I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
Gosh, Crofty sure has a hard on against Rayner. I wasn't aware hypocrisy was a chargeable offence, but if it is a billionaire expat tax avoider using mutiple platforms to have a go at someone about their residency and financial affairs shouldn't be leading the charge.
'Hypocrisy was always the charge against Angela Rayner, not tax-avoidance… And the stain will dog her for years to come'
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Advocacy is always possible. Success is not. In this case the Tory points are: We have a plan. Labour always end up in a mess. We enabled the best possible route through the disasters caused by other events (Covid, Ukraine). All the alternatives are worse. Look to the future not our past. Labour always puts up taxes. The ultra left is a continual danger.
It won't work, but time and the hour run through the roughest day. You just keep plugging away.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
On the subject of VAT thresholds, one reason to be careful of lowering it is because of the vast amount of extra work involved in managing a VAT registered business as against one that isn't VAT registered. Quarterly returns, for a start.
There was this problem when the Treasury wanted to do quarterly returns for literally everyone and accountants patiently explained that would require literally quadruple the number of accountants that existed.
Quarterly returns and similar are on their way anyway with Making Tax Digital.
the reality is that a few years ago when everything was cash it was extra work - nowadays it's 2 seconds on your phone specifying what the payment is for probably 15 seconds if you need to attach the invoice....
Gosh, Crofty sure has a hard on against Rayner. I wasn't aware hypocrisy was a chargeable offence, but if it is a billionaire expat tax avoider using mutiple platforms to have a go at someone about their residency and financial affairs shouldn't be leading the charge.
'Hypocrisy was always the charge against Angela Rayner, not tax-avoidance… And the stain will dog her for years to come'
How does he feel about billionaire politicians wanting an immense say in the running of the UK, whilst refusing to pay taxes here? Perhaps he could investigate.....
Two have moved to America One has moved to France One moved to America but is now moving to Spain One is in the process of moving to Thailand
That’s five out of ten. All late middle aged men who either earn good money (and pay the tax on it) or they earn amazing money (and pay insane tax)
All gone or going from the UK
Obviously, a US/Thai style welfare state would be good for very rich men.
Isn’t there a more obvious explanation? Leon starts hanging around with man -> man flees to another country. You can only hear so many explanations of how UFOs are real before it gets too much for a guy.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
Yep, it's very sad. A prep school in Norfolk that specialises in taking children with special educational needs:
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
Boris would have had that as one angle. A Braverman type could run on the death penalty and leaving the ECHR. I think they would both lose, and fairly heavily but do a bit better than Sunak.
Save me from bourgeois parents who keep talking about how good an "education" is provided by the top exclusive schools. Most of them are too fucking lazy to find out what's on the curriculum, except perhaps insofar as they can gloatingly repeat one or two private-language buzzphrases. But somehow they know the "education" is a cut above. None of them have even got off their rich arses to mug up on boarding school syndrome either. They're no better than "nace" middle class types who go on about league tables.
You get the same thing in the state sector. Again going back to my time in north Hampshire, the local wisdom was that a certain primary school was the best in the area and most of the mothers were desperate to get their children there. A friend, who was a teacher and was the most the most intelligent mother IMO, visited the school and had a number of doubts about it which she expressed to me in a very lucid and persuasive way. The next time a mother was going on about getting her children into this school, I mentioned the doubts my friend had, to which this mother replied: "But everyone says it's the best."
Once a school gets a reputation, this reputation tends to be perpetuated without many parents examining if it is justified or not.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
The ST story of the £450m that will have to be repaid by the SNP government just appals me but my disgust goes far wider than the SNP government.
This money could have been spent on anti-poverty (principally programs designed to overcome barriers to work) and programs to boost economic growth. Programs are still eligible for the grants provided that they are made this month (despite the program officially ending in 2020).
The EU said, in 2019, that there had been 27 suspensions of payments across the whole EU because of failures to adequately audit and vouch the spending of the money. 19% of all such suspensions have been in Scotland, a country of 5.4m out of more than 500m (before the UK left).
Both Douglas Ross and Jackie Baillie are shouting this morning how shocking this is and it is indeed shocking. But: * if Scotland had a civil service worthy of the name this simply would not have happened. * where were Ross and Baillie when the prior suspensions happened? Why were the alarm bells not ringing loud? *Why have our local authorities of all stripes not been competing vigorously for that money in their areas? * What Ministers were responsible for these multiple failures and lack of focus and what consequences, if any, did they face? Do we even know who they are? * What is happening right now across government and local authorities to ensure as much of this money as possible is applied for by the end of the month? * Why were opposition politicians dependent upon a story in the ST based on a report to discover there was even a problem here? What the hell do shadow Ministers actually do with their time?
What this shows is that our Scottish government is utterly incompetent at every level, both Ministerial and administrative. As are our opposition parties. As are our local authorities. As, indeed, are our third sector who should have been promoting qualifying projects. This is not just a stick with which to beat the SNP, it is a condemnation of our entire system of governance, social society and democratic accountability.
Working in education, I feel your pain.
There is a weird thing in some parts of local and regional government - they seem upset with people applying for lottery and other funding which doesn’t go through them. To the point of hindering an application.
A relative was involved with a lottery application by a sports club for money to rebuild a shack of a clubhouse with a proper structure.
The local council spent a surprising amount of time and effort trying to screw up the application.
When Cameron was cutting Corporation Tax in 2015, I thought he was underpricing the can of beans, that large corporations are run by humans who, actually, quite liked a lot of the fringe benefits that the UK provided to them like private schooling, nice villages etc.
At the same time, I was already banging on about a ruling class that didn't value public administration and had only the vaguest awareness of how and why public services provided what the did, especially when you got beyond the health and education comfort zones.
Well, we doubled, trebled and quadrupled down on that kind of governance, and everything went to flames. To the extent that I now think that private education, which, Truss notwithstanding, is central to this story, is now a net disbenefit stymying the UK.
Somewhere, private education lost whatever public spiritedness it ever had and, on the terms it advertised itself as in being a strength of this country, it became a failing sector.
I wouldn't abolish it from the face of this land, that's not my kind of politics, but VAT, ensuring university admissions that don't favour the privately educated who don't get good degree grades (especially for a sector that's might shrink), chipping at the in built and seriously unearned advantages of private education, for sure yes, that is an advantage to the UK.
And, as for distress calls from, is it NE, Hampshire. Well, Hartley bloody Wintney is hardly the bloody hood. I don't believe there aren't good state schools.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
You are correct in saying this does not damage the elite schools, but it is certainly affecting the large number of smaller private schools which often contribute considerably to the local community with use of their sporting facilities and charitable work
There is a thought that some of these schools will close or merge and be purchased by Chinese interests
If Labour tax excessively or ruin the country I'll be off too. That Thailand link looks very appealing
As I read this and think about it, it's dawning in me... Something that should strike terror into lefties in the post COVID world...
Post COVID remote working = 💪💪steroids💪💪 for the Laffer curve
The Tories are taxing excessively. And have ruined the country.
And yet you are still here...
