I suspect part of Biden's obstinacy to move is a belief that the talk about Biden resigning undermines his public credibility. There's some foundation to this belief. The talk in Democratic circles about Biden not being up to it calls attention to the narrative that he isn't up to it. It's a negative feedback loop
Positive feedback loop. The "positive" refers to the loop, not the feedback.
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
That's not far off what happens in NI.
Fee-paying schools get the normal state contribution, and then charge a mandatory 'capital fee' (determined according to a Department of Education formula) and a 'voluntary charge' on top.
Even accounting for the state grant, you'd expect English schools to cost maybe £8-10k, but they don't, they're all twice or three times as much.
Why, though? I don't really understand why there's such a huge gap - it's not even as if they get better results (in fact, schools in NI tend to be at the top of any combined league tables).
I'm all for private education (and healthcare, for that matter), but don't see why it should attract tax breaks. Just treat it like a normal business, like everything else.
That's fascinating to know.
My view is that subsidising education (by providing a tax break via zero VAT) is a good thing. But subsidising education for all by giving everyone a voucher to ensure minimum standards then letting people top up - probably spending the amount you suggest above - would be better.
In my hypothetical scenario where everyone gets a £7200 voucher, I probably wouldn't keep the VAT exemption, because my aim to encourage people to spend more on educating their kids than the state minimum would be achieved in other ways.
In a scenario where the govt provides a state voucher of £7200, I envision a lot of schools in the 10-13k range with pupils invested in the process because their parents are paying for it (parental contribution to fees being a major factor in discipline in schools). Rather than the stiuation Labour will give us, which is a small number of poshos going to public schools, vs everyone else's education being determined by the parents' ability to buy in the right postcode.
Agreed. The real poison comes from the elitism - the enormous, unbridgeable gap between the top public schools and everyone else.
If there were a range of institutions charging a few thousand a year (or your £10-13k inc. the state voucher), it would be much more achievable for people on middling incomes.
In NI, something like 40% of the population goes to a fee-paying grammar of the sort I mentioned - and fewer than 1% go to a public school.
It's that middling sort that have been stamped upon in England - you get 5% of the population desperately trying to pay £15k for public school, and everyone else goes to a comprehensive. And if only the elite are to be privately educated, then there shouldn't be any tax breaks for it.
Exactly my view. Set a floor at say, £7200 and encourage people to spend 3-5k if they can. It's the dichotomy of either the local comp or the impossible 20k+ per pupil that creates the current bifurcation.
VAT on schools is a nice idea, in terms of it reducing the overall number of privately educated kids, but its actual effect will be to create a much more bifurcated system of poshos vs everyone else.
I'm well up for a system where anyone from the humblest of background can top their kids fees up from the state minumum to an extra £50 a week, hopefully improving the educational attainment of a lot more. The current system we have encourages bifurcation, either pay the 20k+ a year or go without. I'd like to see a system where even a £50 extra contribution a week makes a difference.
The thing is that we're talking about hypotheticals and nice-to-haves. The situation as it stands is that 5% of the population goes to public school and gets a leg up on everyone else as a result.
Charging VAT doesn't end that, it simply reduces some of the advantage.
Labour are never going to argue in favour of private education, but Starmer is as friendly as the party is as likely to get any time soon. On the other hand, the Tories, as they currently stand, are more interested in culture war bollocks than standing up for anything in the private sector.
There's a pro-business space for the Lib Dems to step into, perhaps?
I feel that the system as it stands sucks. It's pay as you play with a huge leg up for those who can afford to pay a lot. Posh school, or house in the right cachment area.
My idea, a £7200 voucher, with as little as a £50 a week top up if you're so inclined means that those without the means to afford a house in the right area or an immediate bump from £0 a year to educate your kid to £20k a year to educate them would create a fairer, albeit marketised system.
At the moment, if you can afford an extra £200 a month to pay for your kids education, there's not much you can do. A marketised system where most schools charge £7k-13k would at least give those parents who value education over (cliches like) sky tv and foreign holidays the chance to invest in those things.
An ideal situation would be one where education was so important the state minimum threshold was far above £7200k.
Though where that leaves people like me who have never had children (nor ever will) I don't know.
The ideal situation is that comprehensive schools produce the same academic results as the most expensive private schools - which, I think, has largely been achieved in central London. Private schools should be free to add value in terms of facilities and after school clubs, etc., not in the level of academic achievement available for able pupils.
I'm also child-free, so shouldn't really have a say in this - but as an outside observer, it seems obvious to me that the situation in England as it currently stands is utterly poisonous.
Probably the best situation we can hope for in the medium term is that English public schools concentrate on the international market, letting the home market dwindle. Perhaps the Tories can change direction in 8-10 years or so - but until then, Starmer is as friendly towards the private sector as things are going to get.
One underrated aspect of Trump's run is just how much he has terrified the Democrats into the mother of all panics with a small poll lead. The Democrats wouldn't be considering dumping Biden if this was Romney, McCain or Bush. The panic then feeds back on itself aided by a quicker than ever media.
Prince Albert’s memorial is “considered offensive” because it reflects a “Victorian view of the world that differs from mainstream views held today”, custodians say.
The 176ft Albert Memorial opposite the Royal Albert Hall in Kensington Gardens, west London, was built to honour Queen Victoria’s late husband in 1872, when the British Empire stretched across the globe.
It includes a golden sculpture of the Prince Consort himself, along with four groups of large statues representing the people and animals of four continents.
Asia is depicted as a woman on an elephant, America as a native American, and Africa as a woman riding a camel. The African sculpture also includes a white European woman reading a book to a black African tribesman.
