade through the sh1t for the last 14 years and can sense the world turning and want to vent.
My biggest beef is the posts claiming x or y is thick, or stupid or whatever. I think this is overdone. Many times it results from interactions with the media, and with x or y trying not to say stuff, and the media desperately try8ng to drag things out. For sure politicians do need scrutiny, but I miss the gentler probing interviews of former decades. We might learn far more from a 90 minute long form chat, than an inquisitorial 5 mins on Newsnught, with hack aiming for a gotcha moment.
I think you are completely off base with your post - my point does stand as you have not in any way been able to defeat it.
I am ending this discussion with you here as you're just being silly.
https://x.com/PickardJE/status/1794727201423900675
I am starting to seriously doubt this policy wasn't just invented over night.
Everyone smoked weed - but when they tried the extra strength stuff, nearly everyone rejected it. The comment was it was like a harsh vodka vs beer.
I suppose those who’ve grown up with the mega strength stuff are ok with it. But it was interesting to see how people reacted.
Mumsnet is a site inhabited by people with ridiculous pseudonyms, some of whom are obsessed with shoes, some with bragging about their overseas travels, some with private schools, others with the trials and tribulations of being a stepmum. But nothing, at all, gets them as riled up as the trans issue.
PB, on the other hand...
wait I shouldn't have started this one.
The triple lock system was invented to increase the state pension gradually and *inexorably*. To create a political lock.
"Russia's Kharkiv Offensive and Leadership Purge - Shoigu's removal, Kharkiv & What next for Ukraine?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=829nvzjbPPA
Internet 101 really.
Except for alcohol in moderation, and coffee if it counts.
Why would you (unless for medical reasons)?
We have and always have had sclerotic laws about drugs. Their legal status is clearly not based on accurate assessment of risk and harm.
Edited the awful wrong their/there use!!
The most senior anti abortion politician in the UK now is of course evangelical SNP Deputy FM Kate Forbes
Kerr also beat the Olympic Champion in doing so, as he did to win the World title last year. He has to be favourite for the Olympics 1500m. Its nice to see.
I spoke to my Dad. Focus group of 1, but an important demographic.
He did National Service, and in his words "it changed his life". Afforded him opportunities he would never other wise have had, broadened his horizons, gave him qualifications and made friends for life.
He thinks it is a great idea.
The bad news is he is a more ardent Conservative than Casino will ever be, so no votes shifted...
“I see that you are thinking of voting Reform, or not at all. Now, I know you think we’ve failed on immigration (your most important issue) and crime (your second). But what about a royal commission on your 278th, which we are on the record criticising?”
There are no magic wands. There is a relentless grind on costs and efficiencies, a focus on what is really needed and what adds to the front facing part of the services provided and what does not. Hard work with few easy headlines. Not something that attracts our political class of any stripe.
The widower of murdered Labour MP Jo Cox has backed the Conservatives’ plan for a new National Service, as the plan could help “reconnect across divides”.
Brendan Cox, a campaigner, said that the proposals, which have been rejected by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, “should be taken seriously whoever wins”.
Mr Cox wrote on X, formerly Twitter: “In (an) election campaign this will become a political football, but it’s an idea that should be taken seriously whoever wins.
“We urgently need to reconnect across divides & this could be part of it.”"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/26/general-election-live-sunak-starmer-polls-latest/
Will Tanner used to run the think tank Onward, and they wrote a report suggesting the idea last summer:
https://www.ukonward.com/reports/great-british-national-service/
Tanner is now something important in Team Rishi. It wouldn't surprise me at all if yesterday's not-crisis meeting included a plea for attention-grabbing ideas, and this one was available off-the-shelf. Except the point of think tanks is to think the unthinkable... Their ideas generally need some dilution if the public is going to swallow them.
Incidentally, anyone know what this (h/t John Elledge) is referring to?
A number of things, quite apart from the fact the Prime Minister had vanished, and also the all-pervading sense of panic, suggest to me that this was done in a hurry. (I almost said “on the back of a fag packet”, but that is of course a place Rishi Sunak would never do anything.) The smallest of these is that the embargoed press release doing the rounds before the announcement, which a friend forwarded to me with the phrase “Jonn they’re actually doing it”, had a number of typos and some severely weird phrasing in it, suggesting they might have skipped some of the usual stages of the policy-making process.
Not MPs Obvs
FFS bloke is a nutter
NEW THREAD
We're backed into the corner where increasing throughput reduces efficiency. As @Malmesbury likes to point out, 1% spare capacity is hideously inefficient, because of the queuing and knock-on effects. Having professionals doing their own admin is cheaper than giving them secretaries, but a lousy use of expensive skills. Knackered IT is a huge time sink, but upgrades cost upfront.
In the short term, making things better and more efficient is going to cost more. And if there were no money left,chat would be better than the inheritance Starmer and Reeves are likely to get.
Get back under your rock.
"The proposed new scheme would not be conscription, where people are legally required to join the armed forces for a period.
But it would compel people by law to complete a community programme over a 12-month period, or enrol in a year-long military training scheme, when they turn 18."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c988jdxl02vo
The military is just one route for kids; there's also a community programme, whatever that might be. It might actually do some kids some good.
(This does not mean I'm in favour of the proposal...)
How about bringing back dog-licences?*
*Up until around 1987 anyone who owned a dog was required to have a licence for same. Cost 7/6 , or 37.5p.
What we have had is fierce fights over public support of religious schools. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment
Or, more recently, the fight over Hasidic schools in New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Hasidic_education_controversy
(For me, the most interesting education discussion now in the US is over charter schools:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school )
In unrelated news I appear to have adopted a German Shepherd. Existing dog, a Cavachon, is on the left, exhibiting the understandable shock of having another dog 10 times your weight appear in your home.
I’m always sceptical about youth votes but could this be the election?