Damn right they have. I'm on the fence right now. Family connections etc being the only thing really keeping me there. If the situation worsens significantly I'll be off
But that was just my personal anecdote
My main point is, we don't know for sure what shape the Laffer curve is until it's put to the test. My view is, now, with remote working and easy digital nomad visas, high taxes ain't that viable anymore
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I agree they were on a sticky wicket. I’m not sure with Rishi to what extent his mistakes are related or unrelated to circumstances. We don’t necessarily know the full extent of the breakdown of harmony in the Tory party. Rishi was always trying to square the unsquareable circle because had he picked a definite position he’d have had war on one side, the other or both.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
Yep, it's very sad. A prep school in Norfolk that specialises in taking children with special educational needs:
Another story where the school closure appears to have been, at most, hastened: "home to more than 150 children before Covid. But numbers have dropped over the past few years to 40"
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
What about sending them to a Madrassa or a Yeshiva instead of following a state curriculum?
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
Boris would have had that as one angle. A Braverman type could run on the death penalty and leaving the ECHR. I think they would both lose, and fairly heavily but do a bit better than Sunak.
They’ve seen the latest Brexit favourability ratings and sensibly decided to avoid the topic. And in this they have willing co-conspirators in Labour.
Two have moved to America One has moved to France One moved to America but is now moving to Spain One is in the process of moving to Thailand
That’s five out of ten. All late middle aged men who either earn good money (and pay the tax on it) or they earn amazing money (and pay insane tax)
All gone or going from the UK
What solution do you propose that would be consistent with the nation-state? You (and arguably Casino) can work abroad *regardless* of who forms HMG. I understand your point but I don't know what the solution is. We have too many old and sick to adopt a Singapore option and I don't think Singapore scales to a country anyway. So I'm stuck.
Question: does this mean the end of the nation-state as the organising entity? If the talent migrates to the lowest tax regime and sunniest weather, how does Britain survive?
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Heartwarming to see the outpouring of love for the SENDMH sector. Presumably, the fact that funding per child was set at £10k in 2010 and remains in 2024 at £10k means not many of these bleeding hearts will be voting Tory.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
I'm not surprised. Starmer hasn't given them a glint of daylight on the issue.
Also, there is always the risk, to which the tories must be acutely alive, that a significant number of voters will think that unpicking Brexit actually sounds like quite a good idea.
As we saw in the London Mayoral election, there is a hyper sensitivity to "rumour" and "gossip" put out as tweets. We had some journo on the Thursday evening claiming "a source at CCHQ was very confident Hall had won". No evidence, just speculation and to be fair CCHQ quickly stamped that out.
A lot of it was in my view mischief-making by those opposed to Khan - whether there was an active attmept to manipulate the markets I don't know but of course we had no exit poll as we will have after the GE. 1992 tells us exit polls aren't foolproof but they are a good indication of the direction of travel and the scale of the victory/defeat.
It's also helpful for those playing the Next Conservative Leader market - you might be looking at a different set of runners and riders if 50 MPs survive rather than 100, 150 or 200.
Will the debates move the markets significantly? Recent experience suggests not.
The London market was quite illiquid. The GE will have loads more money piling into it. That should reduce volatility.
Yet again the Brexit referendum vote where the odds went to 14-1.
That is the perfect example of a liquid market with incorrect information driving it
I'm not sure a market with more liquidity reduces volatility - I think it depends on the herd mentality. IF we got an exit poll, as we did in 2017, which suggested something outside the range of many of the immediate pre-election polls, you would see everyone rushing to protect/enhance their positions and that would ramifications through the associated markets.
The first results might not help as they would be in strong Labour areas - remember how the swing in Sunderland South in 1997 was much smaller than the polls were suggesting but within an hour we were seeing an 18% swing in Crosby. Until we get a better idea of who will be declaring and when it'll be difficult to judge the point at which we'll be seeing the wood for the trees.
The new boundaries will create a degree of uncertainty too. I asked a while ago for suggestions of seats which might declare early, have minimal boundary changes and be good pointers to what will follow. I had some good responses too, which I should collate somewhere.
Here's the list of constituencies with unchanged boundaries.
Altrincham and Sale West, Bootle, Bradford West, Bromsgrove, Burton, Cannock Chase, Cheadle, Chesterfield, Coventry North West, Crawley, Derby North, Derby South, East Worthing and Shoreham, Epping Forest, Erewash, Forest of Dean, Gillingham and Rainham, Gosport, Gravesham, Great Yarmouth, Hartlepool, Havant, High Peak, Hove, Hyndburn, Ipswich, Islington North, Lincoln, Macclesfield, New Forest East, New Forest West, North Devon, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Oldham East and Saddleworth, Oldham West and Royton, Penistone and Stocksbridge, Portsmouth North, Portsmouth South, Scarborough and Whitby, South Holland and The Deepings, Southampton Itchen, Southampton Test, Spelthorne, St Helens North, Stalybridge and Hyde, Stretford and Urmston, Sunderland Central, Sutton Coldfield, Tooting, Tunbridge Wells, Walthamstow, West Lancashire, West Worcestershire, Wigan, Worcester, Wyre Forest, Wythenshawe and Sale East, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Central Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Midlothian, North Ayrshire and Arran, Orkney and Shetland, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Ynys Môn
Four of them are unchanged but with expanded names. Burton will be Burton & Uttoxeter Hove will be Hove & Portslade North Warwickshire will be North Warwickshire & Bedworth Oldham West & Royton will be Oldham West, Chadderton & Royton
It's Hove Actually, isn't it?
Haha. I do find the trend of ever increasing constituency names to be an annoyance. I suspect it comes from the concept of erasure whereby if you aren’t being utterly fawned over you are by implication being eradicated. It’s utter nonsense and so if there’s a settlement within a constituency that doesn’t form part of the constituency name someone will get on their high horse about it being ignored. So eventually the boundary commission caves and expands the name. What’s worse is the candidates then decide to proudly represent not just the name of the constituency but all the villages hamlets and farmsteads not forming part of the name.
Among the name losses is Penrith and Border (my seat). The furthest part of 'Border' from Penrith is about 50 miles, and the last 10 miles you have to walk it in tough terrain. It was Tory and Rory, and we have not only lost the name and the seat but also the party it always voted for and Rory along with it. So it's with a bit of sadness I shall be voting Labour in Penrith and Solway this time.
You have had some good MPs; Willie Whitelaw, David Maclean and Rory Stewart. Maybe your next one will be equally good.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I agree they were on a sticky wicket. I’m not sure with Rishi to what extent his mistakes are related or unrelated to circumstances. We don’t necessarily know the full extent of the breakdown of harmony in the Tory party. Rishi was always trying to square the unsquareable circle because had he picked a definite position he’d have had war on one side, the other or both.
Sure, he had to take on (at least) one wing of the Tory party and that carried a very high risk of being sacked by them. The alternative is a very high risk of getting sacked by us. So he may as well have tried to govern as he wanted rather than triangulating and flip flopping between the various Tory factions.
I noticed today that Plaid are going to vote no confidence in Gething next week. I suspect he will ultimately survive but if he doesn’t that will not be great news for Labour. Not sure it changes the shape of the election but might have an impact on the margins.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
It's sad that parents with kids with additional support needs rely on charity. It's like offering NHS care only for the fit and healthy. A grotesque inversion of what the social contract should be about.
This VAT saga just goes to show how poorly local councils are funded and how education has been left behind, even as spending on older people has increased massively.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
Boris would have had that as one angle. A Braverman type could run on the death penalty and leaving the ECHR. I think they would both lose, and fairly heavily but do a bit better than Sunak.
They’ve seen the latest Brexit favourability ratings and sensibly decided to avoid the topic. And in this they have willing co-conspirators in Labour.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
Yep, it's very sad. A prep school in Norfolk that specialises in taking children with special educational needs:
If Labour tax excessively or ruin the country I'll be off too. That Thailand link looks very appealing
As I read this and think about it, it's dawning in me... Something that should strike terror into lefties in the post COVID world...
