One of the most enjoyable aspects of this election so far, other than the Tories flying kites in the thunderclouds, has been the spectre of Schrödinger's Labour.
We're being earnestly told by some commentators that Labour won't have the fiscal room or the inclination to do anything differently, so there's no point voting for them. At the same time, we're told they will usher in a dangerous radical break straight after, nay, even BEFORE the election, so one shouldn't vote for them.
(There some joke about putting the cat among the pigeons / dead cat strategy here that I can't quite nail down)
It's quite fun to see. As it happens, I don't find myself hugely disagreeing with the former group hugely, although I think they overstate the case.
This is a function of Labour Party strategy, they have located themselves in a good political position whereby they don’t put out too many hostages to fortune or anything that their opponents can get their teeth into. So all that’s left is projection of the type that is going on.
Their positioning will handsomely win them the election but will have post election consequences. Supporters are projecting too and there is plenty of wishful thinking going on. Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations. The course of the next Parliament will be determined by whether disappointed voters give Labour the benefit of the doubt or whether they start to listen to the siren voices that are already doing their warmup exercises.
Bit in bold - the point is that Labour has deliberately not set any wild expectations. Lefties like me are somewhat disappointed by the lack of ambition thus far in Labour's offer.
Starmer's strategy is clear - under-promise but over-deliver.
The bit in bold from "ToryJim" sounds to me like a Manchester United Fan convincing themselves that next season will be better, next season they'll finish above City. It could be that " Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations." but sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
One of the most sickening aspects of an election is watching some supposedly neutral political journalists (or even previously hostile ones) softening towards the party that looks likely to win - at the very time when they should be more robust than ever. Presumably it's done to butter up possible sources in the new regime, and maybe get a Whitehall spad/PR job - or even a peerage.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".
Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.
The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.
Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.
So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.
This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.
This is all true. What it doesn't mention is the parents who don't have a first car, let alone a second, nor wealthy grandparents, nor the ability to get their child to the nearest private facility. They have no choice but to fail their kids for years and years. And that's before the drugs shortages.
The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.
What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.
The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.
So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?
Its an outrage.
Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).
Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.
Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.
I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?
Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?
A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.
One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.
Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.
Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.
In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.
Often, that's because they know the safety stuff costs a vast amount, and can restrict the system's usage. Therefore if they can do without the safety stuff, it makes the system more saleable.
Which means the sad old lessons have to be relearnt anew.
We've seen several examples of this with the new misguided bus system here in Cambridge, with lessons known for years on the railways -keeping trains/busses apart, and people separate from where things run, have led to accidents. Some tragic.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
I started to wonder if the Lib Dems had decided not to enter this year’s race as have heard so little about/from them so far but plenty from and about reform.
I wonder if this is partly due to my bugbear that political journalists are more interested in “the game” so reform v Tory is a psychodrama that’s fun and exciting with gossip and WhatsApp messages from “sources” whilst the Lib Dem’s are just boring.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
Because Nigel is going to focus on attack points where the Tories are losing votes on the right flank..
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".
Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.
The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.
Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.
So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.
This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.
That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?
You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
What he says and does will probably sway a fair number of Tory or potential Tory voters. Not loads, but it wouldn't take loads to make a difference.
Sounds right - SKS won because he wasn't Blairite but more centralist than Corbyn (which wasn't difficult)
Sunak is no Truss but definitely not middle ground. The only bit I would question is Johnson who I would have though was more centralist than Sunak - I've never seen Johnson was right wing just populist...
Facebook is heavily targeting me with a Labour Party advert urging me to vote for their candidate for Beckenham and Penge. Which suggests someone's algorithms aren't working terribly effectively. I haven't watched it in detail, but from the subtitles it appears that the chap in question is 'proud of Beckenham'. He doesn't appear to mention Penge.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
What he says and does will probably sway a fair number of Tory or potential Tory voters. Not loads, but it wouldn't take loads to make a difference.
Also given it's the early days of the campaign what he says may lead to changes in the tory manifesto to gather a few votes.
Probably right except Bojo is a screaming National Liberal type
I seem to recall at the time there was some bemoaning on the left that Cameron was seen as less right wing than he really was, but in fairness that's probably the case with every leader - the right bemoan that Starmer is not seen as as left wing as he really is etc.
Edit:
Which does rather tie into my theory that it is easier for someone to be radical if they don't come across as radical, eg Starmer could propose the same things as Corbyn but would not worry people as much in doing so.
On topic. Sorry to go back to basics, but there can't really be polling "errors". Only if you believe they predict votes. They don't. They repeat what people have told you they'd do today, some weeks out. If you ask the wrong people, they lie, change their mind, or decide they can/can't be arsed after all, then they aren't errors.
The errors - if there are errors - are in what they do with the data after they gather it. They have to adjust for various factors, including shy Tories too embarrassed say they are voting for *that*.
Using opinion polls to predict election outcomes is a tricky old thing. An opinion poll is not the same as using sampling of actual votes to model the whole election, where the science and practice of statistics can help (how big a sample do you need, what are the margins of error etc. An opinion poll is, I think, far harder to make useful. Pre the internet much polling was over the phone. The danger being that if you ring during office hours, who are you sampling? And how do you adjust for that? Now I suspect that online polling is the vast majority and again - who are you sampling?
We sometimes see the phenomenon of 'herding' towards the end of campaigns. Does this reflect a genuine drift together of the base data or are polling companies afraid of being out of the herd and changing their adjustments?
