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.
I actually think Horse has it right - we should be focused on making state schools so excellent, no parent like Casino feels the need to send their kid to private school.
While you will always get an elite who want their kids to be educated around other elite types, the majority of parents who send their kids to minor private schools are parents who are deeply skeptical about the ability of the state system to provide an adequate education for their kids, and highly value the importance of a good education in getting on in life, to the point where they are prepared to spend a huge percentage of their disposable income on it.
The answer to this isn't making private schools more expensive, it's making state schools better. Reduce demand for private education by making the alternative more appealing.
We'll put you down as supporting an increase in the education budget such that spend per pupil is equal to that in the private sector then, will we?
Wouldn't have thought it'd need to be, our fees got spent on a swimming pool for later pupils whilst we had plenty of lessons in portakabins. We were fine academically as a year.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
The point with Sunak and why he's been useless is that while there are different routes to a winning coalition of voters, you have to pick one, and a theory of the case, and stick to it. The most obvious ones broadly being the Cameron 2010-15 one - which was founded on detoxifying the party with more liberal voters and gluing those on to more traditional Tories and those fearful or fed up of Labour. Then there's the Boris, unite Brexit voters one, which united socially conservative types sharing both left and right economic views, while daring its liberal wing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are now an easy option for the Tories. Brexit has receded as a frontline issue but has made the Cameron route difficult to take without a mea culpa as the fracture with liberalism (not solely caused by Brexit, but a useful shorthand for the breach) is here to stay. It's not likely Boris' works either now as it was dependent on promises of spending to those left-wing on that were empty and now impossible. Brexit is largely seen to be a failure, even by enough leave voters who support the principle, to make standing on it as your big thing a vote loser. Plus there's no Jeremy Corbyn to shore up the Tories' liberal wing.
But you do have to pick one and stick to it. Sunak has flailed between them - he's cast himself as a pragmatic ideologically unbound problem solver one minute, then sounded like a rabid right-wing Boomer Facebook group the next. Which just annoy everyone.
Like their campaign is "stick with us, we've got a sensible plan" but the policies broadcast at the loudest volume are back of a fag packet populism that tells you they haven't beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To get an idea of how ludicrous it is think about what a similar approach from Labour would look. Running their "security and patriotism" stuff one minute, then, because they didn't want to upset Corbyn fans, pivoting to saying NATO is actually rubbish and why can't we all have a cup of tea with Putin and the Ayatollah the next.
Churchill was quite happy to have a cup of tea with Stalin, and he wasn't considered weak on security or patriotism, so I'm not sure of the basis of your point.
He was when we were allies - less so when Churchill was warning Stalin was a menace to European peace.
But that's by the by, whichever you agree with - Corbyn and Starmer have quite different political approaches and appeals to target voters. In relation to defence, which I used as an example Starmer makes sure to reassure he supports our existing international security arrangements and to appear strong on this. Repudiate that and take the far left's position that those security arrangements are bad and certain anti-West dictatorships have a point, and you annoy everyone and appear a fool.
You can pick one or the other of those positions or other ones associated with a particular type of politics, but if you pick both at the same time you look ridiculous.
As Sunak does by trying to promote himself as both a pragmatic problem solver aiming to "get the job done" and then by flailing about on the right trying to appease his party's headbangers.
Tory Party supporters and members have not afaicr been agitating strongly (or even weakly) for national service to be revived. Nor was the policy consulted on amongst members, supporters, voters, MPs or even the cabinet. This is a brain fart of Sunak and the people he's chosen to surround himself with - it is false and unfair to impute it to 'headbangers' except those occupying 10 Downing Street.
The idea was specifically rubbished by Number 10 and the MOD only four months ago!
Even better than that, it was rubbished by the Minister for Defence in a Parliamentary answer as recently as Thursday 23rd May 2024:
Labour's Liz Kendall confirms that the party would bring back Rishi Sunak's smoking ban and keep the pensions triple lock
Always enough money to fund huge hikes in the state handout to minted millionaire pensioners every year. Never enough money to repeal the two-child benefit cap.
It's very personal for me that we have a government that wants to shaft me at every turn.
Lock down to protect society, put your life on hold for two years
Up your taxes to the highest in history
Offer no help on housing - build no houses
Force you to do unpaid work
It feels like a deliberate attack on young people.
I’d remind you again of another poster with a similar name to yours, who was a young chap who made post after post after post screaming for lockdown.
I think this National Service idea is nuts. I love the idea of encouraging people to volunteer, could not a way be found to do this with 2.5 billion of funding? I think you take the idea that the young are being shafted too far though. It’s been tough for everyone.
I don't know which poster you refer - but it's also irrelevant to any point I am making. As you make it, I assume you don't have a rebuttal.
You are a Tory, it is therefore totally unsurprising that you don't think younger people have been shafted. But you are in a very small minority.
Largest tax burden in history, student debt, housing crisis.
All of this falls on us, you are totally insulated from it. So kindly sod off with this rubbish.
Why should young people volunteer without pay? Why don't you volunteer if you're so up for the idea? If this idea was implemented when I was 18, you'd have lost my tax income, do you honestly think that's a good idea?
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?
It’s a good question, but you can see how an organisation might be close to the edge and gets pushed over by a small change in circumstances. Maybe it’s the electric bill doubling, or minimum wage going up, or in this case a possible change in VAT status.
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.
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.
But the state educates my kids, and I'm against it too, for reasons which include the personal, such as will daughter 3 be able to get into the same secondary school as her sisters, or will she be crowded out by kids who would have otherwise gone to private schools? I just can't see this being a positive for state education. Surely it will introduce far more costs than benefits? (Where I live - i.e. not the south east - private schools don't tend to cater to price-insensitive multi-millionaires. I think this is being drawn up with an unrepresentative view of the sorts of people who go to private schools driven by some spads idea that it's all Harrows and Etons.)
Siblings raises priority. More generally might it not raise state school standards due to the sharp elbow effect ?
Siblings doesn't always raise priority. It certainly doesn't seem to round here. Schools in Trafford are pretty much at capacity.
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.
It is deeply unpleasant and deeply personal.
But the point is it won't raise any money for the government and will make the education smaller and worse. That's my argument as to why anyone who cares about state education should oppose it.
I think Starmer would have more fruit pursuing a line of broader wealth taxes, even if I didn't necessarily agree with them.
I agree in that I would prefer more taxes on property and wealth.
More taxes on inheritance and rentierism and less on work and 'self-improvement'.
I think we should be encouraging more spending on education.
Personally I think we should all have a lifetime 'learning allowance'.
Nearly everything you mention is self-improvement. What you really mean is soak the hard workers and give their hard earned cash to lazy gits who want something for nothing.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
The point with Sunak and why he's been useless is that while there are different routes to a winning coalition of voters, you have to pick one, and a theory of the case, and stick to it. The most obvious ones broadly being the Cameron 2010-15 one - which was founded on detoxifying the party with more liberal voters and gluing those on to more traditional Tories and those fearful or fed up of Labour. Then there's the Boris, unite Brexit voters one, which united socially conservative types sharing both left and right economic views, while daring its liberal wing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are now an easy option for the Tories. Brexit has receded as a frontline issue but has made the Cameron route difficult to take without a mea culpa as the fracture with liberalism (not solely caused by Brexit, but a useful shorthand for the breach) is here to stay. It's not likely Boris' works either now as it was dependent on promises of spending to those left-wing on that were empty and now impossible. Brexit is largely seen to be a failure, even by enough leave voters who support the principle, to make standing on it as your big thing a vote loser. Plus there's no Jeremy Corbyn to shore up the Tories' liberal wing.