Post COVID remote working = 💪💪steroids💪💪 for the Laffer curve
The Tories are taxing excessively. And have ruined the country.
And yet you are still here...
Damn right they have. I'm on the fence right now. Family connections etc being the only thing really keeping me there. If the situation worsens significantly I'll be off
But that was just my personal anecdote
My main point is, we don't know for sure what shape the Laffer curve is until it's put to the test. My view is, now, with remote working and easy digital nomad visas, high taxes ain't that viable anymore
And this is the conundrum faced by most western governments. They are expensive places to live, need to raise hefty tax revenues to pay for it, but the world gets more connected every year making it easy for disconnected people and companies to leave.
Two ways to change things: 1. Cut costs. The UK is absurdly expensive from the perspective of administrative and bureaucratic cost. The spivocracy takes its cut so that no matter how much money we tip into services we always seem to end up with dangerously threadbare front line provision. We're not spending money on the right things 2. Make the UK worth investing in. Better infrastructure, better skills, longer-term planning instead of immediate political tactical points-scoring
If we actually had good services, good infrastructure, good investment into skills then maybe the taxes taken might be worth paying. But we don't. An ocean of cash being wasted, and a skim off the top into Tory pockets.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
Boris would have had that as one angle. A Braverman type could run on the death penalty and leaving the ECHR. I think they would both lose, and fairly heavily but do a bit better than Sunak.
They’ve seen the latest Brexit favourability ratings and sensibly decided to avoid the topic. And in this they have willing co-conspirators in Labour.
Shaheen really should have been barred on this alone.
Interesting. I heard her on Newsnight last week and her enunciation has changed noticably. On Newsnight there wasn't a consonant left intact. Here she sounds quite normal
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I agree they were on a sticky wicket. I’m not sure with Rishi to what extent his mistakes are related or unrelated to circumstances. We don’t necessarily know the full extent of the breakdown of harmony in the Tory party. Rishi was always trying to square the unsquareable circle because had he picked a definite position he’d have had war on one side, the other or both.
Sure, he had to take on (at least) one wing of the Tory party and that carried a very high risk of being sacked by them. The alternative is a very high risk of getting sacked by us. So he may as well have tried to govern as he wanted rather than triangulating and flip flopping between the various Tory factions.
I have sympathy with that to some degree, however the danger with that would have been a) he could have been removed which would have made the Tory predicament worse or b) there could have been increased internecine warfare and he not be removed and then he’s left trying to salvage an even worse situation.
When all your options lead to a hellish death you can be forgiven for not choosing the option that makes the bit where you are still alive more of a waking nightmare than necessary.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
Yep, it's very sad. A prep school in Norfolk that specialises in taking children with special educational needs:
Another story where the school closure appears to have been, at most, hastened: "home to more than 150 children before Covid. But numbers have dropped over the past few years to 40"
You only don't accept a 20% price shock policy has an effect because you don't want to.
Save me from bourgeois parents who keep talking about how good an "education" is provided by the top exclusive schools. Most of them are too fucking lazy to find out what's on the curriculum, except perhaps insofar as they can gloatingly repeat one or two private-language buzzphrases. But somehow they know the "education" is a cut above. None of them have even got off their rich arses to mug up on boarding school syndrome either. They're no better than "nace" middle class types who go on about league tables.
You get the same thing in the state sector. Again going back to my time in north Hampshire, the local wisdom was that a certain primary school was the best in the area and most of the mothers were desperate to get their children there. A friend, who was a teacher and was the most the most intelligent mother IMO, visited the school and had a number of doubts about it which she expressed to me in a very lucid and persuasive way. The next time a mother was going on about getting her children into this school, I mentioned the doubts my friend had, to which this mother replied: "But everyone says it's the best."
Once a school gets a reputation, this reputation tends to be perpetuated without many parents examining if it is justified or not.
Yep - round here the nearest secondary school has a reputation for being dire with multiple name changes and academy trusts failing to improve it.
Yet now thanks to a combination of changing demographics and 2 decent heads - it's Good with Outstanding features while the previously outstanding schools are really no better than satisfactory...
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
Charging £18,000 per year. That's 140% higher than state school funding. And higher than average for private schools.
Alton School said in a statement: This proposal is based on a continued decline in pupil numbers, to the extent that the school has now become unviable
I was thinking Brexit where Leave went 14/1 30 mins after the polls closed after Farage conceded.
Fair point, but that had a lot to do with misinformation and a febrile atmosphere.
I can't recall a duller election than this one.
There are a number of interesting features of this election when compared say with 2001, 2005, 1987.
There is a high chance of a change of government. This is intrinsically interesting.
Electoral Calculus suggests that the Tories are set to get between 37 and 225 seats. This is fascinating both WRT the politics - what happens if Tories lose almost 90% of their 2019 seats, it's as significant as the Corn Laws episode - and the range of possibilities numerically.
There is even a chance of a chaotic result - where no government is viable, though that possibility is receding.
Politically there are big expectations of a new Labour government, but they start with minus £2trillion in the bank. This is fascinating.
The LDs could get 20 seats. They could get 80. This is interesting, especially as their leader is Harry Worth.
There are lots of betting opportunities, which as usual I shall miss.
Overall this is a great election, and could turn out to be the most significant since 1945.
Well said, Kirk.
I'm just being impatient. The spreads haven't moved for twelve hours.
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
Gosh, Crofty sure has a hard on against Rayner. I wasn't aware hypocrisy was a chargeable offence, but if it is a billionaire expat tax avoider using mutiple platforms to have a go at someone about their residency and financial affairs shouldn't be leading the charge.
'Hypocrisy was always the charge against Angela Rayner, not tax-avoidance… And the stain will dog her for years to come'
I think it's done Rayner a lot of good. It's raised her profile and most I would guess see her as you do .....an underdog being being hounded by a bunch of hypocrites.
Shaheen really should have been barred on this alone.
Interesting. I heard her on Newsnight last week and her enunciation has changed noticably. On Newsnight there wasn't a consonant left intact. Here she sounds quite normal
Relatively, I think, only relatively. A lot of consonants do suffer here too.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
Yep, it's very sad. A prep school in Norfolk that specialises in taking children with special educational needs:
Another story where the school closure appears to have been, at most, hastened: "home to more than 150 children before Covid. But numbers have dropped over the past few years to 40"
You only don't accept a 20% price shock policy has an effect because you don't want to.
This is pure cognitive dissonance.
It will have an effect, but it's highly unlikely to be observable before it happens. Not just meant in a flippant way - I don't think people are fully clear about which schools exactly will be exempted. But a school that already lost 70% of the pupil body over four years is a terrible test case to rely on.
re your comment about emigrating on previous thread:
Where to though? We've also looked at it many times.
You've mentioned Canada before but in addition to the barmy left over there (even more numerous and powerful than here) driving you even more crazy and house prices over there and the general cost of living, Canada is one of the countries where the state pension is fixed forever at time of your leaving, (whereas the States, for example, it is not).
You are luckier than me, being younger, as you have a better chance being accepted as you still work (and your children are under 18). But I note that those PBers who have upped sticks generally have a non-British spouse (e.g. Fishing, DougSeal, Gardenwalker (I think)).
What about parents? We couldn't leave whilst our parents are still alive. Which is why we have left it too late now.