I have long argued that irrespective of the echo chambers of twitter and places such as PB, and irrespective of what people have said in opinion polls, in the privacy of the booth, some will change their minds and vote Tory. I don't think it will be enough to stop a Labour majority. But I also don't think the ludicrous wipe-out stories will be anywhere near the mark.*
*Benchmark this and note I did NOT promise to eat my hat if it IS a wipe out!
That's very plausible, and the fear of the unknown does create a lot of inertia, which helps to explain why it's so rare that a government with a working majority is replaced by the other lot with a working majority.
But one of the unusual factors with this election is that voting for a Toriy government is plausibly a great stride into the unknown. How long does Sunak remain PM? Who is the next-but-one Tory PM?
If Labour can move the election campaign onto the chaotic instability of Conservative government since 2016 - five Prime Ministers in eight years - then the wavering pencil in the polling booth might decide against the Tories.
I'm not making a prediction here, because so much depends on the issues that become most important to the voters as a result of the campaign. There's still a lot to play for.
Facebook is heavily targeting me with a Labour Party advert urging me to vote for their candidate for Beckenham and Penge. Which suggests someone's algorithms aren't working terribly effectively. I haven't watched it in detail, but from the subtitles it appears that the chap in question is 'proud of Beckenham'. He doesn't appear to mention Penge.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Fallacy. There's plenty of people sending children to Eton and Harrow that can afford it but only just
Indeed is it a law of economics that all goods are bought by the whole spectrum from zero to huge opportunity cost? Or are, say, Bugattis only bought by people who can buy them for pocket change?
Yes, logic suggests that some people who are sending their children to Eton or Harrow, or any other private school, can only just afford to do so.
I note, however, that private school fees have risen far higher than inflation over the last few decades. This suggests considerable price inelasticity. People have kept sending their kids despite increases in fees higher than the imposition of VAT will cause.
There’s been a huge race to compete on facilities, as international student numbers have grown and parents no longer tolerate falling down classrooms and mouldy concrete changing rooms. Private schools have been investing in buildings, technology, sports facilities and labs. That seems to be where the money has been going.
Exactly the kind of infrastructure the state sector could do with. Anyone who’s done the secondary school open day with year 6 children can testify to the huge gulf in facilities between private and state. Private schools have also kept their playing fields, the teaching and in many cases the results are not that different, it’s the physical estate where the contrasts are. That and class sizes.
Thanks for the possible explanation. This suggests that the private school sector can absorb VAT and that parents can afford some fee increases. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, this suggests that the policy is unlikely to produce a torrent of closures forcing pupils into state schools.
But it will do so at the margins and the margins is where CR is when it comes to private education given that only 50% of families earning £200,000 go private.
Yes, and Casino Royale earns shitloads. Society has to decide where the tax burden falls and who the Government gives more help to. Broadly speaking, I think Casino Royale and people like me (earning less than CR, but still up there) should shoulder a greater tax burden, while the government does more for people in the bottom couple of deciles.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
A midwife married to a police sergeant though certainly could or even a Deputy head married to a nurse
On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.
However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.
I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.
Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.
Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.
Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.
The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Fallacy. There's plenty of people sending children to Eton and Harrow that can afford it but only just
Indeed is it a law of economics that all goods are bought by the whole spectrum from zero to huge opportunity cost? Or are, say, Bugattis only bought by people who can buy them for pocket change?
Yes, logic suggests that some people who are sending their children to Eton or Harrow, or any other private school, can only just afford to do so.
I note, however, that private school fees have risen far higher than inflation over the last few decades. This suggests considerable price inelasticity. People have kept sending their kids despite increases in fees higher than the imposition of VAT will cause.
There’s been a huge race to compete on facilities, as international student numbers have grown and parents no longer tolerate falling down classrooms and mouldy concrete changing rooms. Private schools have been investing in buildings, technology, sports facilities and labs. That seems to be where the money has been going.
Exactly the kind of infrastructure the state sector could do with. Anyone who’s done the secondary school open day with year 6 children can testify to the huge gulf in facilities between private and state. Private schools have also kept their playing fields, the teaching and in many cases the results are not that different, it’s the physical estate where the contrasts are. That and class sizes.
Thanks for the possible explanation. This suggests that the private school sector can absorb VAT and that parents can afford some fee increases. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, this suggests that the policy is unlikely to produce a torrent of closures forcing pupils into state schools.
But it will do so at the margins and the margins is where CR is when it comes to private education given that only 50% of families earning £200,000 go private.
But parents of school age children are probably not the target of the Tories’ attack line.
Remember the big lesson of the last few years and this campaign: the Conservatives are targeting the core pensioner vote.
They had children at a time when private schools were used by some hard working JAMs and access was easier. It doesn’t matter what 40 year old parents think of Starmer’s policy, it matters what quadruple-locked, ULEZ-hating, unmortgaged national service fans think. Because they’re the people who vote.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Fallacy. There's plenty of people sending children to Eton and Harrow that can afford it but only just
Indeed is it a law of economics that all goods are bought by the whole spectrum from zero to huge opportunity cost? Or are, say, Bugattis only bought by people who can buy them for pocket change?
Yes, logic suggests that some people who are sending their children to Eton or Harrow, or any other private school, can only just afford to do so.
I note, however, that private school fees have risen far higher than inflation over the last few decades. This suggests considerable price inelasticity. People have kept sending their kids despite increases in fees higher than the imposition of VAT will cause.
There’s been a huge race to compete on facilities, as international student numbers have grown and parents no longer tolerate falling down classrooms and mouldy concrete changing rooms. Private schools have been investing in buildings, technology, sports facilities and labs. That seems to be where the money has been going.