But you do have to pick one and stick to it. Sunak has flailed between them - he's cast himself as a pragmatic ideologically unbound problem solver one minute, then sounded like a rabid right-wing Boomer Facebook group the next. Which just annoy everyone.
Like their campaign is "stick with us, we've got a sensible plan" but the policies broadcast at the loudest volume are back of a fag packet populism that tells you they haven't beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To get an idea of how ludicrous it is think about what a similar approach from Labour would look. Running their "security and patriotism" stuff one minute, then, because they didn't want to upset Corbyn fans, pivoting to saying NATO is actually rubbish and why can't we all have a cup of tea with Putin and the Ayatollah the next.
Churchill was quite happy to have a cup of tea with Stalin, and he wasn't considered weak on security or patriotism, so I'm not sure of the basis of your point.
He was when we were allies - less so when Churchill was warning Stalin was a menace to European peace.
But that's by the by, whichever you agree with - Corbyn and Starmer have quite different political approaches and appeals to target voters. In relation to defence, which I used as an example Starmer makes sure to reassure he supports our existing international security arrangements and to appear strong on this. Repudiate that and take the far left's position that those security arrangements are bad and certain anti-West dictatorships have a point, and you annoy everyone and appear a fool.
You can pick one or the other of those positions or other ones associated with a particular type of politics, but if you pick both at the same time you look ridiculous.
As Sunak does by trying to promote himself as both a pragmatic problem solver aiming to "get the job done" and then by flailing about on the right trying to appease his party's headbangers.
Tory Party supporters and members have not afaicr been agitating strongly (or even weakly) for national service to be revived. Nor was the policy consulted on amongst members, supporters, voters, MPs or even the cabinet. This is a brain fart of Sunak and the people he's chosen to surround himself with - it is false and unfair to impute it to 'headbangers' except those occupying 10 Downing Street.
The idea was specifically rubbished by Number 10 and the MOD only four months ago!
Even better than that, it was rubbished by the Minister for Defence in a Parliamentary answer as recently as Thursday 23rd May 2024:
Labour's Liz Kendall confirms that the party would bring back Rishi Sunak's smoking ban and keep the pensions triple lock
If you’re going to ban smoking just ban it (I’d prefer they didn’t because it’s illiberal).
But none of this age threshold nonsense.
It is a laughably bad policy. The future of, yes I know you look in your 50s, but ID please. Hey Bob, you are 51 right, yeah, can you nip in the Premier and get me 20 fags as they won't serve me.
Just say in 5 years time we will ban smoking, we will support people to move away from ciggies.
smugglers would be rubbing their hands, fortunes to be made.
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 youre for subsidising failing state institutions and hammering private ones ?
Labour's Liz Kendall confirms that the party would bring back Rishi Sunak's smoking ban and keep the pensions triple lock
If you’re going to ban smoking just ban it (I’d prefer they didn’t because it’s illiberal).
But none of this age threshold nonsense.
It is a laughably bad policy. The future of, yes I know you look in your 50s, but ID please. Hey Bob, you are 51 right, yeah, can you nip in the Premier and get me 20 fags as they won't serve me.
Just say in 5 years time we will ban smoking, we will support people to move away from ciggies.
smugglers would be rubbing their hands, fortunes to be made.
That is realistically all that will happen, is you push into illegally imported ciggies sold out of the dodgy pop-up Eastern European shops (as happens anyway now, but an even more expanded business).
You want carrot and stick, nudging people away from the ciggies. Vapes were supposed to be that, but poor regulation meant we got Piña colada flavoured ones for kids imported from China.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
The point with Sunak and why he's been useless is that while there are different routes to a winning coalition of voters, you have to pick one, and a theory of the case, and stick to it. The most obvious ones broadly being the Cameron 2010-15 one - which was founded on detoxifying the party with more liberal voters and gluing those on to more traditional Tories and those fearful or fed up of Labour. Then there's the Boris, unite Brexit voters one, which united socially conservative types sharing both left and right economic views, while daring its liberal wing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are now an easy option for the Tories. Brexit has receded as a frontline issue but has made the Cameron route difficult to take without a mea culpa as the fracture with liberalism (not solely caused by Brexit, but a useful shorthand for the breach) is here to stay. It's not likely Boris' works either now as it was dependent on promises of spending to those left-wing on that were empty and now impossible. Brexit is largely seen to be a failure, even by enough leave voters who support the principle, to make standing on it as your big thing a vote loser. Plus there's no Jeremy Corbyn to shore up the Tories' liberal wing.
But you do have to pick one and stick to it. Sunak has flailed between them - he's cast himself as a pragmatic ideologically unbound problem solver one minute, then sounded like a rabid right-wing Boomer Facebook group the next. Which just annoy everyone.
Like their campaign is "stick with us, we've got a sensible plan" but the policies broadcast at the loudest volume are back of a fag packet populism that tells you they haven't beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To get an idea of how ludicrous it is think about what a similar approach from Labour would look. Running their "security and patriotism" stuff one minute, then, because they didn't want to upset Corbyn fans, pivoting to saying NATO is actually rubbish and why can't we all have a cup of tea with Putin and the Ayatollah the next.
Churchill was quite happy to have a cup of tea with Stalin, and he wasn't considered weak on security or patriotism, so I'm not sure of the basis of your point.
He was when we were allies - less so when Churchill was warning Stalin was a menace to European peace.
But that's by the by, whichever you agree with - Corbyn and Starmer have quite different political approaches and appeals to target voters. In relation to defence, which I used as an example Starmer makes sure to reassure he supports our existing international security arrangements and to appear strong on this. Repudiate that and take the far left's position that those security arrangements are bad and certain anti-West dictatorships have a point, and you annoy everyone and appear a fool.
You can pick one or the other of those positions or other ones associated with a particular type of politics, but if you pick both at the same time you look ridiculous.
As Sunak does by trying to promote himself as both a pragmatic problem solver aiming to "get the job done" and then by flailing about on the right trying to appease his party's headbangers.
Tory Party supporters and members have not afaicr been agitating strongly (or even weakly) for national service to be revived. Nor was the policy consulted on amongst members, supporters, voters, MPs or even the cabinet. This is a brain fart of Sunak and the people he's chosen to surround himself with - it is false and unfair to impute it to 'headbangers' except those occupying 10 Downing Street.
The idea was specifically rubbished by Number 10 and the MOD only four months ago!
Even better than that, it was rubbished by the Minister for Defence in a Parliamentary answer as recently as Thursday 23rd May 2024:
It's very personal for me that we have a government that wants to shaft me at every turn.