The Royal Parks website now says that the Albert Memorial’s “representation of certain continents draws on racial stereotypes that are now considered offensive”.
It tells how Victorian guidebooks about the memorial “describe how this ‘uncivilised’ man hunches over his bow. This pose was intended to represent him ‘rising up from barbarism’, thanks to his Western teacher. At his feet lie broken chains, which allude to Britain’s role in the abolition of slavery”.
It adds that “descriptions of the states that represent Asia and America also reflect this Victorian view of European supremacy”.
For fuck’s sake! Can nobody cull the arseholes that have so little understanding of history that they think that’s a good idea?
One of the first lesson I was taught in history was to not judge people from history by today's standards.
The example I cite these days is the overwhelming majority of Tories who opposed appeasement in the 1930s were also virulent homophobes.
It was TSE who raised the possibility of removing the Albert Memorial.
The collective outrage on here has been triggered by is a page on a charity’s website. Can someone point out which bit of the text quoted is wrong? Or even demeaning to anyone?
None of it is offensive. TSE is teasing and they fell for it.
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
One underrated aspect of Trump's run is just how much he has terrified the Democrats into the mother of all panics with a small poll lead. The Democrats wouldn't be considering dumping Biden if this was Romney, McCain or Bush. The panic then feeds back on itself aided by a quicker than ever media.
& yes yes I know the reasons but it's working.
I find this astonishing, because surely the opposite should be happening? As I see it, Trump and Project 2025 makes the choice obvious - it's America vs Gilead.
Romney, McCain, or Bush are all on the side of America. And all three of them in their prime would easily beat Biden in 2024.
Trump / Vance, though? They're for Gilead. They should be easily beatable.
I just don't understand what's going on. I have a moderate amount on Harris as next Pres, but have otherwise avoided betting on any of this - I've never felt so confused by American politics as I do today.
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
Make all children go to their nearest school. This will get rid of half the cars off the road and free up bus space for wheelchairs, as we discussed last week. It will not alter the number of children at any particular school, so is neutral in that regard.
Not to mention the property bonanza for those who cleverly purchased in the right area, raising the net worth of those already fortunate enough to exist in the leafy suburbs. What's not to like?
That basically is the current system. Selection by who can afford to live in the catchment areas of the good schools.
It would be a lot fairer to set by ability but that is anathema.
No it’s not. You fall into the usual right wing bedwetter misconception that criticising your ideas is the same as trying to silence you. It’s not.
Anyway be careful what you wish for. I’m a grammar school product and you’d like to see my type conveniently disappeared.
It absolutely is the current system.
My daughter is in year 5 so we've been looking at secondary schools as we'll be applying this year. The catchment area of the best secondary state secondary schools (not private ones) adds 100k+ to property prices.
People absolutely can and do pay extra to move houses to be in better schools catchment areas. And that's while we don't have the asinine proposal said earlier of forcing people to the nearest one which balances things out a bit, forcing everyone to the nearest one would spike that discrepancy up even further.
I meant it’s not an “anathema” as MrBed states.
It is to Starmer and co and virtually the entire educational establishment. Thats what I meant.
That’s not what anathema means though. You can’t reinvent the language.
Yes it is. As in "Such a policy is anathema to the Prime Minister"
I think @MrBedfordshire is correct in his use of anathema - traditionally something formally hated by the Pope and expelling X from the community of the faithful.*
However I don't believe current Labour would have any problems with setting by ability, which I think would be a matter for the school.
* The wording would be something like "let him be an anathema maranatha", which is like an eternal excommunication, in incorporating 'let him judged at Christ's return'. Restoration is possible, however. The "maranatha" is "come quickly, Lord Jesus" or similar from 1 Corinthians 16:22.
The equivalent phrase in protestant circles might be "let him be handed over to Satan", the final stage in church discipline in some strict Evangelical systems.
The first is how much state control there is over schools and the useless woke PC crap they are FORCED teach as a result. Be honest should anyone learn Shakespeare before uni ? No it’s a complete waste of everybody’s time to learn plays from 400yrs ago !!
Second is it is FORCED on parents when a lot of children aren’t suited to it especially up to 18 and they would be better off learning real skills. many kids used to leave at 14 and were better set up at life
Problem is no one dares stand up for common sense and these sacred cows
First time I've ever heard Shakespearean plays be called woke PC crap.
The feel good idea that everyone should learn useless plays from century’s ago IS PC crap
Waste of time
Meanwhile in India and China they are learning advanced mathematics and biology and engineering and tech !!
Any wonder we can’t compete ??
The idea that schoolchildren in India and China are being taught advanced mathematics, biology and engineering is the most idiotically ill-informed thing I have ever read on here. And that is saying something.
Actually there is a grain of truth there, for varying levels of the term "advanced".
School ending at 16 and the English system where most people drop maths at 16 is extremely unusual in the developed world.
School until 18, with Maths to 18 is normal in most schoolchildren's education. Though that's in addition to literature, science and other subjects continuing until 18 too.
We force people to choose a single area of study at an earlier age than most other countries, though.
Currently, A-Level Maths is a bit of a Mickey-Mouse subject - it's basically a freebie if you've done Additional Maths at GCSE, and do Physics / Further Maths / Stats & Mechanics at A-Level. But if you've not chosen Triple Award Science + Additional Maths at GCSE, then any of the Maths A-Levels is probably beyond you.