Exactly the kind of infrastructure the state sector could do with. Anyone who’s done the secondary school open day with year 6 children can testify to the huge gulf in facilities between private and state. Private schools have also kept their playing fields, the teaching and in many cases the results are not that different, it’s the physical estate where the contrasts are. That and class sizes.
The class size is probably key to the difference in education. Reduce the load on teachers and they gain the time to meet the differing needs of children.
Both my experience and my children’s experience of the state system (at good state schools) was that the top 30% of the class academically were pretty much left to cruise, while the teacher strive to help the ones really falling behind.
Some children would get 4 A* A levels if you sat them on their own in a library.
It’s the ones who could get very high grades, with a bit more teaching, who are the first casualties of the current system.
The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.
What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.
The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.
So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?
Its an outrage.
Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).
Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.
Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.
I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?
Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?
A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.
One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.
Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.
Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.
In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.
There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.
The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.
By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.
Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
A midwife married to a police sergeant though certainly could or even a Deputy head married to a nurse
True. But then the midwife might be ill-disposed towards a Conservative government that has resisted pay rises for healthcare staff and continues to underfund the NHS, and a police sergeant may equally dislike the cuts in the police the Conservatives have imposed. I don't know. We'll see how the election plays out.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Smells about right, though it would be interesting to see what's happened in the last few months.
As a Centrist Dad, it's reasonable evidence for the "more centrist wins" theory of elections.
Though suggests Sunak could also get closer to Starmer over the campaign as ideologically Sunak is not much further from the centre according to voters than Starmer is
The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.
What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.
The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.
So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?
Its an outrage.
Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).
Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.
Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.
I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?
Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?
A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.
One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.
Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.
Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.
In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.
There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.
The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.
By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.
Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?
The “minor” stations are where lots of the commuters live, that the rush hour trains are trying to serve.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
Probably right except Bojo is a screaming National Liberal type
I don't think Johnson exists in the space of ideology. I'd put Sunak about level with Howard but otherwise I think voters are broadly correct. Starmer is a luckier version of Ed Miliband. Sunak is a Thatcherite.
Wifi issues being experienced at Canterbury Crown Court lead to counsel informing judge of similar problems at Maidstone due to...wait for it...."the contract not being renewed." 😳 Judge's response? "Highly probable!"
The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.
What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.
The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.
So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?
Its an outrage.
Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).
Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.
Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.
I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?
Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?
A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.
One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.
Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.
Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.
In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.
There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.
The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.
By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.
Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?
Interesting thought and to a degree it happens - a number of trains coming in to London terminii in the morning are sent straight back as "Empty to Depot" to get back to the other end. I see this on the C2C which doesn't have huge capacity - the trains going to Barking and West Ham heading into London are plentiful, the service other way not so good but there are plenty of non-stopping trains heading back east.
SWR do something similar though as a regular passenger on the lines from Waterloo to Woking and Guildford, the demand for services from say Woking to Basingstoke and Guildford is there and has to be catered for - it clearly doesn't match the London-bound demand but nonetheless.
The same thing happens in the evening - trains come out of depot, run empty to London and then form evening commuter services.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.
What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.
The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.
So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?
Its an outrage.
Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).
Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.
Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.
I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?
Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?
A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.
One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.
Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.
Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.
In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.
There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.
The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.
By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.
Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?
The “minor” stations are where lots of the commuters live, that the rush hour trains are trying to serve.
It's always been the case on the mainline services - you will be advised to go to station X or Y based on when the best connection is...
Changing at York / Darlington for Northallerton was always the case, it's true now for some times at Durham...
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He is the chief influencer of the party in second, and the owner of the party in third. Apart from that, and being the closest Brit to the odds on favourite to be the next US president, he is just some bloke.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".
Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.
The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.
Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.
So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.
This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.
That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?
You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.
The issue is that Eton and Harrow are a minority of a minority. We are about to see what the demand curve for private schooling looks like.
The idea that all private schools will close is bat shit insane.
The idea that an everyone will just pay 20% tax and carry on as usual is also insane.
Somewhere in between is the result - and where that’s, no one knows for certain.
Someone posted an analysis which suggested that the result of VAT of school fees would be slightly negative on (tax-expenditure). Based on the effects of the Post COVID price rises, IIRC.
This seemed a fairly reasonable piece of work.
If so, there won’t be any extra money for the government.
The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.
What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.
The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.
So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?
Its an outrage.
Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...
I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).
Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.
Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.
I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?
Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?
A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.
One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.
Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.
Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.
In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.
There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.
The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.
By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.
Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?
Various scheduling/timetable systems have been tried, and what works varies, e.g. according to whether it is commuter, long-distance express traffic, or even freight.
I knew someone whose job this was, and it is exceedingly complex, even with the help of computers.
(Incidentally, I vaguely STR that the Midland Railway developed some of the core techniques used for modern logistics planning and implementation. They realised in the mid-1800s that coal wagons were spending weeks getting down to London - a waste of wagons and effort. So they implemented a system to fix this, which was rapidly adopted by other railways. Annoyingly I did not copy the relevant section into my notes...)
In this campaign we've reached a new crossover. Labour pledging clear spending limits. But Tories gambling on major spending commitments, funded by 'cutting tax avoidance and waste'*.
* In other words, totally uncosted spending commitments
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 9m If Labour get in, there will be +no+ summer budget. Rachel Reeves points out it takes to OBR 10 weeks to do a forecast. So if they do day 1 then Sept 12 is earliest date possible
So a late September budget looks possible but that enters into party conference season so the budget will be early October...
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of this election so far, other than the Tories flying kites in the thunderclouds, has been the spectre of Schrödinger's Labour.