Lock down to protect society, put your life on hold for two years
Up your taxes to the highest in history
Offer no help on housing - build no houses
Force you to do unpaid work
It feels like a deliberate attack on young people.
I’d remind you again of another poster with a similar name to yours, who was a young chap who made post after post after post screaming for lockdown.
I think this National Service idea is nuts. I love the idea of encouraging people to volunteer, could not a way be found to do this with 2.5 billion of funding? I think you take the idea that the young are being shafted too far though. It’s been tough for everyone.
I don't know which poster you refer - but it's also irrelevant to any point I am making. As you make it, I assume you don't have a rebuttal.
You are a Tory, it is therefore totally unsurprising that you don't think younger people have been shafted. But you are in a very small minority.
Largest tax burden in history, student debt, housing crisis.
All of this falls on us, you are totally insulated from it. So kindly sod off with this rubbish.
Why should young people volunteer without pay? Why don't you volunteer if you're so up for the idea? If this idea was implemented when I was 18, you'd have lost my tax income, do you honestly think that's a good idea?
Why do you say I am a Tory? Certainly not, and planning to vote Labour at the election, despite liking the incumbent Tory, who is a decent chap. I love your fiction that you weren’t here at the time. The point about lockdown is that you are complaining about having to do it ( and no one put the lives on hold for two years). Covid was shit for a lot of people, and arguably worse for the young, who missed out on a lot of things. We didn’t handle the risks that well. Outdoor socialising should have been an option, but somehow we allowed ourselves to ignore how viruses tend to spread. And yes housing is a huge problem.
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.
I actually think Horse has it right - we should be focused on making state schools so excellent, no parent like Casino feels the need to send their kid to private school.
While you will always get an elite who want their kids to be educated around other elite types, the majority of parents who send their kids to minor private schools are parents who are deeply skeptical about the ability of the state system to provide an adequate education for their kids, and highly value the importance of a good education in getting on in life, to the point where they are prepared to spend a huge percentage of their disposable income on it.
The answer to this isn't making private schools more expensive, it's making state schools better. Reduce demand for private education by making the alternative more appealing.
We'll put you down as supporting an increase in the education budget such that spend per pupil is equal to that in the private sector then, will we?
There would have to be more funding.
But not necessarily all of it in schools. Are kids failing school because the schools are bad, or also because there are other factors - bad parenting, poor food, educational / behavioural issues - that may be causing them to fail?
Address these (how?), and you will fix more than the education system.
May I tentatively start with. The closure of SureStarts. Cuts to CYPS and CAMHS, to the point where it really almost takes an attempted suicide to get a referral. The almost total absence of Ed Psychs. OT all in the private sector. Months, if not years, waiting lists for ADHD, dyslexia, ASD and so forth assessments. Children's Services where the threshold for interventions rises exponentially every year? All of which issues are foisted onto schools who aren't trained, nor employed to do such jobs. And who are cutting back on such support staff to fill the holes left by unfunded pay rises. Just an idea that this may be contributing somewhat.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
Why is it moronic? Do you think smoking is a good idea? It’s a ghastly thing that I would make illegal if I could. No one gains from smoking (certainly if they have never smoked).
Why do you say I am a Tory? Certainly not, and planning to vote Labour at the election, despite liking the incumbent Tory, who is a decent chap. I love your fiction that you weren’t here at the time. The point about lockdown is that you are complaining about having to do it ( and no one put the lives on hold for two years). Covid was shit for a lot of people, and arguably worse for the young, who missed out on a lot of things. We didn’t handle the risks that well. Outdoor socialising should have been an option, but somehow we allowed ourselves to ignore how viruses tend to spread. And yes housing is a huge problem.
I am not saying only young people were impacted, I am saying they've been shafted by the Tories.
Lockdown (but feel free to exclude it)
Highest tax burden in history
University debt
Housing crisis
National service
All of these things have fallen on young people. They have been treated by far the worst since 2010.
It's very personal for me that we have a government that wants to shaft me at every turn.
Lock down to protect society, put your life on hold for two years
Up your taxes to the highest in history
Offer no help on housing - build no houses
Force you to do unpaid work
It feels like a deliberate attack on young people.
I’d remind you again of another poster with a similar name to yours, who was a young chap who made post after post after post screaming for lockdown.
I think this National Service idea is nuts. I love the idea of encouraging people to volunteer, could not a way be found to do this with 2.5 billion of funding? I think you take the idea that the young are being shafted too far though. It’s been tough for everyone.
I don't know which poster you refer - but it's also irrelevant to any point I am making. As you make it, I assume you don't have a rebuttal.
You are a Tory, it is therefore totally unsurprising that you don't think younger people have been shafted. But you are in a very small minority.
Largest tax burden in history, student debt, housing crisis.
All of this falls on us, you are totally insulated from it. So kindly sod off with this rubbish.
Why should young people volunteer without pay? Why don't you volunteer if you're so up for the idea? If this idea was implemented when I was 18, you'd have lost my tax income, do you honestly think that's a good idea?
They could have found another road sweeper easily to replace your tax
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
Why is it moronic? Do you think smoking is a good idea? It’s a ghastly thing that I would make illegal if I could. No one gains from smoking (certainly if they have never smoked).
Because it won't work. It will create a backyard industry that's even worse for health.
The best thing Labour could do, is decriminalise all drugs like Portugal and then tax them.
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.
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.
The thing to watch for are the Tory MPs who are very quiet / go missing during the campaign.
Why do you say I am a Tory? Certainly not, and planning to vote Labour at the election, despite liking the incumbent Tory, who is a decent chap. I love your fiction that you weren’t here at the time. The point about lockdown is that you are complaining about having to do it ( and no one put the lives on hold for two years). Covid was shit for a lot of people, and arguably worse for the young, who missed out on a lot of things. We didn’t handle the risks that well. Outdoor socialising should have been an option, but somehow we allowed ourselves to ignore how viruses tend to spread. And yes housing is a huge problem.
I am not saying only young people were impacted, I am saying they've been shafted by the Tories.
Lockdown (but feel free to exclude it)
Highest tax burden in history
University debt
Housing crisis
National service
All of these things have fallen on young people. They have been treated by far the worst since 2010.
Highest tax burden is on all tax payers, surely? See also housing crisis. There are big issues with older renters, potentially who have been in a property for years now being shoved out.
I don’t think the young have been specifically shafted, it’s been more general than that!
We need to start looking at why we have such a high tax burden ye5 seemingly cannot afford the services the public want.
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
The vast majority are at nine weeks or below, ones after 16 weeks are overwhelmingly for tragic medical reasons.
Triangulating things which have been promised NOT to be done:
Labour: Ms Reeves told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg Labour supported lower taxes, but she would not put forward "unfunded proposals".
Pressed repeatedly on her tax plans, she said: "What I want and Keir [Starmer] wants is taxes on working people to be lower and we certainly won't be increasing income tax or national insurance if we win at the election. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69063581
So Labour Income Tax is going to be left where it is then as a rate, and NI will be left with whatever was in the Sean-the-sheared-sheep version of the Finance Bill.
And we can expect the Brown 66% tax band to be smoothed out at little or marginal gain, I expect. Maybe.