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
The discussion on VAT on private schools is because a couple of people on here are impacted by it. Most of us never had the opportunity to pay for private education - I couldn't exactly find £15,000 from my post tax income when the twins were younger - it felt better to allow Mrs Eek to work part time so she was always around in holidays...
Two have moved to America One has moved to France One moved to America but is now moving to Spain One is in the process of moving to Thailand
That’s five out of ten. All late middle aged men who either earn good money (and pay the tax on it) or they earn amazing money (and pay insane tax)
All gone or going from the UK
What solution do you propose that would be consistent with the nation-state? You (and arguably Casino) can work abroad *regardless* of who forms HMG. I understand your point but I don't know what the solution is. We have too many old and sick to adopt a Singapore option and I don't think Singapore scales to a country anyway. So I'm stuck.
Question: does this mean the end of the nation-state as the organising entity? If the talent migrates to the lowest tax regime and sunniest weather, how does Britain survive?
I don't know this but I think the vast majority of movers are people who are offered a job abroad and take the opportunity (and many return) or retirees who move for the sun. I don't think there are many who move for tax reasons. I could be completely wrong as this is a gut feeling.
I was keen to move to France many years ago, because I love the country, not for money reasons. I put a huge amount of effort into it but inertia took over. I do regret not moving.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
And there it is. Why on earth should us white straight men stay in a country that despises us and wants fewer of us?
I think you're misreading my comment. Unless you're suggesting that the best person to do a job is always the straight white male (of which I'm one), then there's no despising involved.
If I had 100 vacancies to fill, and I filled them with 100 straight, white men, then it would be highly unlikely that I'd picked the 100 best candidates. It would be sub-optimal economically, so logically of one of those men leaving, could well be an opportunity.
It's the very opposite of being despised. It's a dispassionate argument suggesting you might, through no fault of your own, be a structural inefficiency in the UK economy.
I’m a self employed sole trader running my own business that I created and I often pay six figures in tax. And most of that is on income earned abroad. My flints mainly sell in foreign parts so I’m an exporter
I am eager to learn why I’m a structural inefficiency in the UK economy and why my departure from the UK and its tax system will therefore be of benefit to the UK and its people. Do tell
I replied to a post where Casino suggested that if he left, the economy might suffer if his position remained unfulfilled.
In the same thread, you'd defended him by saying that white, male, heterosexuals were being discriminated against.
I thought it was clear that my argument was about Casino and his position being unfilled - hence the fact that my post was all about vacancies and finding the best "man" for the job.
Expanding it to talk about business owners is a different argument. If you didn't follow, apologies.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their partisan class war manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it on here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
In Labours Britain no one has the entitlement to be aspirational. Succumb to the state. All hail the glorious leader, and his henchmen like Streeting.
Rishi Sunak abandoning HS2 was when the last idea of him being vaguely competent disappeared. I do think this will come to be seen as the moment when he abandoned the notion he might have been able to pull things back.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it in here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
I'm glad you're no longer pretending to be left wing and have now actually come out as what we always knew you were. But credit to you for having views - however silly - and airing them.
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
I think the point is that the cream of British society will decide to emigrate because of the policy, leaving the country a bleaker, poorer and utterly diminished place.
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more 'Second-Vote Starmer has clandestine plans to unpick and ultimately destroy your Brexit.'
I'm not surprised. Starmer hasn't given them a glint of daylight on the issue.
Also, there is always the risk, to which the tories must be acutely alive, that a significant number of voters will think that unpicking Brexit actually sounds like quite a good idea.
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
I think the point is that the cream of British society will decide to emigrate because of the policy, leaving the country a bleaker, poorer and utterly diminished place.
No, I’ve paid for my Middlesex membership now. I’m here until at least April.
“Yvette Cooper refuses to rule out sending asylum seekers overseas if Labour win general election – Shadow home secretary says Labour would examine ‘offshore processing arrangements’”
I predicted EXACTLY THIS a few weeks ago. I said in the end Starmer will do a version of Rwanda because it is the only humane solution that might work. Labour will just tweak it and pretend it is something else
Hilarious
And we all pointed out the gargantuan difference between offshore processing of claims and just deporting people to Rwanda.
Labour propose the Australia / Denmark / Israel etc route where successful applicants get brought back. Only the Tories proposed to send people away with no route to apply for asylum.
Australia, Denmark and Israel are not known for accepting large numbers of asylum seekers, are they?
Denmark even has a policy target of accepting zero asylum seekers.
… although Australia and Israel both have high rates of legal immigration.
Should we adopt an Israeli-style immigration policy and establish a right of return for the British diaspora?
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it in here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
You're saying "the poor" are sending their kids to private schools? Because anecdotally it sounds like it's six-figure earners threatening to Phil Collins it to tax exile.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
Charging £18,000 per year. That's 140% higher than state school funding. And higher than average for private schools.
Alton School said in a statement: This proposal is based on a continued decline in pupil numbers, to the extent that the school has now become unviable
oh
Indeed. a 20% price shock on top of a cost of living crisis (the GFC was responsible for 30,000 pupils leaving private education and 30 schools closing), is not good news.
As someone who doesn't have kids and already pays taxes to educate other people's kids, I quite like it when parents reduce the tax burden on me by paying for their own kids.
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
I think it does show the discussion here is unrepresentative.
I can understand some people have strong opinions about it if it is going to cost them money, but I can't understand their thinking that if the Tories press the issue it is going to transform the contest. It will just not be important to enough people who are open to switching to the Tories.
Perhaps an interesting question is whether the people who have Rishi Sunak's ear are similarly unrealistic about this and similar issues.
As we saw in the London Mayoral election, there is a hyper sensitivity to "rumour" and "gossip" put out as tweets. We had some journo on the Thursday evening claiming "a source at CCHQ was very confident Hall had won". No evidence, just speculation and to be fair CCHQ quickly stamped that out.
A lot of it was in my view mischief-making by those opposed to Khan - whether there was an active attmept to manipulate the markets I don't know but of course we had no exit poll as we will have after the GE. 1992 tells us exit polls aren't foolproof but they are a good indication of the direction of travel and the scale of the victory/defeat.
It's also helpful for those playing the Next Conservative Leader market - you might be looking at a different set of runners and riders if 50 MPs survive rather than 100, 150 or 200.
Will the debates move the markets significantly? Recent experience suggests not.
The London market was quite illiquid. The GE will have loads more money piling into it. That should reduce volatility.
Yet again the Brexit referendum vote where the odds went to 14-1.
That is the perfect example of a liquid market with incorrect information driving it
I'm not sure a market with more liquidity reduces volatility - I think it depends on the herd mentality. IF we got an exit poll, as we did in 2017, which suggested something outside the range of many of the immediate pre-election polls, you would see everyone rushing to protect/enhance their positions and that would ramifications through the associated markets.
The first results might not help as they would be in strong Labour areas - remember how the swing in Sunderland South in 1997 was much smaller than the polls were suggesting but within an hour we were seeing an 18% swing in Crosby. Until we get a better idea of who will be declaring and when it'll be difficult to judge the point at which we'll be seeing the wood for the trees.
The new boundaries will create a degree of uncertainty too. I asked a while ago for suggestions of seats which might declare early, have minimal boundary changes and be good pointers to what will follow. I had some good responses too, which I should collate somewhere.
Here's the list of constituencies with unchanged boundaries.