We're being earnestly told by some commentators that Labour won't have the fiscal room or the inclination to do anything differently, so there's no point voting for them. At the same time, we're told they will usher in a dangerous radical break straight after, nay, even BEFORE the election, so one shouldn't vote for them.
(There some joke about putting the cat among the pigeons / dead cat strategy here that I can't quite nail down)
It's quite fun to see. As it happens, I don't find myself hugely disagreeing with the former group hugely, although I think they overstate the case.
This is a function of Labour Party strategy, they have located themselves in a good political position whereby they don’t put out too many hostages to fortune or anything that their opponents can get their teeth into. So all that’s left is projection of the type that is going on.
Their positioning will handsomely win them the election but will have post election consequences. Supporters are projecting too and there is plenty of wishful thinking going on. Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations. The course of the next Parliament will be determined by whether disappointed voters give Labour the benefit of the doubt or whether they start to listen to the siren voices that are already doing their warmup exercises.
Bit in bold - the point is that Labour has deliberately not set any wild expectations. Lefties like me are somewhat disappointed by the lack of ambition thus far in Labour's offer.
Starmer's strategy is clear - under-promise but over-deliver.
The bit in bold from "ToryJim" sounds to me like a Manchester United Fan convincing themselves that next season will be better, next season they'll finish above City. It could be that " Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations." but sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
Not wishful thinking at all. The idea seems to be out there albeit implicitly rather than explicitly that the election of a Labour government of itself resolves some of the challenges the country faces. That is nonsense, the incoming Labour government is going to be quite hemmed in by circumstances. Clearly they will make different choices than the Tories but the options box is very limited. So anyone thinking that everything will be magically different simply because Labour will be in power will be sorely disappointed.
From the Tories point of view they will actually have to do the work of opposition which is actually thinking about the policy challenges both the obvious ones but also those that emerge that Labour either don’t have an answer for or have emerged from active decisions Labour take. The Tories are going to be in trouble if they think opposition will be a case of waiting for the voters to crawl on bended knee begging for rescue.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Fallacy. There's plenty of people sending children to Eton and Harrow that can afford it but only just
Indeed is it a law of economics that all goods are bought by the whole spectrum from zero to huge opportunity cost? Or are, say, Bugattis only bought by people who can buy them for pocket change?
Yes, logic suggests that some people who are sending their children to Eton or Harrow, or any other private school, can only just afford to do so.
I note, however, that private school fees have risen far higher than inflation over the last few decades. This suggests considerable price inelasticity. People have kept sending their kids despite increases in fees higher than the imposition of VAT will cause.
There’s been a huge race to compete on facilities, as international student numbers have grown and parents no longer tolerate falling down classrooms and mouldy concrete changing rooms. Private schools have been investing in buildings, technology, sports facilities and labs. That seems to be where the money has been going.
Exactly the kind of infrastructure the state sector could do with. Anyone who’s done the secondary school open day with year 6 children can testify to the huge gulf in facilities between private and state. Private schools have also kept their playing fields, the teaching and in many cases the results are not that different, it’s the physical estate where the contrasts are. That and class sizes.
The class size is probably key to the difference in education. Reduce the load on teachers and they gain the time to meet the differing needs of children.
Both my experience and my children’s experience of the state system (at good state schools) was that the top 30% of the class academically were pretty much left to cruise, while the teacher strive to help the ones really falling behind.
Some children would get 4 A* A levels if you sat them on their own in a library.
It’s the ones who could get very high grades, with a bit more teaching, who are the first casualties of the current system.
Yep - as I've mentioned previously the fees our parents in my cohort forked out for got us education in... portakabins... (Whilst the new swimming pool was being built for future years..) and the main classrooms weren't appreciably different to those of local state schools I noticed when I went round in the local school chess league. It's the smaller class sizes where the money should go in the state sector, the facilities seems to have been a more recent thing (2000s onward) for private schools to go bazingo on - you'd probably only need to raise the spend by 20 or so % to make a huge difference.
The other thing to note is the declining birthrate means this sort of thing should happen naturally to some effect !
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
A midwife married to a police sergeant though certainly could or even a Deputy head married to a nurse
Not sure about the 6% of kids = 6% of families assumption. I would have thought most families would be paying fees for at least two kids so %6 of kids = 3% (?] of families.
I think police sergeants also have high pension contributions so net take home pay would be an interesting measure.
The Tories will be hoping for as much pushback on the Mega Triple Super Fantasy Lock from opposition and media as possible of course, so they can say to the 60 plus 'you see? They want you poor'
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".
Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.
The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.
Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.
So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.
This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.
That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?
You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.
The issue is that Eton and Harrow are a minority of a minority. We are about to see what the demand curve for private schooling looks like.
The idea that all private schools will close is bat shit insane.
The idea that an everyone will just pay 20% tax and carry on as usual is also insane.
Somewhere in between is the result - and where that’s, no one knows for certain.
Someone posted an analysis which suggested that the result of VAT of school fees would be slightly negative on (tax-expenditure). Based on the effects of the Post COVID price rises, IIRC.
This seemed a fairly reasonable piece of work.
If so, there won’t be any extra money for the government.
And other analyses have suggested that there will be more money for the government, as per the House of Lords library paper. We'll see which are correct.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He is the chief influencer of the party in second, and the owner of the party in third. Apart from that, and being the closest Brit to the odds on favourite to be the next US president, he is just some bloke.
I wish you were correct, but you are not.