A behind the scenes of how he does it. 24,000 miles, 25 flights, visiting 12 countries in 19 days. That can't be good for your health.
Or the planet. What a ridiculous hobby.
Its not a hobby, its a business, he makes very good money out of it. I believe he went from broke IT guy to emigrating to a small holding in Texas, employs a number of staff, etc. He does a month of trips, then 2-3 months at home doing the business side of things.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
Why is it moronic? Do you think smoking is a good idea? It’s a ghastly thing that I would make illegal if I could. No one gains from smoking (certainly if they have never smoked).
Because it won't work. It will create a backyard industry that's even worse for health.
The best thing Labour could do, is decriminalise all drugs like Portugal and then tax them.
Why won’t it work? Because people will find ways around? Fine, but the intention is to end up banning it completely. Do you think smoking should be legal or illegal? I think there are drugs that are banned that are far less harmful. The laws around drugs are not rational.
He really is a prat, the LDs would do so much better with someone else.
The problem was, when he became leader they had very few to pick from. He's still doing better than Jo Swinson did.
Is he? Current polling puts them 2pp down on the 2019 results.
He's lucky enough that he can, with a collapsing Tory vote share, win more seats. Ask the Lib Dems whether they'd want more votes and more seats they'd take more seats.
As the election campaign goes on the Lib Dems get more airtime and they can eat away at the Tory vote share.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
And, the triple lock.
And no house building
They need to wisen up and cut university places by 50%, only fund courses where there are skills needed, get rid of all the rubbish. Get shot of the HoL and half the useless quangos/regulators who do F all. That will give them a shedload of money.
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.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
Why is it moronic? Do you think smoking is a good idea? It’s a ghastly thing that I would make illegal if I could. No one gains from smoking (certainly if they have never smoked).
Because it won't work. It will create a backyard industry that's even worse for health.
The best thing Labour could do, is decriminalise all drugs like Portugal and then tax them.
Why won’t it work? Because people will find ways around? Fine, but the intention is to end up banning it completely. Do you think smoking should be legal or illegal? I think there are drugs that are banned that are far less harmful. The laws around drugs are not rational.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
Why is it moronic? Do you think smoking is a good idea? It’s a ghastly thing that I would make illegal if I could. No one gains from smoking (certainly if they have never smoked).
Because it won't work. It will create a backyard industry that's even worse for health.
The best thing Labour could do, is decriminalise all drugs like Portugal and then tax them.
I remember the first time I took Portugal. Completely blew my mind.
Rishi's apparently genuine National Service announcement has finally given me a reason to vote Labour. Keeping Labour out is now less important to me than stopping the Tories.
Thing is, I am pretty receptive to the idea that our military is far less than it needs to be. But this doesn't strike me as a massively helpful solution to the problem.
It's like the maths to 18 policy. I'm receptive to the argument that as a nation we are insufficiently numerate. I'm a maths fan. But what we need is a) better basic maths education to 16, and b) encouragement for those so inclined to take it further than 18.
Like this, the national service policy is a bafflingly stupid solution to a valid problem. But at least the maths to 18 argument isn't going to needlessly ruin long periods of my kids' childhoods.
Before you do, perhaps remind yourself of what that might mean:
I'm quite aware that Labour are a bunch of dangerous and spiteful left wing nutters who will make everything worse in countless ways. But what are the Tories doing to stop any of this? State spending up, immigration up, woke up, growth down. And now they propose to deprive my kids of their liberty.
Have you read all the detail properly? That's not at all how I see it.
There are quite a few flakey Tories on here and I sometimes wonder if it's just me, @MarqueeMark and @HYUFD fighting to back our own team. I get that morale is low but, goodness, we need to pull ourselves together.
I don't think you've enjoy a Labour government with a massive majority - and a huge phalanx of left-wing MPs on its backbenches - one iota. It'd be far worse on all the things you describe and you'd have to deal with the knowledge (and the guilt) that you helped enable it.
It no longer strikes me as rational to vote Con to keep state spending or immigration or woke down, because they transparently can't.
And this is being trumpeted as 'national service'. We all know what that means because it existed in the 1950s. If it actually isn't this but giving all 18 and 19 year olds a lovely slice of cake, why don't they say that? It's because implausibly, they think there is yet more mileage in shafting the young, of extracting a bit more from they young to give to the old.
I'm not a flakey Tory. I'm not a Tory at all. I'm just a voter for whom up until now the Conservative Party has been the best way of keeping the lunacy of the left at bay. But the Conservative Party is a) clearly not keeping the left at bay (i.e. state spending, immigration and wokery are rising anf rising) and b) introducing all sorts of unnecessary bloody awful of their own. I also felt this way over the cancellation of HS2, but then Labour confirmed they'd do it too.
You're not voting for 2024, you're voting for 2029.
The Conservatives are going to lose, badly, but if there's a decent cadre of parliamentary representation they have a chance of coming back in 5 years, after what will be a deeply unpopular Starmer Government that makes all of those things you describe much worse.
Please don't be goaded by those saying you must vote Labour to be sure they win; they are simply trying to co-opt you to wipe out the centre-right as a political force in this country.
Don't play their game.
I think you can forget 2029. The defeated Tories are going to lurch to the right for at least one, possibly two elections. 2038 may be more like it. Assuming they survive at all.
I'm not forgetting it at all, just look at how things have changed just in 3 years?
The Tories were taking seats off Labour in by-elections just 37 months ago.
Labour will experience strong opposition from Day One. And regardless of what they do in Opposition they will be accused of "lurching".
That's just branding.
Any decent government will have to take hard decisions, for all the reasons Robert Smithson has given. Hard means unpopular.
We are - across Western democracies - paying more, for less.
I think Labour could rapidly haemorrhage support in multiple directions.
What support they do have, now, is largely built up of a coalition simply desperate to eject the incumbent administration.
It ceases to have glue at 10pm on election day.
Could do. I suppose the question is whether Starmer will be bolder in office than his cautious campaign approach, and if he needs to be to deal with the problems that are being faced, at the cost of some support? Or will be, even if he gets a big majority, play things very cautiously to avoid fracturing the coalition that put him there?
Starmer will trade on every vote he gets and use it as a personal mandate to do whatever he decides to do.
You absolutely don't know what you're going to get with SKS.
We are in a ship that is sinking rapidly in icy seas and we are not sure if the lifeboat is watertight. Most people will take the chance and go for the lifeboat. It may be the wrong decision in the end but the person to blame is the captain who ran the ship into the iceberg in the first place.
No-one is going to listen to a single word I say until the Tories are ejected from office and Starmer is "safely" in office.
A behind the scenes of how he does it. 24,000 miles, 25 flights, visiting 12 countries in 19 days. That can't be good for your health.
Or the planet. What a ridiculous hobby.
Its not a hobby, its a business, he makes very good money out of it. I believe he went from broke IT guy to emigrating to a small holding in Texas, employs a number of staff, etc. He does a month of trips, then 2-3 months at home doing the business side of things.
Which in itself is ridiculous. Surely we have better ways to entertain ourself than watching someone fly places?
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?
I’m not sure that follows.