Rishi's idea of requiring maths to age 18 implied a new form of maths A-Level that's open to everyone, so perhaps the current A-Level maths would be re-named Further Maths, with the current Further Maths being replaced by separate Pure Maths and Stats & Mechanics A-Levels.
But it wouldn't solve the problem of Maths-inclined people easily getting three A-Levels for the price of two - in fact, you might end up getting four A-Levels for the price of two (or five, if you include Physics!).
Yes we narrow studies too early.
If it were up to me I'd abolish GCSEs altogether and have pupils learn a wide range of subjects to 18.
Drop the rather useless English Baccalaureate and adopt the International Baccalaureate which is a far more wide ranging qualification.
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
That's not far off what happens in NI.
Fee-paying schools get the normal state contribution, and then charge a mandatory 'capital fee' (determined according to a Department of Education formula) and a 'voluntary charge' on top.
Even accounting for the state grant, you'd expect English schools to cost maybe £8-10k, but they don't, they're all twice or three times as much.
Why, though? I don't really understand why there's such a huge gap - it's not even as if they get better results (in fact, schools in NI tend to be at the top of any combined league tables).
I'm all for private education (and healthcare, for that matter), but don't see why it should attract tax breaks. Just treat it like a normal business, like everything else.
That's fascinating to know.
My view is that subsidising education (by providing a tax break via zero VAT) is a good thing. But subsidising education for all by giving everyone a voucher to ensure minimum standards then letting people top up - probably spending the amount you suggest above - would be better.
In my hypothetical scenario where everyone gets a £7200 voucher, I probably wouldn't keep the VAT exemption, because my aim to encourage people to spend more on educating their kids than the state minimum would be achieved in other ways.
In a scenario where the govt provides a state voucher of £7200, I envision a lot of schools in the 10-13k range with pupils invested in the process because their parents are paying for it (parental contribution to fees being a major factor in discipline in schools). Rather than the stiuation Labour will give us, which is a small number of poshos going to public schools, vs everyone else's education being determined by the parents' ability to buy in the right postcode.
Agreed. The real poison comes from the elitism - the enormous, unbridgeable gap between the top public schools and everyone else.
If there were a range of institutions charging a few thousand a year (or your £10-13k inc. the state voucher), it would be much more achievable for people on middling incomes.
In NI, something like 40% of the population goes to a fee-paying grammar of the sort I mentioned - and fewer than 1% go to a public school.
It's that middling sort that have been stamped upon in England - you get 5% of the population desperately trying to pay £15k for public school, and everyone else goes to a comprehensive. And if only the elite are to be privately educated, then there shouldn't be any tax breaks for it.
Exactly my view. Set a floor at say, £7200 and encourage people to spend 3-5k if they can. It's the dichotomy of either the local comp or the impossible 20k+ per pupil that creates the current bifurcation.
VAT on schools is a nice idea, in terms of it reducing the overall number of privately educated kids, but its actual effect will be to create a much more bifurcated system of poshos vs everyone else.
I'm well up for a system where anyone from the humblest of background can top their kids fees up from the state minumum to an extra £50 a week, hopefully improving the educational attainment of a lot more. The current system we have encourages bifurcation, either pay the 20k+ a year or go without. I'd like to see a system where even a £50 extra contribution a week makes a difference.
The thing is that we're talking about hypotheticals and nice-to-haves. The situation as it stands is that 5% of the population goes to public school and gets a leg up on everyone else as a result.
Charging VAT doesn't end that, it simply reduces some of the advantage.
Labour are never going to argue in favour of private education, but Starmer is as friendly as the party is as likely to get any time soon. On the other hand, the Tories, as they currently stand, are more interested in culture war bollocks than standing up for anything in the private sector.
There's a pro-business space for the Lib Dems to step into, perhaps?
I feel that the system as it stands sucks. It's pay as you play with a huge leg up for those who can afford to pay a lot. Posh school, or house in the right cachment area.
My idea, a £7200 voucher, with as little as a £50 a week top up if you're so inclined means that those without the means to afford a house in the right area or an immediate bump from £0 a year to educate your kid to £20k a year to educate them would create a fairer, albeit marketised system.
At the moment, if you can afford an extra £200 a month to pay for your kids education, there's not much you can do. A marketised system where most schools charge £7k-13k would at least give those parents who value education over (cliches like) sky tv and foreign holidays the chance to invest in those things.
An ideal situation would be one where education was so important the state minimum threshold was far above £7200k.
Though where that leaves people like me who have never had children (nor ever will) I don't know.
The ideal situation is that comprehensive schools produce the same academic results as the most expensive private schools - which, I think, has largely been achieved in central London. Private schools should be free to add value in terms of facilities and after school clubs, etc., not in the level of academic achievement available for able pupils.
I'm also child-free, so shouldn't really have a say in this - but as an outside observer, it seems obvious to me that the situation in England as it currently stands is utterly poisonous.
Probably the best situation we can hope for in the medium term is that English public schools concentrate on the international market, letting the home market dwindle. Perhaps the Tories can change direction in 8-10 years or so - but until then, Starmer is as friendly towards the private sector as things are going to get.
I never understand "I should not have a say"; it's your taxes being spent on educating their sproglets .
One underrated aspect of Trump's run is just how much he has terrified the Democrats into the mother of all panics with a small poll lead. The Democrats wouldn't be considering dumping Biden if this was Romney, McCain or Bush. The panic then feeds back on itself aided by a quicker than ever media.
& yes yes I know the reasons but it's working.
It's a widening poll lead, it's no longer such a "small" poll lead and when you look at the key swing states, it's often quite a big poll lead.