Altrincham and Sale West, Bootle, Bradford West, Bromsgrove, Burton, Cannock Chase, Cheadle, Chesterfield, Coventry North West, Crawley, Derby North, Derby South, East Worthing and Shoreham, Epping Forest, Erewash, Forest of Dean, Gillingham and Rainham, Gosport, Gravesham, Great Yarmouth, Hartlepool, Havant, High Peak, Hove, Hyndburn, Ipswich, Islington North, Lincoln, Macclesfield, New Forest East, New Forest West, North Devon, North Warwickshire, Nuneaton, Oldham East and Saddleworth, Oldham West and Royton, Penistone and Stocksbridge, Portsmouth North, Portsmouth South, Scarborough and Whitby, South Holland and The Deepings, Southampton Itchen, Southampton Test, Spelthorne, St Helens North, Stalybridge and Hyde, Stretford and Urmston, Sunderland Central, Sutton Coldfield, Tooting, Tunbridge Wells, Walthamstow, West Lancashire, West Worcestershire, Wigan, Worcester, Wyre Forest, Wythenshawe and Sale East, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Central Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire, Na h-Eileanan an Iar, Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Midlothian, North Ayrshire and Arran, Orkney and Shetland, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, Ynys Môn
Four of them are unchanged but with expanded names. Burton will be Burton & Uttoxeter Hove will be Hove & Portslade North Warwickshire will be North Warwickshire & Bedworth Oldham West & Royton will be Oldham West, Chadderton & Royton
It's Hove Actually, isn't it?
Haha. I do find the trend of ever increasing constituency names to be an annoyance. I suspect it comes from the concept of erasure whereby if you aren’t being utterly fawned over you are by implication being eradicated. It’s utter nonsense and so if there’s a settlement within a constituency that doesn’t form part of the constituency name someone will get on their high horse about it being ignored. So eventually the boundary commission caves and expands the name. What’s worse is the candidates then decide to proudly represent not just the name of the constituency but all the villages hamlets and farmsteads not forming part of the name.
Among the name losses is Penrith and Border (my seat). The furthest part of 'Border' from Penrith is about 50 miles, and the last 10 miles you have to walk it in tough terrain. It was Tory and Rory, and we have not only lost the name and the seat but also the party it always voted for and Rory along with it. So it's with a bit of sadness I shall be voting Labour in Penrith and Solway this time.
You have had some good MPs; Willie Whitelaw, David Maclean and Rory Stewart. Maybe your next one will be equally good.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
Yes, good post, for me this is true and obvious. We live in a liberal democracy with freedom to choose.
But this is not about the existence of private schools it is about whether fees carry VAT. I'm been unsure about this but think I have clarified my mind.
I only know of one school (group of) which can fairly be described as a business with the profit making aim that this entails - Cognita. This was the outfit created by Chris Woodhead 20 years ago and is private equity owned. I am sure that this company (and any others like it that I'm not aware of) should have VAT on fees. However, the vast majority of private schools are not like that, they cannot fairly be described as businesses and VAT should not apply.
Gosh, Crofty sure has a hard on against Rayner. I wasn't aware hypocrisy was a chargeable offence, but if it is a billionaire expat tax avoider using mutiple platforms to have a go at someone about their residency and financial affairs shouldn't be leading the charge.
'Hypocrisy was always the charge against Angela Rayner, not tax-avoidance… And the stain will dog her for years to come'
So the fact he is not running to be an MP is instructive that right now he not only thinks the Tories will lose, it's that he also thinks the people that take over will not vote for him.
Gosh, Crofty sure has a hard on against Rayner. I wasn't aware hypocrisy was a chargeable offence, but if it is a billionaire expat tax avoider using mutiple platforms to have a go at someone about their residency and financial affairs shouldn't be leading the charge.
'Hypocrisy was always the charge against Angela Rayner, not tax-avoidance… And the stain will dog her for years to come'
I was told “Isaac Levido sees this election as a courts case. Opening arguments. Present case. Closing arguments”. Before opening arguments the voters were leaning 9-3 towards sending the Tories to the chair. After opening arguments it’s now 11-1.
It's not my world, so I'm curious.
What does an advocate do when they have to advocate for a hopeless case?
The Conservatives can't run on their record, because it's clearly awful. You don't burn through 2 PMs if things are going well.
They can't run a Presidential campaign, because that's not Rishi's strength.
They can't run on an exciting agenda for 2024-8, because they're out of ideas and anything good they suggested runs up against 'you've had fourteen years'.
They're trying fear of the other lot, but that's not working, and Starmer is too boring to induce fear.
Is there anything else they can try?
Their strongest suit, I think, is “don’t give Labour too huge a majority, it’s important they face scrutiny”.
Not going to work when the government has spent the last 8 years insisting any scrutiny is bureaucrats, experts and opponents of the government acting against the will of the people.
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
I agree they were on a sticky wicket. I’m not sure with Rishi to what extent his mistakes are related or unrelated to circumstances. We don’t necessarily know the full extent of the breakdown of harmony in the Tory party. Rishi was always trying to square the unsquareable circle because had he picked a definite position he’d have had war on one side, the other or both.
Sure, he had to take on (at least) one wing of the Tory party and that carried a very high risk of being sacked by them. The alternative is a very high risk of getting sacked by us. So he may as well have tried to govern as he wanted rather than triangulating and flip flopping between the various Tory factions.
I have sympathy with that to some degree, however the danger with that would have been a) he could have been removed which would have made the Tory predicament worse or b) there could have been increased internecine warfare and he not be removed and then he’s left trying to salvage an even worse situation.
When all your options lead to a hellish death you can be forgiven for not choosing the option that makes the bit where you are still alive more of a waking nightmare than necessary.
Forgiven, sure. Respect, tricky. Want to lead the nation, no thanks.
The thing though, is that the point she has "made" is entirely of her doing, if you believe what Starmer said to his biographer. He said that he always thought she was different and purposefully didn't get involved but was forced to when she made the statement that she'd been blocked - even though we now know that is incorrect.
So Dianne Abbott has played a political game quite intelligently.
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
The discussion on VAT on private schools is because a couple of people on here are impacted by it. Most of us never had the opportunity to pay for private education - I couldn't exactly find £15,000 from my post tax income when the twins were younger - it felt better to allow Mrs Eek to work part time so she was always around in holidays...
Indeed, same for us. My wife wanted to look into it for secondary schools, but the only viable option locally (admittedly a very good school, but also very expensive) would have meant her going back to work full time and finding a job on the same salary as I was on at the time (impossible). And I would have had to find another job with a salary increase equivalent to her part time earnings. And I was on a salary around the top 10% mark at the time. That just shows how out of range it is for 'normal' people - we were a long way above average, and it was still way out of reach.
Both my daughters were educated at local comprehensives, that were OK but not great, and have done fine. I really don't know why so many people are scared of state schools!
(And I was surprised that the poster personally most upset by this seems to live in Hampshire - I had assumed he was in an inner city or left behind northern town)
So the fact he is not running to be an MP is instructive that right now he not only thinks the Tories will lose, it's that he also thinks the people that take over will not vote for him.
He may simply not wish to be an MP, requires a different skillset to being a mayor.
Also it's clear that he's angling for one of Labour's new quangos such as Great British Energy..
So the fact he is not running to be an MP is instructive that right now he not only thinks the Tories will lose, it's that he also thinks the people that take over will not vote for him.
Or Andy Street is polishing his application for William Hague's old seat.
So the fact he is not running to be an MP is instructive that right now he not only thinks the Tories will lose, it's that he also thinks the people that take over will not vote for him.