If numbers are dwindling the directors may think there is scope to turn it around. But then VAT puts prices up 20% and the decline accelerates.
It may not be the only contributing factor but it doesn’t mean that Labour isn’t responsible
It always amuses me that people cannot seem to see that many - in fact most - things are multifactorial. Events are rarely caused by just one thing, but several working together.
I n this case, it's perfectly possible that the school could have kept going, but the *threat* of the tax placed an additional burden onto the school - perhaps in part by putting off prospective parents. It's a perfectly feasible scenario.
In addition, the directors have a moral responsibility to try to give as much warning of closure as possible. Taking in another year's intake, just to close a few months later, would IMV be irresponsible.
It made the difference between surviving a bad year and closure.
On that the Trustee letter is very clear.
Most of the private schools are expecting a shakeout due to Starmer. Single sex schools are increasingly going co-ed so they can pick up families of those faced with school closures. The smaller schools are most vulnerable as they live closer to the breadline.
I suspect the net effect will be fewer schools but the really well off will go on as usual. The fall out will be less well off families who want to invest in their kids education.
Yep. My wife and I have had this chat today.
We might just give up. We'd be £35k a year better off, the state about £14k worse off. We could pay for nannies, after-school care, much nicer holidays and cars, and a home extension; we could also pay off our mortgage and retire earlier. The taxpayer would pick up the bill.
But, that's the effect of a really stupid policy.
Good news, you'll be paying 20% VAT on that home extension and the childcare, and those business in turn will be paying more income tax for the extra staff.
Triangulating things which have been promised NOT to be done:
Labour: Ms Reeves told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg Labour supported lower taxes, but she would not put forward "unfunded proposals".
Pressed repeatedly on her tax plans, she said: "What I want and Keir [Starmer] wants is taxes on working people to be lower and we certainly won't be increasing income tax or national insurance if we win at the election. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69063581
So Labour Income Tax is going to be left where it is then as a rate, and NI will be left with whatever was in the Sean-the-sheared-sheep version of the Finance Bill.
And we can expect the Brown 66% tax band to be smoothed out at little or marginal gain, I expect. Maybe.
But she has no money. So tax increases will be plonked somewhere else. Petrol. booze, fags and other indirect taxes. The joys of fiscal drag will continue along with other HMRC hobby horses.
Why do you say I am a Tory? Certainly not, and planning to vote Labour at the election, despite liking the incumbent Tory, who is a decent chap. I love your fiction that you weren’t here at the time. The point about lockdown is that you are complaining about having to do it ( and no one put the lives on hold for two years). Covid was shit for a lot of people, and arguably worse for the young, who missed out on a lot of things. We didn’t handle the risks that well. Outdoor socialising should have been an option, but somehow we allowed ourselves to ignore how viruses tend to spread. And yes housing is a huge problem.
I am not saying only young people were impacted, I am saying they've been shafted by the Tories.
Lockdown (but feel free to exclude it)
Highest tax burden in history
University debt
Housing crisis
National service
All of these things have fallen on young people. They have been treated by far the worst since 2010.
Highest tax burden is on all tax payers, surely? See also housing crisis. There are big issues with older renters, potentially who have been in a property for years now being shoved out.
I don’t think the young have been specifically shafted, it’s been more general than that!
We need to start looking at why we have such a high tax burden ye5 seemingly cannot afford the services the public want.
Just Mr Ed is a grasping young "I want everything for nothing , take all pensioners money off them " halfwit
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.
He's a lawyer, a former socialist who immediately and shamelessly betrayed everybody who voted for him as leader of his party, now a centrist vote-chaser and a kneeler who doesn't know what a woman is. Until he suddenly found out. Of course he's dirt.
In the meantime I hope your kid's education somehow continues without too much disruption.
He really is a prat, the LDs would do so much better with someone else.
The problem was, when he became leader they had very few to pick from. He's still doing better than Jo Swinson did.
Is he? Current polling puts them 2pp down on the 2019 results.
He's lucky enough that he can, with a collapsing Tory vote share, win more seats. Ask the Lib Dems whether they'd want more votes and more seats they'd take more seats.
As the election campaign goes on the Lib Dems get more airtime and they can eat away at the Tory vote share.
Ok, perhaps, and a fair point about the seats. But that strikes me as being luckier, not doing better. Let's see if the campaign shifts the dial, but I'm in that 2% of people who voted Lib Dem last time and will not vote for them this time. Perhaps they'll pick up disaffected Tories like you say, but it's not really showing in the polling right now.
A behind the scenes of how he does it. 24,000 miles, 25 flights, visiting 12 countries in 19 days. That can't be good for your health.
Or the planet. What a ridiculous hobby.
Its not a hobby, its a business, he makes very good money out of it. I believe he went from broke IT guy to emigrating to a small holding in Texas, employs a number of staff, etc. He does a month of trips, then 2-3 months at home doing the business side of things.
Which in itself is ridiculous. Surely we have better ways to entertain ourself than watching someone fly places?
Yeah I don't really get it. It comes up on my timeline occasionally (like now) and all the videos seem to be him sitting on planes, trains or buses for many hours talking about the bogs. But clearly a lot of people like this content.
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.
Yes, it’s happened to lots of schools and many other community institutions thanks to government decisions. This one hits you, countless others have been affected by previous ones. That’s the nature of political choices, many of which you have supported and advocated.
Your lot. Your policies. And you're not even in office yet.
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.
The smoking ban is moronic, incredibly disappointing to see SKS bringing it back
Why is it moronic? Do you think smoking is a good idea? It’s a ghastly thing that I would make illegal if I could. No one gains from smoking (certainly if they have never smoked).
Because it won't work. It will create a backyard industry that's even worse for health.
The best thing Labour could do, is decriminalise all drugs like Portugal and then tax them.
Why won’t it work? Because people will find ways around? Fine, but the intention is to end up banning it completely. Do you think smoking should be legal or illegal? I think there are drugs that are banned that are far less harmful. The laws around drugs are not rational.
Do you think cannabis being illegal has worked?
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.
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.
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
The vast majority are at nine weeks or below, ones after 16 weeks are overwhelmingly for tragic medical reasons.
Last thing we need is retarded politicians interfering in abortion rights.
The reaction to @Casino_Royale 's situation was very disappointing. For the people involved the closure of a school is a tragedy. The problem as I see it is that the quality of state schools is highly variable and generally they are better in areas with affluent families and high house prices. I lived in an area a reputation for bad schools for generations and even though the teachers did their best the situation was grim because the families of the children were in intellectual poverty. The situation was so bad it was the determinative factor in deciding to move our son to school in Finland at age 7. Had we not had this option we would have had to either a) move to another town or b) sent him to private school as most other parents in our situation did. So state schools are fine if you live in wealthy areas with conscientious and active parents but there isn't much you can do in a situation like ours when 4 parents out of circa 600 turn up to a PTA meeting. The parents like myself are ruled out in this calculation as conservative voters who will not vote labour, but this isn't actually correct, I could well vote for labour, but this policy is very off putting.
Because of inflation, the freeze in university tuition fees in England is equivalent to a 22% cut in income per student. The Conservatives think that’s fine, but a 20% increased on private school fees is unacceptable.