Yet Trump is not a particularly strong opponent, rather the Democrats are behind in the polls because Biden has a big net disapproval score in polling, at a level never experienced a few months out by any President who has gone on to win a 2nd term. With each remaining day that they stick with a plainly senile candidate, the Democrats chances of turning that around diminish.
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
That's not far off what happens in NI.
Fee-paying schools get the normal state contribution, and then charge a mandatory 'capital fee' (determined according to a Department of Education formula) and a 'voluntary charge' on top.
Even accounting for the state grant, you'd expect English schools to cost maybe £8-10k, but they don't, they're all twice or three times as much.
Why, though? I don't really understand why there's such a huge gap - it's not even as if they get better results (in fact, schools in NI tend to be at the top of any combined league tables).
I'm all for private education (and healthcare, for that matter), but don't see why it should attract tax breaks. Just treat it like a normal business, like everything else.
That's fascinating to know.
My view is that subsidising education (by providing a tax break via zero VAT) is a good thing. But subsidising education for all by giving everyone a voucher to ensure minimum standards then letting people top up - probably spending the amount you suggest above - would be better.
In my hypothetical scenario where everyone gets a £7200 voucher, I probably wouldn't keep the VAT exemption, because my aim to encourage people to spend more on educating their kids than the state minimum would be achieved in other ways.
In a scenario where the govt provides a state voucher of £7200, I envision a lot of schools in the 10-13k range with pupils invested in the process because their parents are paying for it (parental contribution to fees being a major factor in discipline in schools). Rather than the stiuation Labour will give us, which is a small number of poshos going to public schools, vs everyone else's education being determined by the parents' ability to buy in the right postcode.
Agreed. The real poison comes from the elitism - the enormous, unbridgeable gap between the top public schools and everyone else.
If there were a range of institutions charging a few thousand a year (or your £10-13k inc. the state voucher), it would be much more achievable for people on middling incomes.
In NI, something like 40% of the population goes to a fee-paying grammar of the sort I mentioned - and fewer than 1% go to a public school.
It's that middling sort that have been stamped upon in England - you get 5% of the population desperately trying to pay £15k for public school, and everyone else goes to a comprehensive. And if only the elite are to be privately educated, then there shouldn't be any tax breaks for it.
Exactly my view. Set a floor at say, £7200 and encourage people to spend 3-5k if they can. It's the dichotomy of either the local comp or the impossible 20k+ per pupil that creates the current bifurcation.
VAT on schools is a nice idea, in terms of it reducing the overall number of privately educated kids, but its actual effect will be to create a much more bifurcated system of poshos vs everyone else.
I'm well up for a system where anyone from the humblest of background can top their kids fees up from the state minumum to an extra £50 a week, hopefully improving the educational attainment of a lot more. The current system we have encourages bifurcation, either pay the 20k+ a year or go without. I'd like to see a system where even a £50 extra contribution a week makes a difference.
The thing is that we're talking about hypotheticals and nice-to-haves. The situation as it stands is that 5% of the population goes to public school and gets a leg up on everyone else as a result.
Charging VAT doesn't end that, it simply reduces some of the advantage.
Labour are never going to argue in favour of private education, but Starmer is as friendly as the party is as likely to get any time soon. On the other hand, the Tories, as they currently stand, are more interested in culture war bollocks than standing up for anything in the private sector.
There's a pro-business space for the Lib Dems to step into, perhaps?
I feel that the system as it stands sucks. It's pay as you play with a huge leg up for those who can afford to pay a lot. Posh school, or house in the right cachment area.
My idea, a £7200 voucher, with as little as a £50 a week top up if you're so inclined means that those without the means to afford a house in the right area or an immediate bump from £0 a year to educate your kid to £20k a year to educate them would create a fairer, albeit marketised system.
At the moment, if you can afford an extra £200 a month to pay for your kids education, there's not much you can do. A marketised system where most schools charge £7k-13k would at least give those parents who value education over (cliches like) sky tv and foreign holidays the chance to invest in those things.
An ideal situation would be one where education was so important the state minimum threshold was far above £7200k.
Though where that leaves people like me who have never had children (nor ever will) I don't know.
The ideal situation is that comprehensive schools produce the same academic results as the most expensive private schools - which, I think, has largely been achieved in central London. Private schools should be free to add value in terms of facilities and after school clubs, etc., not in the level of academic achievement available for able pupils.
I'm also child-free, so shouldn't really have a say in this - but as an outside observer, it seems obvious to me that the situation in England as it currently stands is utterly poisonous.
Probably the best situation we can hope for in the medium term is that English public schools concentrate on the international market, letting the home market dwindle. Perhaps the Tories can change direction in 8-10 years or so - but until then, Starmer is as friendly towards the private sector as things are going to get.
I never understand "I should not have a say"; it's your taxes being spent on educating their sproglets .
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
Trump is lying. Here is what he said about the Heritage Foundation's plans before it became a liability.
“Heritage does such an incredible job, this is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America"
A double bluff, he really wants Harris who is Hillary without the charisma and common touch, whereas Biden beat him last time
Hmmm. Not convinced. He may have felt that a month ago but then he stood at that debate and watched Biden implode completely.
If Harris is nominee Trump could well win every state between Maryland and the Pacific west coast with the possible exception of Illinois
In the likely event Biden implodes again at the next debate what are the Dems chances then ?
Biden probably at worst still wins Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and maybe even Michigan, the last debate made little real poll impact and there is only 1 more scheduled. I would not be sure Harris holds any of those states and unlike Scranton native Biden has no chance in Pennsylvania either unless Shapiro is her VP nominee.