I think it’s more that whilst he can succeed and be comfortable in an executive political role, Parliamentary politics requires very different skill sets that he feels he doesn’t possess. I don’t think he is making any sophisticated calculations here.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
Yes, good post, for me this is true and obvious. We live in a liberal democracy with freedom to choose.
But this is not about the existence of private schools it is about whether fees carry VAT. I'm been unsure about this but think I have clarified my mind.
I only know of one school (group of) which can fairly be described as a business with the profit making aim that this entails - Cognita. This was the outfit created by Chris Woodhead 20 years ago and is private equity owned. I am sure that this company (and any others like it that I'm not aware of) should have VAT on fees. However, the vast majority of private schools are not like that, they cannot fairly be described as businesses and VAT should not apply.
Willing the be persuaded otherwise, as always.
The question for me is about who the actual target for the tax is. Here, it will be the parents - schools may suffer as they lose customers but the parents pay (or don’t pay) the tax.
That being the case, it opens up a wider debate about VAT policy and why we exempt or zero rate things. However you define such reasoning to exempt or zero rate a service, I think school fees would fit within the definition. So, to be consistent, leave them as they are. I like tax policy to be predictable and logical.
I also think Labour is underestimating the impact of the private schooling sector withdrawing support and good will from the public sector (e.g. use of drama and sports facilities).
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
What country exactly is that? Unless you're reading something into my comment that isn't there, is it not pretty basic economics that if a particular group is over-represented, compared with the population, there might be an issue with the way they're recruited?
I think you'd struggle to find a HR department in any industry that doesn't think that's pretty orthodox thinking, and certainly not anything overly woke.
You suggested that your leaving the country would leave an unfilled vacancy. I'm pretty sure you're highly skilled, and valuable to your employers, but do you genuinely think you're irreplaceable?
ps. I do hope you stay. Even Leon is welcome in my new utopian society
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it in here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
You're saying "the poor" are sending their kids to private schools? Because anecdotally it sounds like it's six-figure earners threatening to Phil Collins it to tax exile.
Aspirational working class, taking on extra jobs to give their children a chance in life, squeezed middle earners, tradesman, electricians, carpenters, midwives. The voters Labour need for a majority, and I pointed on on previous thread, canvassers of all parties are experiencing a huge backlash to this policy on the doorsteps, to which Labour are in shock and have no response. This is why it’s about to become THE story of this campaign very soon.
Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.
Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
The thing though, is that the point she has "made" is entirely of her doing, if you believe what Starmer said to his biographer. He said that he always thought she was different and purposefully didn't get involved but was forced to when she made the statement that she'd been blocked - even though we now know that is incorrect.
So Dianne Abbott has played a political game quite intelligently.
Possibly. By lying. It’s also to the detriment of Labour long term. What is it with those on the left of Labour and the right of the Tories that gives them such mumping great egos.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
Charging £18,000 per year. That's 140% higher than state school funding. And higher than average for private schools.
Alton School said in a statement: This proposal is based on a continued decline in pupil numbers, to the extent that the school has now become unviable
oh
You haven't a clue what you're fucking talking about.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
It is, you absolute and total fucking moron.
It's exactly what killed it off. Pupil numbers dived for next year because parents weren't willing to subscribe to the school with that sort of price increase hanging over their head. It's not a hugely wealthy area here. The letter from the Trustees specifically highlighted these political factors pushing the school roll into unviability.
I know you don't want to accept this because it means accepting that your nasty little policy has nasty real-world effects. But it's thrown my son out of his school, lost the community an important educational institution, and lost his teachers their jobs- many of whom are family friends. I hate Labour for it.
So fuck off, there's a good chap.
Reading todays Telegraph, Labour have now already killed a second one 😢
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
I went to a private boarding school in North Wales at the age of eight. There were lots of them dotted around. You had to go that young if you wanted to go onto Public School which took you at thirteen. I don't know a single person who followed that route who wouldn't have loved a government to come in and price their parents out of sending them!
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
I think it does show the discussion here is unrepresentative.
I can understand some people have strong opinions about it if it is going to cost them money, but I can't understand their thinking that if the Tories press the issue it is going to transform the contest. It will just not be important to enough people who are open to switching to the Tories.
Perhaps an interesting question is whether the people who have Rishi Sunak's ear are similarly unrealistic about this and similar issues.
I would just comment that @RochdalePioneers confirmed to me when I asked him that it is Lib Dem policy to oppose vat on private school fees so not just conservatives
I can't believe there is so much discussion of VAT on private schools. It really does show how unrepresentative of the wider population this board is.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
The discussion on VAT on private schools is because a couple of people on here are impacted by it. Most of us never had the opportunity to pay for private education - I couldn't exactly find £15,000 from my post tax income when the twins were younger - it felt better to allow Mrs Eek to work part time so she was always around in holidays...
Indeed, same for us. My wife wanted to look into it for secondary schools, but the only viable option locally (admittedly a very good school, but also very expensive) would have meant her going back to work full time and finding a job on the same salary as I was on at the time (impossible). And I would have had to find another job with a salary increase equivalent to her part time earnings. And I was on a salary around the top 10% mark at the time. That just shows how out of range it is for 'normal' people - we were a long way above average, and it was still way out of reach.
Both my daughters were educated at local comprehensives, that were OK but not great, and have done fine. I really don't know why so many people are scared of state schools!
(And I was surprised that the poster personally most upset by this seems to live in Hampshire - I had assumed he was in an inner city or left behind northern town)
There is a view that bright children will succeed in state or private schools so you may as well save the money. There is probably a lot in that. Certainly our universities seem to churn out tens of thousands of graduates who'd be hard put to find Eton on a map. The domination of two particular universities, one of which is a dump, should probably be of more concern.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
Charging £18,000 per year. That's 140% higher than state school funding. And higher than average for private schools.
Alton School said in a statement: This proposal is based on a continued decline in pupil numbers, to the extent that the school has now become unviable
oh
Indeed. a 20% price shock on top of a cost of living crisis (the GFC was responsible for 30,000 pupils leaving private education and 30 schools closing), is not good news.
As someone who doesn't have kids and already pays taxes to educate other people's kids, I quite like it when parents reduce the tax burden on me by paying for their own kids.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it in here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
You're saying "the poor" are sending their kids to private schools? Because anecdotally it sounds like it's six-figure earners threatening to Phil Collins it to tax exile.
Aspirational working class, taking on extra jobs to give their children a chance in life, squeezed middle earners, tradesman, electricians, carpenters, midwives. The voters Labour need for a majority, and I pointed on on previous thread, canvassers of all parties are experiencing a huge backlash to this policy on the doorsteps, to which Labour are in shock and have no response. This is why it’s about to become THE story of this campaign very soon.
So, not the poor. And we are heading for NOM or Tory majority.
In our latest poll, the public were unsure how Labour performance this week: 34% thought they had a good week.
However, only 17% thought the Conservatives had a good week, actually down on the first week of the campaign (21%).
To be honest, I don't think the Tories did have a particularly bad week. So I wonder if again this shows the public already decided a long time ago.
That's exactly what's happened.
There is very deep and serious criticism of SKS and Labour, their lack of plans and agenda, to be made but nobody wants to hear it.
Isn't that the fault of the Tories though? The public decided to stop listening because of how bad they perceive the Tories to have been.
Personally my view is that if Sunak hadn't rushed on the anti net zero agenda he'd have been able to speak to some level of consistent and responsible government. But since then he's been flailing around.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it in here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
I'm glad you're no longer pretending to be left wing and have now actually come out as what we always knew you were. But credit to you for having views - however silly - and airing them.