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
The point with Sunak and why he's been useless is that while there are different routes to a winning coalition of voters, you have to pick one, and a theory of the case, and stick to it. The most obvious ones broadly being the Cameron 2010-15 one - which was founded on detoxifying the party with more liberal voters and gluing those on to more traditional Tories and those fearful or fed up of Labour. Then there's the Boris, unite Brexit voters one, which united socially conservative types sharing both left and right economic views, while daring its liberal wing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are now an easy option for the Tories. Brexit has receded as a frontline issue but has made the Cameron route difficult to take without a mea culpa as the fracture with liberalism (not solely caused by Brexit, but a useful shorthand for the breach) is here to stay. It's not likely Boris' works either now as it was dependent on promises of spending to those left-wing on that were empty and now impossible. Brexit is largely seen to be a failure, even by enough leave voters who support the principle, to make standing on it as your big thing a vote loser. Plus there's no Jeremy Corbyn to shore up the Tories' liberal wing.
But you do have to pick one and stick to it. Sunak has flailed between them - he's cast himself as a pragmatic ideologically unbound problem solver one minute, then sounded like a rabid right-wing Boomer Facebook group the next. Which just annoy everyone.
Like their campaign is "stick with us, we've got a sensible plan" but the policies broadcast at the loudest volume are back of a fag packet populism that tells you they haven't beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To get an idea of how ludicrous it is think about what a similar approach from Labour would look. Running their "security and patriotism" stuff one minute, then, because they didn't want to upset Corbyn fans, pivoting to saying NATO is actually rubbish and why can't we all have a cup of tea with Putin and the Ayatollah the next.
Churchill was quite happy to have a cup of tea with Stalin, and he wasn't considered weak on security or patriotism, so I'm not sure of the basis of your point.
He was when we were allies - less so when Churchill was warning Stalin was a menace to European peace.
But that's by the by, whichever you agree with - Corbyn and Starmer have quite different political approaches and appeals to target voters. In relation to defence, which I used as an example Starmer makes sure to reassure he supports our existing international security arrangements and to appear strong on this. Repudiate that and take the far left's position that those security arrangements are bad and certain anti-West dictatorships have a point, and you annoy everyone and appear a fool.
You can pick one or the other of those positions or other ones associated with a particular type of politics, but if you pick both at the same time you look ridiculous.
As Sunak does by trying to promote himself as both a pragmatic problem solver aiming to "get the job done" and then by flailing about on the right trying to appease his party's headbangers.
Tory Party supporters and members have not afaicr been agitating strongly (or even weakly) for national service to be revived. Nor was the policy consulted on amongst members, supporters, voters, MPs or even the cabinet. This is a brain fart of Sunak and the people he's chosen to surround himself with - it is false and unfair to impute it to 'headbangers' except those occupying 10 Downing Street.
The idea was specifically rubbished by Number 10 and the MOD only four months ago!
Even better than that, it was rubbished by the Minister for Defence in a Parliamentary answer as recently as Thursday 23rd May 2024:
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.
Absolutely they are not. That was why David Nutt was shafted - he told them things they didn’t want to hear.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
The point with Sunak and why he's been useless is that while there are different routes to a winning coalition of voters, you have to pick one, and a theory of the case, and stick to it. The most obvious ones broadly being the Cameron 2010-15 one - which was founded on detoxifying the party with more liberal voters and gluing those on to more traditional Tories and those fearful or fed up of Labour. Then there's the Boris, unite Brexit voters one, which united socially conservative types sharing both left and right economic views, while daring its liberal wing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are now an easy option for the Tories. Brexit has receded as a frontline issue but has made the Cameron route difficult to take without a mea culpa as the fracture with liberalism (not solely caused by Brexit, but a useful shorthand for the breach) is here to stay. It's not likely Boris' works either now as it was dependent on promises of spending to those left-wing on that were empty and now impossible. Brexit is largely seen to be a failure, even by enough leave voters who support the principle, to make standing on it as your big thing a vote loser. Plus there's no Jeremy Corbyn to shore up the Tories' liberal wing.
But you do have to pick one and stick to it. Sunak has flailed between them - he's cast himself as a pragmatic ideologically unbound problem solver one minute, then sounded like a rabid right-wing Boomer Facebook group the next. Which just annoy everyone.
Like their campaign is "stick with us, we've got a sensible plan" but the policies broadcast at the loudest volume are back of a fag packet populism that tells you they haven't beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To get an idea of how ludicrous it is think about what a similar approach from Labour would look. Running their "security and patriotism" stuff one minute, then, because they didn't want to upset Corbyn fans, pivoting to saying NATO is actually rubbish and why can't we all have a cup of tea with Putin and the Ayatollah the next.
Churchill was quite happy to have a cup of tea with Stalin, and he wasn't considered weak on security or patriotism, so I'm not sure of the basis of your point.
He was when we were allies - less so when Churchill was warning Stalin was a menace to European peace.
But that's by the by, whichever you agree with - Corbyn and Starmer have quite different political approaches and appeals to target voters. In relation to defence, which I used as an example Starmer makes sure to reassure he supports our existing international security arrangements and to appear strong on this. Repudiate that and take the far left's position that those security arrangements are bad and certain anti-West dictatorships have a point, and you annoy everyone and appear a fool.
You can pick one or the other of those positions or other ones associated with a particular type of politics, but if you pick both at the same time you look ridiculous.
As Sunak does by trying to promote himself as both a pragmatic problem solver aiming to "get the job done" and then by flailing about on the right trying to appease his party's headbangers.
Tory Party supporters and members have not afaicr been agitating strongly (or even weakly) for national service to be revived. Nor was the policy consulted on amongst members, supporters, voters, MPs or even the cabinet. This is a brain fart of Sunak and the people he's chosen to surround himself with - it is false and unfair to impute it to 'headbangers' except those occupying 10 Downing Street.
The idea was specifically rubbished by Number 10 and the MOD only four months ago!
Even better than that, it was rubbished by the Minister for Defence in a Parliamentary answer as recently as Thursday 23rd May 2024:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I actually think Horse has it right - we should be focused on making state schools so excellent, no parent like Casino feels the need to send their kid to private school.
While you will always get an elite who want their kids to be educated around other elite types, the majority of parents who send their kids to minor private schools are parents who are deeply skeptical about the ability of the state system to provide an adequate education for their kids, and highly value the importance of a good education in getting on in life, to the point where they are prepared to spend a huge percentage of their disposable income on it.
The answer to this isn't making private schools more expensive, it's making state schools better. Reduce demand for private education by making the alternative more appealing.
We'll put you down as supporting an increase in the education budget such that spend per pupil is equal to that in the private sector then, will we?
There would have to be more funding.
But not necessarily all of it in schools. Are kids failing school because the schools are bad, or also because there are other factors - bad parenting, poor food, educational / behavioural issues - that may be causing them to fail?
Address these (how?), and you will fix more than the education system.