Granted Harris might win by even more than Biden in California, DC, New York city and Massachusetts but they don't help at all in the EC as they are safe blue states
Biden was unable to pushback on a litany of lies at the last debate and just stood there taking punishment .
What excuse will Biden give for another debate disaster?
Everyone knows he won’t fulfill another 4 year term so the Trump campaign will go after Harris as essentially vote Biden get Harris . If that’s the case Harris may aswell be the nominee and at least get her chance to go after Trump and get some enthusiasm back from Dems .
Two thirds of Dems want Biden to withdraw . The lack of enthusiasm will allow the GOP higher turnout . No ones saying there’s no risk with Harris but Biden looks like he can barely climb a flight of stairs or string a coherent sentence together . He’s gone downhill rapidly and isn’t suddenly going to do a Cocoon .
Harris is back to the limousine liberal elite candidate Hillary was, who can speak to the elites in NYC, DC and California but has a complete tin ear when addressing the concerns of Middle America and the Rustbelt and Trump would easily beat her. She is basically Hillary 2 without the charisma
Harris wasn't a liberal elite. She was a hardnosed prosecutor that put criminals like Trump behind bars.
One #Israel strike on Houthis in #Yemen has done more damage than months of "war" by a US-led 10-nation coalition. And the US had announced that its intervention was designed to preempt escalation. Not a single piece of Biden Mideast policy worked.
"Tories who lost seats at general election want formal role in leadership race Former MPs plan to return swiftly to parliament amid fears of a lurch to the right if Conservatives fail to explore reasons for defeat"
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
Make all children go to their nearest school. This will get rid of half the cars off the road and free up bus space for wheelchairs, as we discussed last week. It will not alter the number of children at any particular school, so is neutral in that regard.
That's an appalling suggestion. So people should be compelled to go to an inferior school rather than go to a better school that's further away, even if the better school is also a state school?
Your logic is like saying all adults need to work at the nearest employer.
The purpose of the roads and transport is to get people moved about, education is every bit as valuable as employment. I have far more respect for people who care about their kids education enough to drive them to a school that suits them, than just dumping them in any old local school as if school is nothing more than a glorified daycare.
Parental choice also assumes parents can tell a good school from a bad one, especially as most schools are much of a muchness, and also that school quality is static despite the annual turnover of staff and pupils. In any case, the net result is the same number of children in the same number of schools. If you send your twins to Eton, two children who otherwise could have gone to Eton will end up at Harrow.
So we end up driving children across town for no real benefit.
That's the thing with choice, people make choices. Its up to them to decide what's beneficial, not you, and education is every bit as powerful and important as any other reason to be on the road.
I drive my children to their school every day on my way to my own work. They were assigned the school (our second preference for my eldest) years ago and we quite like the school and their friends and support network are at the school.
We've subsequently moved, but chose that since we like the school they're at and they're settled there we don't want to disrupt their education by relocating them to the closer school. It'd make my life easier if they just went to the local school, but their education is too important to disrupt it unnecessarily.
Oh and since my wife and I both work, the kids will be dropped off by car no matter which school they go to. The era of one parent typically not working and being able to walk the kids in is long over.
Another sign of the times is that your children need to be taken to school. My mother walked me to school only once, on my first day, at age 5. Jumpers for goalposts!
Is that an English thing? I don't know many German primary school children who don't get to school by themselves.
A double bluff, he really wants Harris who is Hillary without the charisma and common touch, whereas Biden beat him last time
Hmmm. Not convinced. He may have felt that a month ago but then he stood at that debate and watched Biden implode completely.
If Harris is nominee Trump could well win every state between Maryland and the Pacific west coast with the possible exception of Illinois
In the likely event Biden implodes again at the next debate what are the Dems chances then ?
Biden probably at worst still wins Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and maybe even Michigan, the last debate made little real poll impact and there is only 1 more scheduled. I would not be sure Harris holds any of those states and unlike Scranton native Biden has no chance in Pennsylvania either unless Shapiro is her VP nominee.
Granted Harris might win by even more than Biden in California, DC, New York city and Massachusetts but they don't help at all in the EC as they are safe blue states
Latest poll has Harris doing better than Biden in Pennsylvania.
A double bluff, he really wants Harris who is Hillary without the charisma and common touch, whereas Biden beat him last time
Hmmm. Not convinced. He may have felt that a month ago but then he stood at that debate and watched Biden implode completely.
If Harris is nominee Trump could well win every state between Maryland and the Pacific west coast with the possible exception of Illinois
In the likely event Biden implodes again at the next debate what are the Dems chances then ?
Biden probably at worst still wins Minnesota, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia and maybe even Michigan, the last debate made little real poll impact and there is only 1 more scheduled. I would not be sure Harris holds any of those states and unlike Scranton native Biden has no chance in Pennsylvania either unless Shapiro is her VP nominee.
Granted Harris might win by even more than Biden in California, DC, New York city and Massachusetts but they don't help at all in the EC as they are safe blue states
Biden was unable to pushback on a litany of lies at the last debate and just stood there taking punishment .
What excuse will Biden give for another debate disaster?
Everyone knows he won’t fulfill another 4 year term so the Trump campaign will go after Harris as essentially vote Biden get Harris . If that’s the case Harris may aswell be the nominee and at least get her chance to go after Trump and get some enthusiasm back from Dems .
Two thirds of Dems want Biden to withdraw . The lack of enthusiasm will allow the GOP higher turnout . No ones saying there’s no risk with Harris but Biden looks like he can barely climb a flight of stairs or string a coherent sentence together . He’s gone downhill rapidly and isn’t suddenly going to do a Cocoon .