Whether Trump remains odds on favourite to be next US president likely depends on the jury verdict in his criminal trial in the next week or so. If guilty Farage may have jumped to the US and abandoned UK politics too swiftly, a weak Tory party polling lower than ever before is probably his best chance ever to realign the right towards Reform had he replaced Tice as Reform leader
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 9m If Labour get in, there will be +no+ summer budget. Rachel Reeves points out it takes to OBR 10 weeks to do a forecast. So if they do day 1 then Sept 12 is earliest date possible
So a late September budget looks possible but that enters into party conference season so the budget will be early October...
This stuff gives me more confidence. A bit of caution and patience has been sorely lacking from the Tories for the last few years, especially visible during the Trusstercluck period. It allows time for analysis and policies to be refined and considered.
Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.
When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.
Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.
Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.
However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.
I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.
Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.
Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.
Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.
The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.
And that's the argument for the Conservatives being in really deep trouble.
Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.
Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.
What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
Yes. Tice, Habib etc their leader and candidates
Farage has a leadership role in the party too.
He resigned from the leadership and announced his retirement from politics in 2021, he has an honorary position.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
The LibDems have not said this is some red line in coalition negotiations, no. If you're the junior member in a coalition, you don't get to dictate most of the policies!
On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.
However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.
I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.
Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.
Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.
Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.
The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.
Quite likely that we get a similar story this time too.
As I commented on the cat graph the other day, the bias of FPTP flips at a certain point in favour of the largest party, rather than being systematically biased to either party. It is in effect a winners bonus for gaining the confidence of the centre ground.
Newsclipping of "Rishi Sunak to bring back mandatory national service" sandwiched by "register to vote, or they'll register you for the army"
Absolute gift for Labour, one of the most high impact messages I've seen.
Yup. It's really made my student lad and his more or less apolitical friends sit up and take notice. The national service announcement seems perfectly timed to get as many youngsters as possible to register and vote Labour.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
The LibDems have not said this is some red line in coalition negotiations, no. If you're the junior member in a coalition, you don't get to dictate most of the policies!
So what are their redlines as I am open to persuasion
Wrt SEN and MH education. This is all pennywise pound foolish stuff. Without specialist early intervention, kids don't build coping strategies. Nor do the necessary neural pathways to offset Sensory Processing Difficulties, at an age when they're brains are plastic, which prevent them coping in the outside world. They then can't master the basics of literacy and numeracy, let alone the social and emotional regulation to hold down employment and live independently. Similar for mental health. So they're on the dole, with a carer, at the State's expense for life. And it's a worse life.
On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.
However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.
I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.
Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.
Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.
Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.
The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.
And that's the argument for the Conservatives being in really deep trouble.
Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.
Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.
What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?
Tories 97 ICM and Tory 24 Opinium deficits are broadly similar leading in to the GE
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
Sam Coates Sky @SamCoatesSky · 9m If Labour get in, there will be +no+ summer budget. Rachel Reeves points out it takes to OBR 10 weeks to do a forecast. So if they do day 1 then Sept 12 is earliest date possible
So a late September budget looks possible but that enters into party conference season so the budget will be early October...
This stuff gives me more confidence. A bit of caution and patience has been sorely lacking from the Tories for the last few years, especially visible during the Trusstercluck period. It allows time for analysis and policies to be refined and considered.
Well done, Ms Reeves.
The adults are coming, time for the teenagers to turn off the music and get ready for their hangovers.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
Yes. Tice, Habib etc their leader and candidates
Farage has a leadership role in the party too.
He resigned from the leadership and announced his retirement from politics in 2021, he has an honorary position.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...
As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?
Surely we should all conspire to engineer as many lost deposits as possible, to reduce the national debt?
(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)
Wrt SEN and MH education. This is all pennywise pound foolish stuff. Without specialist early intervention, kids don't build coping strategies. Nor do the necessary neural pathways to offset Sensory Processing Difficulties, at an age when they're brains are plastic, which prevent them coping in the outside world. They then can't master the basics of literacy and numeracy, let alone the social and emotional regulation to hold down employment and live independently. Similar for mental health. So they're on the dole, with a carer, at the State's expense for life. And it's a worse life.
Worth adding - and it's actually worse for girls who quickly build up defence mechanisms that only go so far.
But those mechanisms only take them so far at which point they fall apart at potentially the wrong time (in the case of 1 friend during her universities finals)...
On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.
However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.
I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.
Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.
Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.
Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.
The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.
And that's the argument for the Conservatives being in really deep trouble.
Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.
Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.
What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?
The cliff edge for 200 seats becoming 20 - it's hard to gauge but I think it's 25%...
27-8% and the Tories have 200 or so seats, 23% and they really collapse away...
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
Yes. Tice, Habib etc their leader and candidates
Farage has a leadership role in the party too.
He resigned from the leadership and announced his retirement from politics in 2021, he has an honorary position.
That he's giving speeches and campaigning for the party suggests his honorary position represents a significant role. I presume Reform UK are on board with promoting his speech. He's being covered as a Reform UK representative.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.
When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.
Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.
Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.
I would make a different choice.
As an OAP I would rather see child allowance returned to third and subsequent children than have my personal tax allowance raised.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)
We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.
You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.
The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.
Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.
To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".
Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.
The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.
Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.
So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.
This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.
That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?
You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.
The issue is that Eton and Harrow are a minority of a minority. We are about to see what the demand curve for private schooling looks like.
The idea that all private schools will close is bat shit insane.
The idea that an everyone will just pay 20% tax and carry on as usual is also insane.
Somewhere in between is the result - and where that’s, no one knows for certain.
Someone posted an analysis which suggested that the result of VAT of school fees would be slightly negative on (tax-expenditure). Based on the effects of the Post COVID price rises, IIRC.