May I tentatively start with. The closure of SureStarts. Cuts to CYPS and CAMHS, to the point where it really almost takes an attempted suicide to get a referral. The almost total absence of Ed Psychs. OT all in the private sector. Months, if not years, waiting lists for ADHD, dyslexia, ASD and so forth assessments. Children's Services where the threshold for interventions rises exponentially every year? All of which issues are foisted onto schools who aren't trained, nor employed to do such jobs. And who are cutting back on such support staff to fill the holes left by unfunded pay rises. Just an idea that this may be contributing somewhat.
Indeed, and yes, that sort of thing. But also much more.
Yet it is hard to do without getting accusations of 'nanny state' etc. The 'troubled families' / 'supporting families' scheme ideas were good IMV.
Edit: and IMV forcing many private schools to close will *not* do anything to address this. even if it makes left-wingers feel good about themselves.
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.
I'm fine. There are some nasty characters on this site who have zero humanity who persist in trying to provoke me and chuck personal insults in my direction.
I generally ignore them, but sometimes my patience is sorely tested. So if they get some choice Anglo-Saxon thrown their way then that's entirely down to them. I will then go back to ignoring them.
What is nice is that many people (including people who are natural political opponents of mine) have still saw fit to express sympathy, and been human about it, yourself included.
I wonder if it is just a sign of my own increasing age that even though he is older than me Sunak feels very much like a young policitian, whereas Cameron seemed older thank Sunak in 2010 despite being the same age Sunak is now.
It's not due to experience, as Sunak has been an MP just as long as Cameron had back then, and is a lot more politically experienced than Cameron was in 2010, with years as a senior minister behind him.
Sunak comes across as being too green and inexperienced. Cameron, for all his faults, was a much smarter political operator across the board (a lot of that also, it has to be said, being driven by Osborne).
I do actually think Sunak has also suffered from what seems to be a paucity of good advisors. I did think bringing Cameron back might be a way to try and fix that - his Mandelson moment if you will - but it seems not.
I'm still baffled by bringing Cameron back. I liked him fine, but it was a snub to all the MPs who could have filled the role, he is not popular now, and it did not form part of any cohesive strategy to pitch to the centre - instead they've still wobbled back and forth from appealing to the right with some gimmicks and attempts at steady as she goes dull competence.
I think there were more votes available on the right, I think the centre was already lost by the Boris-Truss-Sunak debacle, so the campaign going that way is not a surprise, but undercut by things like bringing back Cameron.
The point with Sunak and why he's been useless is that while there are different routes to a winning coalition of voters, you have to pick one, and a theory of the case, and stick to it. The most obvious ones broadly being the Cameron 2010-15 one - which was founded on detoxifying the party with more liberal voters and gluing those on to more traditional Tories and those fearful or fed up of Labour. Then there's the Boris, unite Brexit voters one, which united socially conservative types sharing both left and right economic views, while daring its liberal wing to vote for Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are now an easy option for the Tories. Brexit has receded as a frontline issue but has made the Cameron route difficult to take without a mea culpa as the fracture with liberalism (not solely caused by Brexit, but a useful shorthand for the breach) is here to stay. It's not likely Boris' works either now as it was dependent on promises of spending to those left-wing on that were empty and now impossible. Brexit is largely seen to be a failure, even by enough leave voters who support the principle, to make standing on it as your big thing a vote loser. Plus there's no Jeremy Corbyn to shore up the Tories' liberal wing.
But you do have to pick one and stick to it. Sunak has flailed between them - he's cast himself as a pragmatic ideologically unbound problem solver one minute, then sounded like a rabid right-wing Boomer Facebook group the next. Which just annoy everyone.
Like their campaign is "stick with us, we've got a sensible plan" but the policies broadcast at the loudest volume are back of a fag packet populism that tells you they haven't beyond scraping the bottom of the barrel.
To get an idea of how ludicrous it is think about what a similar approach from Labour would look. Running their "security and patriotism" stuff one minute, then, because they didn't want to upset Corbyn fans, pivoting to saying NATO is actually rubbish and why can't we all have a cup of tea with Putin and the Ayatollah the next.
Churchill was quite happy to have a cup of tea with Stalin, and he wasn't considered weak on security or patriotism, so I'm not sure of the basis of your point.
He was when we were allies - less so when Churchill was warning Stalin was a menace to European peace.
But that's by the by, whichever you agree with - Corbyn and Starmer have quite different political approaches and appeals to target voters. In relation to defence, which I used as an example Starmer makes sure to reassure he supports our existing international security arrangements and to appear strong on this. Repudiate that and take the far left's position that those security arrangements are bad and certain anti-West dictatorships have a point, and you annoy everyone and appear a fool.
You can pick one or the other of those positions or other ones associated with a particular type of politics, but if you pick both at the same time you look ridiculous.
As Sunak does by trying to promote himself as both a pragmatic problem solver aiming to "get the job done" and then by flailing about on the right trying to appease his party's headbangers.
Tory Party supporters and members have not afaicr been agitating strongly (or even weakly) for national service to be revived. Nor was the policy consulted on amongst members, supporters, voters, MPs or even the cabinet. This is a brain fart of Sunak and the people he's chosen to surround himself with - it is false and unfair to impute it to 'headbangers' except those occupying 10 Downing Street.
The idea was specifically rubbished by Number 10 and the MOD only four months ago!
Even better than that, it was rubbished by the Minister for Defence in a Parliamentary answer as recently as Thursday 23rd May 2024:
He said earlier he's not on the approved list, which is mental when Andrew Bridgen, Scott Benton, Chris Pincher and a raft of other reprobates made the cut last time.
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.
I actually think Horse has it right - we should be focused on making state schools so excellent, no parent like Casino feels the need to send their kid to private school.
While you will always get an elite who want their kids to be educated around other elite types, the majority of parents who send their kids to minor private schools are parents who are deeply skeptical about the ability of the state system to provide an adequate education for their kids, and highly value the importance of a good education in getting on in life, to the point where they are prepared to spend a huge percentage of their disposable income on it.
The answer to this isn't making private schools more expensive, it's making state schools better. Reduce demand for private education by making the alternative more appealing.
We'll put you down as supporting an increase in the education budget such that spend per pupil is equal to that in the private sector then, will we?
There would have to be more funding.
But not necessarily all of it in schools. Are kids failing school because the schools are bad, or also because there are other factors - bad parenting, poor food, educational / behavioural issues - that may be causing them to fail?
Address these (how?), and you will fix more than the education system.
May I tentatively start with. The closure of SureStarts. Cuts to CYPS and CAMHS, to the point where it really almost takes an attempted suicide to get a referral. The almost total absence of Ed Psychs. OT all in the private sector. Months, if not years, waiting lists for ADHD, dyslexia, ASD and so forth assessments. Children's Services where the threshold for interventions rises exponentially every year? All of which issues are foisted onto schools who aren't trained, nor employed to do such jobs. And who are cutting back on such support staff to fill the holes left by unfunded pay rises. Just an idea that this may be contributing somewhat.
It does take attempted suicide to get a referral. I speak from 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?
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.
I'm fine. There are some nasty characters on this site who have zero humanity who persist in trying to provoke me and chuck personal insults in my direction.
I generally ignore them, but sometimes my patience is sorely tested. So if they get some choice Anglo-Saxon thrown their way then that's entirely down to them. I will then go back to ignoring them.