Harris is back to the limousine liberal elite candidate Hillary was, who can speak to the elites in NYC, DC and California but has a complete tin ear when addressing the concerns of Middle America and the Rustbelt and Trump would easily beat her. She is basically Hillary 2 without the charisma
Hillary did beat Trump in the popular vote. She lost in the EC because she did not campaign in the rustbelt states. Kamala Harris probably would, or at least she might.
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
Make all children go to their nearest school. This will get rid of half the cars off the road and free up bus space for wheelchairs, as we discussed last week. It will not alter the number of children at any particular school, so is neutral in that regard.
That's an appalling suggestion. So people should be compelled to go to an inferior school rather than go to a better school that's further away, even if the better school is also a state school?
Your logic is like saying all adults need to work at the nearest employer.
The purpose of the roads and transport is to get people moved about, education is every bit as valuable as employment. I have far more respect for people who care about their kids education enough to drive them to a school that suits them, than just dumping them in any old local school as if school is nothing more than a glorified daycare.
Parental choice also assumes parents can tell a good school from a bad one, especially as most schools are much of a muchness, and also that school quality is static despite the annual turnover of staff and pupils. In any case, the net result is the same number of children in the same number of schools. If you send your twins to Eton, two children who otherwise could have gone to Eton will end up at Harrow.
So we end up driving children across town for no real benefit.
That's the thing with choice, people make choices. Its up to them to decide what's beneficial, not you, and education is every bit as powerful and important as any other reason to be on the road.
I drive my children to their school every day on my way to my own work. They were assigned the school (our second preference for my eldest) years ago and we quite like the school and their friends and support network are at the school.
We've subsequently moved, but chose that since we like the school they're at and they're settled there we don't want to disrupt their education by relocating them to the closer school. It'd make my life easier if they just went to the local school, but their education is too important to disrupt it unnecessarily.
Oh and since my wife and I both work, the kids will be dropped off by car no matter which school they go to. The era of one parent typically not working and being able to walk the kids in is long over.
Another sign of the times is that your children need to be taken to school. My mother walked me to school only once, on my first day, at age 5. Jumpers for goalposts!
OK grandpa.
Yes times are we're safer with kids nowadays and know more about threats like creeps and other risks than to let 5 year olds wander the streets by themselves.
My kids aren't allowed anywhere by themselves. And no, not just because of cars as some people say, my kids aren't currently allowed to the nearby park without us and that's in walking distance without crossing any roads.
Now my eldest is 10 we're talking about maybe letting her start to go to some places by herself. Which FYI is roughly the same age I was when I was allowed to do so too.
We live a ten-minute amble from my son's school, along quietish roads. He'll be in year 6 next year, and he'll be walking a route he knows *very* well on his own.
The thing is, I'll really miss walking him in. We've had so many wonderful conversations during those walks, about school, life, penguingebra (*), politics, media... the list feels endless. It's not that we don't talk at home - we do - it's just that talking whilst walking feels different, more freeform.
The impression I got was that the various campaigns had almost no effect at all, with the possible exception of Ed Davey whose various antics got attention for the Lib Dems and really boosted their performance well beyond what was expected.
Starmer had his ming vase strategy, desperate to make no mistakes and retain the lead he had been given. Either the polling was seriously wrong or he failed in this because the Labour vote was 6-7% below what the polls were telling us but he succeeded in his main object of a substantial majority.
Sunak was simply not being listened to. He had that silly National Service idea but basically he was largely ignored, despite some quite good economic news during the campaign. I find the chart surprising in that context, the strong impression that i had throughout was that people had made up their minds that the Tories were gonners.
Swinney did as well in elections as he usually does but the SNP faced a similar problem to the Tories. They have been in government too long to blame anyone else and people are tired of them.
I confess I really don't know anyone who votes Reform. The relative failure of their campaign compared to that of the Lib Dems shows they have a lot to learn about how to be effective in a FPTP system, something Farage has never mastered.
The 2024 Labour campaign did have an effect. The timid Ming vase strategy caused Labour to shed millions of votes. It was a dire campaign from start to finish, totally lacking in ambition. Labour won because the Conservatives were so dire, yet with a GB wide vote vote share of just 35% Labour very nearly blew it in the space of just 6 weeks.
It's worth comparing the Labour campaigns of 2017 (not 2019!) with 2024. In both campaigns, the Conservatives messed up badly (social care in 2017, D day etc in 2024.) In both campaigns, Brexit wasn't an issue either (much as the Conservatives tried to make it one.) So the door was open to Labour in both campaigns.
Yet in 2017, during the campaign Labour's polling increased by 15% (from 26% to 41%) whereas in 2024 Labour's share fell by 10% (from about 45% to 35%).
The difference was that in 2017, Labour set out ambitious plans, together with a costed programme of how it was going to be paid for that was plausible enough to reassure rather than scare voters off. Now how plausible that funding programme was in reality was another thing of course, but the fact is that plenty of people were prepared to vote for it.
In 2017 we lost. This year we won.
Everything else is secondary.
That's a head in the sand attitude guaranteed to lead to defeat in 2029. You think that Labour can continue to win general elections with just 35% of the vote. I don't and I think lessons need to be learned. This year Starmer got lucky thanks to Reform, and thus an absolutely inept Labour campaign was insufficient to erode enough the 20% advantage which (to his credit) he'd built up and maintained since 2022.