This seemed a fairly reasonable piece of work.
If so, there won’t be any extra money for the government.
That was me, and the figures were remarkably close to the Guardian article.
I predicted a break even point for the government was a 30% drop in private education numbers, with a 3.5% year on year annual decrease in numbers, based on the last recession, with the policy becoming net negative to the taxpayer within the next decade as existing students work their way through the system without being replaced by new students. I made another post over the weekend calculating that parents with two kids would be better off spending the VAT money on a house in a better state school catchment area, and paying for private tuition.
I also noted my sums were contingent on a lot of assumptions, but, broadly, the Guardian journalist used the same methodology as me to arrive at a similar figure and a similar argument.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
The LibDems have not said this is some red line in coalition negotiations, no. If you're the junior member in a coalition, you don't get to dictate most of the policies!
So what are their redlines as I am open to persuasion
I don't believe the party has laid that out in those terms yet.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
'We will build a strong, fair economy that benefits everyone in the UK, through wise investment, fair taxes and responsible management of the public finances. In particular, we will:
Invest in infrastructure, innovation and skills to create good jobs and prosperity in every region and nation of the UK, while tackling the climate emergency.
Help people with the cost of living and their energy bills by implementing a proper, one-off windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers and traders.
Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to income from work.
Give taxpayers real value for money, by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, narrowing the tax gap, and giving HMRC more resources to properly tackle tax fraud, which has cost the taxpayer billions under the Conservatives.
Safeguard the UK’s economic prosperity while making the investments our country needs. We will make sure that day-to-day spending does not exceed the amount of money raised in taxes over the medium term, with additional flexibility during periods of economic crisis.
Uphold fiscal responsibility by ensuring that all fiscal events are accompanied by forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.'
I would say that is much the same aspiration as all the parties but this is interesting
Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to income from work.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...
As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?
Surely we should all conspire to engineer as many lost deposits as possible, to reduce the national debt?
(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
The Danish State can.
The Danish state can also provide housebuilding, functional police, border control, healthcare, and a justice system. In football terms if they're in the premier league of Governments, we're Torquay Utd.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...
As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?
Give me a reason on policy and I really could vote Lib Dem
Well, I'm not Lib Dem, I'm like you politically homeless (though considerably further left than you) but philosophically I like there to be more political parties and the discussion wider and it's a bit sad to see the Liberal tradition decline across North Wales when it was quite healthy, they almost won Conwy in 1992 and 1997.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He is the chief influencer of the party in second, and the owner of the party in third. Apart from that, and being the closest Brit to the odds on favourite to be the next US president, he is just some bloke.
I wish you were correct, but you are not.
Whether Trump remains odds on favourite to be next US president likely depends on the jury verdict in his criminal trial in the next week or so. If guilty Farage may have jumped to the US and abandoned UK politics too swiftly, a weak Tory party polling lower than ever before is probably his best chance ever to realign the right towards Reform had he replaced Tice as Reform leader
A guilty verdict will barely move the dial. Trump has spent a year priming all supporters and friendly media to reject the whole process as rigged or irrelevant.
So it comes down to undecided independents, and if they are still undecided why on earth would this case, the least of all the cases, be the last straw?
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
Yes. Tice, Habib etc their leader and candidates
Farage has a leadership role in the party too.
He resigned from the leadership and announced his retirement from politics in 2021, he has an honorary position.
That he's giving speeches and campaigning for the party suggests his honorary position represents a significant role. I presume Reform UK are on board with promoting his speech. He's being covered as a Reform UK representative.
OK well we will have to agree to disagree. There are any number of retired and semi detached politicians who will not get this sort of coverage if they go out on the stump. He specifically does not want to face the judgement of the electorate, his attempts to sway it therefore deserve little attention
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...
As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?
Surely we should all conspire to engineer as many lost deposits as possible, to reduce the national debt?
(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...
As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?
Surely we should all conspire to engineer as many lost deposits as possible, to reduce the national debt?
(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)
I think they go to local government finances.
Even better. Could buy a nice chess set for the constituency
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees
Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down
Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?
This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.
It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school
But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?
The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can
I think we are a rich enough country to provide children who require specialist support with the help they need. The alternative - that only rich kids get this support, is utterly bleak.
Wrt SEN and MH education. This is all pennywise pound foolish stuff. Without specialist early intervention, kids don't build coping strategies. Nor do the necessary neural pathways to offset Sensory Processing Difficulties, at an age when they're brains are plastic, which prevent them coping in the outside world. They then can't master the basics of literacy and numeracy, let alone the social and emotional regulation to hold down employment and live independently. Similar for mental health. So they're on the dole, with a carer, at the State's expense for life. And it's a worse life.
Worth adding - and it's actually worse for girls who quickly build up defence mechanisms that only go so far.
But those mechanisms only take them so far at which point they fall apart at potentially the wrong time (in the case of 1 friend during her universities finals)...
Yep. Happens to boys too. I masked super successfully so nobody noticed. Until I didn't.
Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.
He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).
They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.
Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.
Yes. Tice, Habib etc their leader and candidates
Farage has a leadership role in the party too.
He resigned from the leadership and announced his retirement from politics in 2021, he has an honorary position.
It's not merely honorary. RefUK is constituted as a limited company with a company secretary and three directors, of whom Farage is one and Tice another. However, Farage is listed as having the power to appoint and remove directors giving him ultimate control (he could ditch Tice tomorrow).
Amusingly, the Companies House listing still shows Farage's occupation as "Leader of a Political Party". An admin error, presumably, but a revealing one as to where the power is.