What is nice is that many people (including people who are natural political opponents of mine) have still saw fit to express sympathy, and been human about it, yourself included.
And I really appreciate that.
Good to hear. Some of the behaviour towards you has been appalling.
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.
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.
He really is a prat, the LDs would do so much better with someone else.
The problem was, when he became leader they had very few to pick from. He's still doing better than Jo Swinson did.
Is he? Current polling puts them 2pp down on the 2019 results.
He's lucky enough that he can, with a collapsing Tory vote share, win more seats. Ask the Lib Dems whether they'd want more votes and more seats they'd take more seats.
As the election campaign goes on the Lib Dems get more airtime and they can eat away at the Tory vote share.
Ok, perhaps, and a fair point about the seats. But that strikes me as being luckier, not doing better. Let's see if the campaign shifts the dial, but I'm in that 2% of people who voted Lib Dem last time and will not vote for them this time. Perhaps they'll pick up disaffected Tories like you say, but it's not really showing in the polling right now.
He can have a better outcome by being luckier than his predecessor. It'd not happen regularly.
The broadcast rules will ensure that LD, Reform, SNP, Green and PC get proportionate airtime which will boost the minor parties. There's going to be more tactical voting this time meaning that their 9% or 11% will be more efficient. If it's looking like a very bog labour majority then I'd argue people will be even more prepared to vote for the minor parties.
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.
@Casino_Royale it seems that you have been played by your private school - while it’s possible that the vat increase is reducing student numbers to the extent it’s no longer viable - that is likely to have been the case anyway - the number of 4 year olds is such that I think the issue would have accorded this year or next year regardless of the colour of the Government rosette.
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.
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).
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.
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?
Now now Andy , nothing wrong with a bit of passion and fire in his belly
Just a little thought experiment. If VAT is applied to private school fees by a Labour government, would taking it off again be in the 2028/2029 Tory manifesto?
Just a little thought experiment. If VAT is applied to private school fees by a Labour government, would taking it off again be in the 2028/2029 Tory manifesto?
I suspect not. Do we expect Labour to drop voter ID?
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.
Comments
Labour priorities.
You are a Tory, it is therefore totally unsurprising that you don't think younger people have been shafted. But you are in a very small minority.
Largest tax burden in history, student debt, housing crisis.
All of this falls on us, you are totally insulated from it. So kindly sod off with this rubbish.
Why should young people volunteer without pay? Why don't you volunteer if you're so up for the idea? If this idea was implemented when I was 18, you'd have lost my tax income, do you honestly think that's a good idea?
He really is a prat, the LDs would do so much better with someone else.
You want carrot and stick, nudging people away from the ciggies. Vapes were supposed to be that, but poor regulation meant we got Piña colada flavoured ones for kids imported from China.
They are 5th behind Labour, Green, Reform and LD in terms of candidate selection.
https://x.com/Huge_action/status/1794684909635899440?t=gFLTgjGiksJJQorhDixZRg&s=19
I love your fiction that you weren’t here at the time.
The point about lockdown is that you are complaining about having to do it ( and no one put the lives on hold for two years). Covid was shit for a lot of people, and arguably worse for the young, who missed out on a lot of things. We didn’t handle the risks that well. Outdoor socialising should have been an option, but somehow we allowed ourselves to ignore how viruses tend to spread.
And yes housing is a huge problem.
The closure of SureStarts. Cuts to CYPS and CAMHS, to the point where it really almost takes an attempted suicide to get a referral. The almost total absence of Ed Psychs. OT all in the private sector. Months, if not years, waiting lists for ADHD, dyslexia, ASD and so forth assessments. Children's Services where the threshold for interventions rises exponentially every year?
All of which issues are foisted onto schools who aren't trained, nor employed to do such jobs. And who are cutting back on such support staff to fill the holes left by unfunded pay rises.
Just an idea that this may be contributing somewhat.
Lockdown (but feel free to exclude it)
Highest tax burden in history
University debt
Housing crisis
National service
All of these things have fallen on young people. They have been treated by far the worst since 2010.
The best thing Labour could do, is decriminalise all drugs like Portugal and then tax them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxwFAM3pS8g
A behind the scenes of how he does it. 24,000 miles, 25 flights, visiting 12 countries in 19 days. That can't be good for your health.
I don’t think the young have been specifically shafted, it’s been more general than that!
We need to start looking at why we have such a high tax burden ye5 seemingly cannot afford the services the public want.
Triangulating things which have been promised NOT to be done:
Labour:
Ms Reeves told Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg Labour supported lower taxes, but she would not put forward "unfunded proposals".
Pressed repeatedly on her tax plans, she said: "What I want and Keir [Starmer] wants is taxes on working people to be lower and we certainly won't be increasing income tax or national insurance if we win at the election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69063581
So Labour Income Tax is going to be left where it is then as a rate, and NI will be left with whatever was in the Sean-the-sheared-sheep version of the Finance Bill.
And we can expect the Brown 66% tax band to be smoothed out at little or marginal gain, I expect. Maybe.
As the election campaign goes on the Lib Dems get more airtime and they can eat away at the Tory vote share.
+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.
https://x.com/darrenmccaffrey/status/1794726595296715127
That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Noted: for future reference.
No talk of cutting expenditure.
Yet.
Let's see if the campaign shifts the dial, but I'm in that 2% of people who voted Lib Dem last time and will not vote for them this time. Perhaps they'll pick up disaffected Tories like you say, but it's not really showing in the polling right now.
Own it.
Wankfuck.
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.
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 would not ban any drug - just tax them a lot. I am consistent, the Tories and Labour are not.
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.
Remind me, what's 20% of £0?
Yet it is hard to do without getting accusations of 'nanny state' etc. The 'troubled families' / 'supporting families' scheme ideas were good IMV.
Edit: and IMV forcing many private schools to close will *not* do anything to address this. even if it makes left-wingers feel good about themselves.
I generally ignore them, but sometimes my patience is sorely tested. So if they get some choice Anglo-Saxon thrown their way then that's entirely down to them. I will then go back to ignoring them.
What is nice is that many people (including people who are natural political opponents of mine) have still saw fit to express sympathy, and been human about it, yourself included.
And I really appreciate that.
"Better an occasional spliff than a wife-beating pisshead dead from cirrhosis at the age of 50."
How did I do?
The broadcast rules will ensure that LD, Reform, SNP, Green and PC get proportionate airtime which will boost the minor parties. There's going to be more tactical voting this time meaning that their 9% or 11% will be more efficient. If it's looking like a very bog labour majority then I'd argue people will be even more prepared to vote for the minor parties.
@TheIFS
say Labour’s plan will raise £1.3-1.5bn net. With that we will:
🧑🏫 Recruit 6,500 teachers
🧑⚕️ Put mental health support in schools
🧑🏭 Deliver careers advice
A straightforward question of priorities.
https://x.com/bphillipsonMP/status/1794733518796521603
This feels like a mis-step to me. This is not the right way to advocate for this policy.
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.
If VAT is applied to private school fees by a Labour government, would taking it off again be in the 2028/2029 Tory manifesto?
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.