It's a real question - why did Labour's vote share deteriorate so much from the 45% at the start of the campaign to the actual 35% achieved on polling day, despite the apparent horlicks that Sunak made of the Conservative campaign? About 7% of that decline was in the opinion polls, and a further 3% the difference between the final polls and the actual result, but the latter shouldn't be accepted as inevitable either because in 2017 Labour polled better than the final polls were suggesting in contrast to 2024. I think that the answer to why the polls were wrong in 2024 but not 2017 is simple - in 2017 Labour supporters were motivated positively to vote, whereas in 2024 the positive motivation was much less.
As per the Ashcroft data, Labour started with nearly half of those who had made up their mind before the campaign, won a quarter of those who decided during the campaign (which would include any mind-changers), to finish with about a third of the vote overall. Of those who decided during the campaign, a large number only made their minds up late, and hence their decision wasn’t polled. That’s both the story of the campaign and the story of the polling fail.
Some analyst made the point elsewhere that Labour and the LibDems in the south can now almost be regarded psephologically as the same party campaigning in different colours, attracting the same people for broadly the same reasons. Their combined seat haul can therefore be understood as the result of a 45% v 24% landslide FPTP result.
As well as voters being adept at working out which opposition party to back in their seat (Heathener and Palmer excepted), other reasons for the low winning %age are likely to include:
- a safety-first campaign from Labour, intended not to upset its existing support rather than inspire or convert the undecideds; - abstentions esp in Labour held seats as people knew they’d win anyway (turnout did fall the most in Labour’s holds); - Green, Indy and other left-wing votes in Labour held seats, ditto; - the collapse of the SNP enabling Labour to sweep Scotland without extra votes; - an absence of tactical voting amongst the parties of the right; - Farage/Reform being seen as a free hit for both NOTO protestors and, again, voters in seats Labour was going to win anyway.
A lot if Tories including our HY seem to think that solving the Reform problem would put the Tories straight back in the game. But then lots of Labour people have imagined that if only the centre party would disappear, they’d be able to beat the Tories alone, but the former has never yet happened.
Aside from their lack of ground game and flaky candidates, Reform has the disadvantage that whereas the LibDems can be seen as Labour-lite (in some ways unfairly, but there we are), Reform is clearly Tory-heavy, and not attractive to more moderate Tories. Hence the Rotherham result that, despite no Tory candidate, didn’t see any significant boost to Reform. And similarly, this time at least, Reform voters (despite being majority former Tories) didn’t have any net preference for the Tories as second choice over LibDem/Labour - hence the West Dorset result.
Had Reform not stood, all the evidence is that the Tories would have won just as badly - something they will struggle to accept, as having a supposed ‘split’ to blame offers the same comfort blanket that Labour activists clung to in 1983.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
The Rawnsley came out yesterday; I guess he’s off on his hols:
This is turning out to be a very political government led by a very political prime minister accompanied by a very political cabinet. With 40 servings of intended legislation, one of the chunkiest menus presented by a government in modern times, [the King’s speech] ran the risk of being a themeless mess. Yet it heralded several striking and radical departures from what came before.
First, it conveyed a view of capitalism that accepts the free market but not the free-for-all version of it. Interventions in areas where capitalist models haven’t worked is evident both in the nationalisation of the rail network as operator franchises expire and the most serious challenge to the filthy practices of the water companies since their privatisation in 1989.
Laws to create a football regulator and protect tenants tell us that Starmerism is interventionist. It is also unabashedly “workerist”.
Planning is good. This is an article of faith of Starmerism and one of its starkest ruptures with the belief systems of the Tory years.
Starmerism also seems to have a meaningful interest in spreading power more evenly across the kingdom.
One thing is already clear. The Starmer government is not at all libertarian.
How governments choose to tax and spend usually plays a large role in how they are defined. More clarity about that awaits Ms Reeves’s first budget and spending review. To keep the Labour party happy, the crowd-pleaser would be to concede and bring an immediate end to the [two-child] cap. Viewed from Number 10 and the Treasury, that would be precisely the wrong thing to do. Not buckling to the first outbreak of backbench pressure is seen as crucial to sustaining their parliamentary authority and credibility with financial markets.
Critical elements of the government’s intentions, especially how it intends to approach public sector reform, remain misty. It is also true that it will be kneaded into shape by events as yet unforeseen and conflicts as yet unfought. These are early days. Even so, no one need set out on any more expeditions to seek after Starmerism. It begins to take form before our eyes.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Because the Australians won't accept anything but the US one and the British won't accept anything but the UK/European one.
Remember how this came about. Shortfin Barracuda was a Turnbull project and ScoMo fucking hates the air Turnbull breathes and the ground Turnbull walks on so he was desperate to kill it. He couldn't do that without an alternative that could be marketed as superior hence, nuclear powered. He phoned Johnson who said yes instantly without reflection or consulting anybody else. ScoMo said this in an interview and it sounds eminently believable of Johnson who was then in his fully erect #globalbritain pomp. Johnson then shouted VERY LOUDLY in Biden's left ear and convinced him so now AUKUS had political momentum and we'd had enough of experts pointing out troublesome problems like 2 x CCS.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
This appears to be unclear. From last year:
"The AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System is currently fitted aboard the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) Collins class conventional attack submarines, as well as United States Navy (USN) Virginia, Seawolf, Ohio and Los Angeles class nuclear powered submarines.
According to previous statements by the AUKUS partners this new combat system will also equip the SSN AUKUS submarines built for the British Royal Navy (RN). The RN’s nuclear powered submarines including both the Astute and Vanguard class are currently equipped with BAE Systems Common Combat System (BAECCS) which performs a similar role to AN/BYG-1. "
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Because the Australians won't accept anything but the US one and the British won't accept anything but the UK/European one.