On topic - this is of course a view held by Mike Smithson for a long time. I am also more inclined to believe the lower Lab leads - be that for the reason of don't knows, shy Tories or whatever. There is a soft Lab lead out there between 20 and 15% which will be chipped away at, possibly by third parties rather than the Cons. Once you get below 15% I suspect the Lab lead is rather firmer and at about 10% I think it is pretty solid. Betting on spread markets looks very high risk (if also high reward).
It is worthy of note that Lord Hayward's spectrum of potential results runs from 1997 to wipeout. When your best scenario as a Conservative is 1997 that says something.
Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.
When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.
Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.
Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.
I would make a different choice.
Do you want higher taxes or higher tax reciepts (i.e., more money)?
The former isn't guaranteed to deliver the latter.
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees
This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour
We don't support the Labour plan.
Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...
As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?
Give me a reason on policy and I really could vote Lib Dem
Well, I'm not Lib Dem, I'm like you politically homeless (though considerably further left than you) but philosophically I like there to be more political parties and the discussion wider and it's a bit sad to see the Liberal tradition decline across North Wales when it was quite healthy, they almost won Conwy in 1992 and 1997.
There was a time when the Lib Dems were very active in our area and indeed one of their councillors was on the PTA committee with me and we became good friends and we voted for her
This was in the 1970 and 80's and it was not on the horizon they would almost disappear from the scene as today
Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again
No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.
I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision
Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.
Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.
As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.
Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.
Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or towns or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not
Only a very small proportion of private schools are like that. I went to a couple (was both state and privately educated) and at the high end one, that kind of tie flashing stuff simply didn’t happen.
Well the ones where it did has poisoned the well for the rest. Very few will shed a tear for an extra tax on private schools. Few see them as providing a service but most as buying privilege.
There is a rumbling feeling of discontent in the UK at the moment which seems to revolve around classism and unfairness. Contracts for chums during covid and one set of rules for the rulers and another for the ruled. Angela Raynor being pilloried by a Belizian Tory billionaire for buying a council house.....
Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.
When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.
Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.
Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.
I would make a different choice.
How do you define "very basic standard of living"?
How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?
Comments
https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1795374581206622235?
Nomination on a postcard…
What it doesn't mention is the parents who don't have a first car, let alone a second, nor wealthy grandparents, nor the ability to get their child to the nearest private facility.
They have no choice but to fail their kids for years and years.
And that's before the drugs shortages.
Which means the sad old lessons have to be relearnt anew.
We've seen several examples of this with the new misguided bus system here in Cambridge, with lessons known for years on the railways -keeping trains/busses apart, and people separate from where things run, have led to accidents. Some tragic.
https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/guided-busway-deaths-hse-serves-cambridgeshire-county-counc-9364998/
I wonder if this is partly due to my bugbear that political journalists are more interested in “the game” so reform v Tory is a psychodrama that’s fun and exciting with gossip and WhatsApp messages from “sources” whilst the Lib Dem’s are just boring.
Starmer is put left of Blair and Brown but right of Corbyn and about level with Ed Miliband.
Sunak is put right of Cameron and May but left of IDS, Howard, Johnson and Truss
https://x.com/GavinBarwell/status/1745467856253329587
You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.
Sunak is no Truss but definitely not middle ground. The only bit I would question is Johnson who I would have though was more centralist than Sunak - I've never seen Johnson was right wing just populist...
As a Centrist Dad, it's reasonable evidence for the "more centrist wins" theory of elections.
I haven't watched it in detail, but from the subtitles it appears that the chap in question is 'proud of Beckenham'. He doesn't appear to mention Penge.
Edit:
Which does rather tie into my theory that it is easier for someone to be radical if they don't come across as radical, eg Starmer could propose the same things as Corbyn but would not worry people as much in doing so.
But one of the unusual factors with this election is that voting for a Toriy government is plausibly a great stride into the unknown. How long does Sunak remain PM? Who is the next-but-one Tory PM?
If Labour can move the election campaign onto the chaotic instability of Conservative government since 2016 - five Prime Ministers in eight years - then the wavering pencil in the polling booth might decide against the Tories.
I'm not making a prediction here, because so much depends on the issues that become most important to the voters as a result of the campaign. There's still a lot to play for.
The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.
Remember the big lesson of the last few years and this campaign: the Conservatives are targeting the core pensioner vote.
They had children at a time when private schools were used by some hard working JAMs and access was easier. It doesn’t matter what 40 year old parents think of Starmer’s policy, it matters what quadruple-locked, ULEZ-hating, unmortgaged national service fans think. Because they’re the people who vote.
Both my experience and my children’s experience of the state system (at good state schools) was that the top 30% of the class academically were pretty much left to cruise, while the teacher strive to help the ones really falling behind.
Some children would get 4 A* A levels if you sat them on their own in a library.
It’s the ones who could get very high grades, with a bit more teaching, who are the first casualties of the current system.
https://x.com/juroberts_julia/status/1795391314143690766
Wifi issues being experienced at Canterbury Crown Court lead to counsel informing judge of similar problems at Maidstone due to...wait for it...."the contract not being renewed." 😳
Judge's response? "Highly probable!"
SWR do something similar though as a regular passenger on the lines from Waterloo to Woking and Guildford, the demand for services from say Woking to Basingstoke and Guildford is there and has to be catered for - it clearly doesn't match the London-bound demand but nonetheless.
The same thing happens in the evening - trains come out of depot, run empty to London and then form evening commuter services.
Changing at York / Darlington for Northallerton was always the case, it's true now for some times at Durham...
I wish you were correct, but you are not.