“and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education EVEN MORE between the rich and the poor.”
I'm glad you're no longer pretending to understand policy, and have now actually come out as what we always knew you were. But credit to you for airing the fact your brain can’t compute very simple things.
Fpt for @Farooq and the other pb lefties because this is a really important debate
@Casino_Royale is a smart, hard working heterosexual white British male. British society is doing everything it can to tell him he is despised just for being a straight white male, and everyone else - every woman, every minority, everyone else has priority over him
At the same time the state is asking him to pay more and more tax for increasingly shabby public services because the state insists on importing 700,000 people a year (that no one asked for) putting ever more pressure on everything - and what money is left over must be spent - billions a year - on housing asylum seekers who are really just economic migrants but we are too spineless to say this and to pathetic to keep them out
And still you scoff at the idea @Casino_Royale might think “Fuck this” and bugger off somewhere else
Edit to add: At the same time as Britain is doing this, and as Britain seems to be gaining the climate of the Faroe Islands, lots of countries with better climates and nice cities and less Wokeness which aren’t intrinsically hostile to straight white men are adopting favourable tax regimes to attract people like @Casino_Royale
We really are in danger or driving away the smart hard working people that pay for the British state. What then?
For every 12 of me that go the State loses £1 million of tax revenue.
But (in the case of employees, obvs) your jobs will still remain. And someone else will fill them.
The concept of unfulfilled vacancies is clearly alien to you then?
Are you suggesting you're irreplaceable?
That's quite the claim.
Perhaps (and this is aimed at Leon's comment, not yours), the over-representation of white British heterosexual males in some industries is a failure of capitalism, and if a few of them left it wouldn't be the disaster they imagine.
Jesus Christ.
This is the country we're becoming, folks.
It’s such an offensively stupid remark I wonder if @nova is a Russian bot. And this is designed to stir up yet more anger
If it is real, god help us. As you say. Why should the likes of you or I pay to support a state that looks after @nova and all the others that hate us? Our taxes go to people that despise us
It's also nonsense. I've had job offers from partners in my firm to work in Hong Kong, Washington DC and the Middle East (UAE and Saudi) just over the last 9 months.
Now, as it happens, I said no because my kids were settled in school and we didn't want to uproot them. But, given Labour have uprooted one of them anyway, there comes a point where I might just take the plunge.
I've been listening to @Gardenwalker carefully on this and he doesn't make it sound so bad.
Labour aren't in Government, there is no VAT on private schools.
Your child's school failed for any number of reasons but it wasn't because Labour applied VAT.
Our son holds a senior management position in our local private school and the imposition of vat, certain now Starmer is going to be PM in a few weeks , is having an effect on their school numbers and across the industry
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
Yes, please see the article I just posted.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
Charging £18,000 per year. That's 140% higher than state school funding. And higher than average for private schools.
Alton School said in a statement: This proposal is based on a continued decline in pupil numbers, to the extent that the school has now become unviable
oh
You haven't a clue what you're fucking talking about.
The question is not whether people who use public schools to educate their children are rich or poor, good or evil, deserving or undeserving. The question is whether it is a "them" problem (the responsibility of the individual) or an "us" problem (the responsibility of the collective and hence the nation). For the life of me I can't put it in the latter category. The government is responsible for providing education (I think?) but should not enforce its use. If Casino or anybody else wants to educate his children in public schools, and he can afford it, then the state should not compel him.
That, to be fair, is not what this is about, unlike in 1987 when Kinnock did stand on a manifesto of outlawing fee paying education.
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Are you saying Eton will pay no VAT?
We are saying those school in top echelon arn’t struggling financially, nor will they, not least because the increase to cover tax is peanuts to some of those parents, whilst at the same time this policy will kill the ability to pay of aspirational families with less income and in the marginal schools outside the top echelon.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their partisan class war manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it on here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
In Labours Britain no one has the entitlement to be aspirational. Succumb to the state. All hail the glorious leader, and his henchmen like Streeting.
Have you been on the sherry ! Governments are known to make policies that end up harming some people . The new assessments for those on sickness benefit will likely drive some to suicide which to be blunt is a lot more worrying than VAT on private schools .
I don’t buy that Labour are anti aspirational . The UK seemed a much better place and was a lot more hopeful under Blair than the last 14 years.
Comments
I don't think they had anything but hail marys when Rishi called the election. With other leaders there were various options. If Rishi had been better at governing he could have run on his current platform, but he has been another disaster.
'Hypocrisy was always the charge against Angela Rayner, not tax-avoidance… And the stain will dog her for years to come'
https://tinyurl.com/yw52smnj
It won't work, but time and the hour run through the roughest day. You just keep plugging away.
And the anti aspirational, class war, anti Tory not governing for all the country, no such thing as a family it’s just you and the state government - arn’t even IN YET!
Just look at Streeting’s reply on QT. And BJO comments this morning, nearly tempting him back, The state of it.
As I read this and think about it, it's dawning in me... Something that should strike terror into lefties in the post COVID world...
Post COVID remote working = 💪💪steroids💪💪 for the Laffer curve
the reality is that a few years ago when everything was cash it was extra work - nowadays it's 2 seconds on your phone specifying what the payment is for probably 15 seconds if you need to attach the invoice....
And yet you are still here...
It is also seriously worrying teachers in these schools and to suggest because Starmer is not in power it is not the cause of disruption in the industry is simply not borne out by those actually working in private schools
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/01/labour-tax-raid-forces-another-private-school-to-close/
Once a school gets a reputation, this reputation tends to be perpetuated without many parents examining if it is justified or not.
This policy is starting to kill off multiple small prep and community schools in that help children with special needs, like Dowdham Prep and Alton School (Convent).
It's not the Etons and Winchesters that will be hurt by it. It's the little guys.
At the same time, I was already banging on about a ruling class that didn't value public administration and had only the vaguest awareness of how and why public services provided what the did, especially when you got beyond the health and education comfort zones.
Well, we doubled, trebled and quadrupled down on that kind of governance, and everything went to flames. To the extent that I now think that private education, which, Truss notwithstanding, is central to this story, is now a net disbenefit stymying the UK.
Somewhere, private education lost whatever public spiritedness it ever had and, on the terms it advertised itself as in being a strength of this country, it became a failing sector.
I wouldn't abolish it from the face of this land, that's not my kind of politics, but VAT, ensuring university admissions that don't favour the privately educated who don't get good degree grades (especially for a sector that's might shrink), chipping at the in built
and seriously unearned advantages of private
education, for sure yes, that is an advantage to the UK.
And, as for distress calls from, is it NE, Hampshire. Well, Hartley bloody Wintney is hardly the bloody hood. I don't believe there aren't good state schools.
There is a thought that some of these schools will close or merge and be purchased by Chinese interests
But that was just my personal anecdote
My main point is, we don't know for sure what shape the Laffer curve is until it's put to the test. My view is, now, with remote working and easy digital nomad visas, high taxes ain't that viable anymore
"home to more than 150 children before Covid. But numbers have dropped over the past few years to 40"
Question: does this mean the end of the nation-state as the organising entity? If the talent migrates to the lowest tax regime and sunniest weather, how does Britain survive?
It's about realism and incentives and what damage is done along the way.
This is a bad policy because it will kill marginal schools while leaving Eton untouched.
But if we say the government shouldn't interfere at all, where does that go? Do we then adopt the TSE idea of vouchers for all which can be doubled for poorer families and topped up by richer ones?