The idea that all private schools will close is bat shit insane.
The idea that an everyone will just pay 20% tax and carry on as usual is also insane.
Somewhere in between is the result - and where that’s, no one knows for certain.
Someone posted an analysis which suggested that the result of VAT of school fees would be slightly negative on (tax-expenditure). Based on the effects of the Post COVID price rises, IIRC.
This seemed a fairly reasonable piece of work.
If so, there won’t be any extra money for the government.
I knew someone whose job this was, and it is exceedingly complex, even with the help of computers.
(Incidentally, I vaguely STR that the Midland Railway developed some of the core techniques used for modern logistics planning and implementation. They realised in the mid-1800s that coal wagons were spending weeks getting down to London - a waste of wagons and effort. So they implemented a system to fix this, which was rapidly adopted by other railways. Annoyingly I did not copy the relevant section into my notes...)
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1795386396426764505
Rachel Reeves refuses to match the Conservative Party's pledge to cut income tax for pensioners, describing it as 'another desperate gimmick'
She says: 'I want taxes to be lower but I'm not going to make any new commitment where I can't say where the money is coming from'
@DPJHodges
In this campaign we've reached a new crossover. Labour pledging clear spending limits. But Tories gambling on major spending commitments, funded by 'cutting tax avoidance and waste'*.
* In other words, totally uncosted spending commitments
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
9m
If Labour get in, there will be +no+ summer budget. Rachel Reeves points out it takes to OBR 10 weeks to do a forecast. So if they do day 1 then Sept 12 is earliest date possible
So a late September budget looks possible but that enters into party conference season so the budget will be early October...
Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result
From the Tories point of view they will actually have to do the work of opposition which is actually thinking about the policy challenges both the obvious ones but also those that emerge that Labour either don’t have an answer for or have emerged from active decisions Labour take. The Tories are going to be in trouble if they think opposition will be a case of waiting for the voters to crawl on bended knee begging for rescue.
The other thing to note is the declining birthrate means this sort of thing should happen naturally to some effect !
I think police sergeants also have high pension contributions so net take home pay would be an interesting measure.
Well done, Ms Reeves.
I would make a different choice.
I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time
Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.
Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.
What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?
As I commented on the cat graph the other day, the bias of FPTP flips at a certain point in favour of the largest party, rather than being systematically biased to either party. It is in effect a winners bonus for gaining the confidence of the centre ground.
What on earth were the Tories thinking?
This is all pennywise pound foolish stuff.
Without specialist early intervention, kids don't build coping strategies. Nor do the necessary neural pathways to offset Sensory Processing Difficulties, at an age when they're brains are plastic, which prevent them coping in the outside world. They then can't master the basics of literacy and numeracy, let alone the social and emotional regulation to hold down employment and live independently. Similar for mental health.
So they're on the dole, with a carer, at the State's
expense for life. And it's a worse life.
(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)
But those mechanisms only take them so far at which point they fall apart at potentially the wrong time (in the case of 1 friend during her universities finals)...
27-8% and the Tories have 200 or so seats, 23% and they really collapse away...
I predicted a break even point for the government was a 30% drop in private education numbers, with a 3.5% year on year annual decrease in numbers, based on the last recession, with the policy becoming net negative to the taxpayer within the next decade as existing students work their way through the system without being replaced by new students. I made another post over the weekend calculating that parents with two kids would be better off spending the VAT money on a house in a better state school catchment area, and paying for private tuition.
I also noted my sums were contingent on a lot of assumptions, but, broadly, the Guardian journalist used the same methodology as me to arrive at a similar figure and a similar argument.
'We will build a strong, fair economy that benefits everyone in the UK, through wise investment, fair taxes and responsible management of the public finances. In particular, we will:
Invest in infrastructure, innovation and skills to create good jobs and prosperity in every region and nation of the UK, while tackling the climate emergency.
Help people with the cost of living and their energy bills by implementing a proper, one-off windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers and traders.
Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to income from work.
Give taxpayers real value for money, by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, narrowing the tax gap, and giving HMRC more resources to properly tackle tax fraud, which has cost the taxpayer billions under the Conservatives.
Safeguard the UK’s economic prosperity while making the investments our country needs. We will make sure that day-to-day spending does not exceed the amount of money raised in taxes over the medium term, with additional flexibility during periods of economic crisis.
Uphold fiscal responsibility by ensuring that all fiscal events are accompanied by forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.'
.............................................................................
I would say that is much the same aspiration as all the parties but this is interesting
Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to income from work.
So it comes down to undecided independents, and if they are still undecided why on earth would this case, the least of all the cases, be the last straw?
I masked super successfully so nobody noticed.
Until I didn't.
Amusingly, the Companies House listing still shows Farage's occupation as "Leader of a Political Party". An admin error, presumably, but a revealing one as to where the power is.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875/officers
It is worthy of note that Lord Hayward's spectrum of potential results runs from 1997 to wipeout. When your best scenario as a Conservative is 1997 that says something.
The former isn't guaranteed to deliver the latter.
This was in the 1970 and 80's and it was not on the horizon they would almost disappear from the scene as today
Seems like they're trying to ride the twin horses of recognising the shortage of housing and keeping NIMBYs happy.
The two are diametrically opposed. Anyone who recognises that will get my vote, but it doesn't look like anyone will.
There is a rumbling feeling of discontent in the UK at the moment which seems to revolve around classism and unfairness. Contracts for chums during covid and one set of rules for the rulers and another for the ruled. Angela Raynor being pilloried by a Belizian Tory billionaire for buying a council house.....
How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?