(FWIW I think that's a much better policy in terms of social mobility than VAT on private schools.)
Presumably, the fact that funding per child was set at £10k in 2010 and remains in 2024 at £10k means not many of these bleeding hearts will be voting Tory.
Also, there is always the risk, to which the tories must be acutely alive, that a significant number of voters will think that unpicking Brexit actually sounds like quite a good idea.
https://twitter.com/MichaelDnes1/status/1797158751356453256
This VAT saga just goes to show how poorly local councils are funded and how education has been left behind, even as spending on older people has increased massively.
https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan
Two ways to change things:
1. Cut costs. The UK is absurdly expensive from the perspective of administrative and bureaucratic cost. The spivocracy takes its cut so that no matter how much money we tip into services we always seem to end up with dangerously threadbare front line provision. We're not spending money on the right things
2. Make the UK worth investing in. Better infrastructure, better skills, longer-term planning instead of immediate political tactical points-scoring
If we actually had good services, good infrastructure, good investment into skills then maybe the taxes taken might be worth paying. But we don't. An ocean of cash being wasted, and a skim off the top into Tory pockets.
When all your options lead to a hellish death you can be forgiven for not choosing the option that makes the bit where you are still alive more of a waking nightmare than necessary.
This is pure cognitive dissonance.
Yet now thanks to a combination of changing demographics and 2 decent heads - it's Good with Outstanding features while the previously outstanding schools are really no better than satisfactory...
Alton School said in a statement: This proposal is based on a continued decline in pupil numbers, to the extent that the school has now become unviable
oh
I'm just being impatient. The spreads haven't moved for twelve hours.
For most people, private education is so out of reach you might as well be talking about taking a trip to the Moon. I know only one couple socially who has or had a child in a private school, and one other who sent their son for the 6th form only. And my social circle is mostly professional people.
As far as everyone else is concerned, if they have a view, and most don't, of course VAT should be charged on school fees, and are surprised that it isn't charged already. For the 93% this is more a matter of fairness rather than punishing privilege.
This only bothers people who are mostly going to vote Conservative anyway.
re your comment about emigrating on previous thread:
Where to though? We've also looked at it many times.
You've mentioned Canada before but in addition to the barmy left over there (even more numerous and powerful than here) driving you even more crazy and house prices over there and the general cost of living, Canada is one of the countries where the state pension is fixed forever at time of your leaving, (whereas the States, for example, it is not).
You are luckier than me, being younger, as you have a better chance being accepted as you still work (and your children are under 18). But I note that those PBers who have upped sticks generally have a non-British spouse (e.g. Fishing, DougSeal, Gardenwalker (I think)).
What about parents? We couldn't leave whilst our parents are still alive. Which is why we have left it too late now.
I was keen to move to France many years ago, because I love the country, not for money reasons. I put a huge amount of effort into it but inertia took over. I do regret not moving.
They say 'she has made her point' - she has succeeded into forcing Starmer to back down - and could now go under her own terms
They suggest Diane is thinking about it in the run-up to the deadline on Tuesday. No word yet this morning from Diane herself
https://x.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1797194478672859398
In the same thread, you'd defended him by saying that white, male, heterosexuals were being discriminated against.
I thought it was clear that my argument was about Casino and his position being unfilled - hence the fact that my post was all about vacancies and finding the best "man" for the job.
Expanding it to talk about business owners is a different argument. If you didn't follow, apologies.
Overall Net result is a tax policy brings in no extra revenue as increase state school tab is larger than tax brought in, whilst, and this is the kicker, at same time the policy helps divide our country and education even more between the rich and the poor.
Typical myopic brain dead socialism, they haven’t a clue about inherent vice of every policy they have in their partisan class war manifesto. And look at the cheerleaders and supporters of it on here - how clever are they? Not very bright is the answer.
In Labours Britain no one has the entitlement to be aspirational. Succumb to the state. All hail the glorious leader, and his henchmen like Streeting.
As someone who doesn't have kids and already pays taxes to educate other people's kids, I quite like it when parents reduce the tax burden on me by paying for their own kids.
Far fewer will be doing so next year.
I can understand some people have strong opinions about it if it is going to cost them money, but I can't understand their thinking that if the Tories press the issue it is going to transform the contest. It will just not be important to enough people who are open to switching to the Tories.
Perhaps an interesting question is whether the people who have Rishi Sunak's ear are similarly unrealistic about this and similar issues.
But this is not about the existence of private schools it is about whether fees carry VAT. I'm been unsure about this but think I have clarified my mind.
I only know of one school (group of) which can fairly be described as a business with the profit making aim that this entails - Cognita. This was the outfit created by Chris Woodhead 20 years ago and is private equity owned. I am sure that this company (and any others like it that I'm not aware of) should have VAT on fees. However, the vast majority of private schools are not like that, they cannot fairly be described as businesses and VAT should not apply.
Willing the be persuaded otherwise, as always.
So the fact he is not running to be an MP is instructive that right now he not only thinks the Tories will lose, it's that he also thinks the people that take over will not vote for him.
So Dianne Abbott has played a political game quite intelligently.
Both my daughters were educated at local comprehensives, that were OK but not great, and have done fine. I really don't know why so many people are scared of state schools!
(And I was surprised that the poster personally most upset by this seems to live in Hampshire - I had assumed he was in an inner city or left behind northern town)
Also it's clear that he's angling for one of Labour's new quangos such as Great British Energy..
That being the case, it opens up a wider debate about VAT policy and why we exempt or zero rate things. However you define such reasoning to exempt or zero rate a service, I think school fees would fit within the definition. So, to be consistent, leave them as they are. I like tax policy to be predictable and logical.
I also think Labour is underestimating the impact of the private schooling sector withdrawing support and good will from the public sector (e.g. use of drama and sports facilities).
I think you'd struggle to find a HR department in any industry that doesn't think that's pretty orthodox thinking, and certainly not anything overly woke.
You suggested that your leaving the country would leave an unfilled vacancy. I'm pretty sure you're highly skilled, and valuable to your employers, but do you genuinely think you're irreplaceable?
ps. I do hope you stay. Even Leon is welcome in my new utopian society
In our latest poll, the public were unsure how Labour performance this week: 34% thought they had a good week.
However, only 17% thought the Conservatives had a good week, actually down on the first week of the campaign (21%).
To be honest, I don't think the Tories did have a particularly bad week. So I wonder if again this shows the public already decided a long time ago.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-supporters-call-riots-violent-retribution-after-verdict-2024-05-31/
Supporters of former President Donald Trump, enraged by his conviction on 34 felony counts by a New York jury, flooded pro-Trump websites with calls for riots, revolution and violent retribution.
Some called for attacks on jurors, the execution of the judge, Justice Juan Merchan, or outright civil war and armed insurrection.
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
Don't even try.
There is very deep and serious criticism of SKS and Labour, their lack of plans and agenda, to be made but nobody wants to hear it.
https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-07/IFS-Report-R263-Tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending.pdf
Personally my view is that if Sunak hadn't rushed on the anti net zero agenda he'd have been able to speak to some level of consistent and responsible government. But since then he's been flailing around.
I'm glad you're no longer pretending to understand policy, and have now actually come out as what we always knew you were. But credit to you for airing the fact your brain can’t compute very simple things.
I don’t buy that Labour are anti aspirational . The UK seemed a much better place and was a lot more hopeful under Blair than the last 14 years.