Remember how this came about. Shortfin Barracuda was a Turnbull project and ScoMo fucking hates the air Turnbull breathes and the ground Turnbull walks on so he was desperate to kill it. He couldn't do that without an alternative that could be marketed as superior hence, nuclear powered. He phoned Johnson who said yes instantly without reflection or consulting anybody else. ScoMo said this in an interview and it sounds eminently believable of Johnson who was then in his fully erect #globalbritain pomp. Johnson then shouted VERY LOUDLY in Biden's left ear and convinced him so now AUKUS had political momentum and we'd had enough of experts pointing out troublesome problems like 2 x CCS.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Because the Australians won't accept anything but the US one and the British won't accept anything but the UK/European one.
Remember how this came about. Shortfin Barracuda was a Turnbull project and ScoMo fucking hates the air Turnbull breathes and the ground Turnbull walks on so he was desperate to kill it. He couldn't do that without an alternative that could be marketed as superior hence, nuclear powered. He phoned Johnson who said yes instantly without reflection or consulting anybody else. ScoMo said this in an interview and it sounds eminently believable of Johnson who was then in his fully erect #globalbritain pomp. Johnson then shouted VERY LOUDLY in Biden's left ear and convinced him so now AUKUS had political momentum and we'd had enough of experts pointing out troublesome problems like 2 x CCS.
What a load of pathetic waffle.
Probably true though. We know it was Scott Morrison who withdrew from Australia's agreement to buy French submarines. We know AUKUS involves Britain and the United States, and we can be pretty sure it was not the Americans who needed Britain to be involved, which means the first call must have been to Britain (B Johnson, prop) as Dura_Ace said, albeit more colourfully.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
The other problem that GCAP is facing is that Starmer might be forced into another RAF Typhoon order to stop BAE closing the Wharton FAL and every quid spent on Typhoon is a quid less for GCAP.
Once the Qatari deliveries are concluded in 2025 there are no more to build unless the Saudis can be begged to order more. Spain and Germany have already had to order more EF to keep their lines going. The Italians are snacking on the Kuwaiti order for now. It might actually make sense to do this if the UK orders the EK variant like Germany to restore SEAD/DEAD capability.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Because the Australians won't accept anything but the US one and the British won't accept anything but the UK/European one.
Remember how this came about. Shortfin Barracuda was a Turnbull project and ScoMo fucking hates the air Turnbull breathes and the ground Turnbull walks on so he was desperate to kill it. He couldn't do that without an alternative that could be marketed as superior hence, nuclear powered. He phoned Johnson who said yes instantly without reflection or consulting anybody else. ScoMo said this in an interview and it sounds eminently believable of Johnson who was then in his fully erect #globalbritain pomp. Johnson then shouted VERY LOUDLY in Biden's left ear and convinced him so now AUKUS had political momentum and we'd had enough of experts pointing out troublesome problems like 2 x CCS.
What a load of pathetic waffle.
Probably true though. We know it was Scott Morrison who withdrew from Australia's agreement to buy French submarines. We know AUKUS involves Britain and the United States, and we can be pretty sure it was not the Americans who needed Britain to be involved, which means the first call must have been to Britain (B Johnson, prop) as Dura_Ace said, albeit more colourfully.
It is a load of waffle, because it does not actually answer the question that was given.
The answer I gave below had two links to articles and releases that hinted that @Dura_Ace - despite his 'expertise' - was wrong. Now, it could be that he has more info, or even scuttlebutt. But his version is thoroughly in line with his constant and hilariously inaccurate negativity, and on several occasions in the past that has caused him to give duff gen (*).
The answer is: 'we don't know' - but from what we can see below, it seems that the RN will use the same, or similar, version of the combat control system as Australia. At least at the moment.
(*) A phrase that AIUI was initially an RAF one meaning 'bad information', but which has crept into use on the railways, and especially railway enthusiasm.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
The other problem that GCAP is facing is that Starmer might be forced into another RAF Typhoon order to stop BAE closing the Wharton FAL and every quid spent on Typhoon is a quid less for GCAP.
Once the Qatari deliveries are concluded in 2025 there are no more to build unless the Saudis can be begged to order more. Spain and Germany have already had to order more EF to keep their lines going. The Italians are snacking on the Kuwaiti order for now. It might actually make sense to do this if the UK orders the EK variant like Germany to restore SEAD/DEAD capability.
Not such a bad idea. Considering F-16s are likely to be enough for Ukraine (Sopwith Camels sadly being no longer available) Typhoons seem more than enough for us.
One key lesson from the Russo-Ukranian war is that lots of "good enough" equipment is better than a small amount of "cutting edge".
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
Trump is lying. Here is what he said about the Heritage Foundation's plans before it became a liability.
“Heritage does such an incredible job, this is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America"
Isn't this pretty standard politics? Tell your base how great they are and how much you want to do the stuff they like, then tell other people that you don't really mean to do any of it, and wink and nudge at both groups that you're just stringing the other lot along to make sure you get elected.
I can't say I like the practice, but politicians have been telling lies along these lines since time in memorial.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
The other problem that GCAP is facing is that Starmer might be forced into another RAF Typhoon order to stop BAE closing the Wharton FAL and every quid spent on Typhoon is a quid less for GCAP.
Once the Qatari deliveries are concluded in 2025 there are no more to build unless the Saudis can be begged to order more. Spain and Germany have already had to order more EF to keep their lines going. The Italians are snacking on the Kuwaiti order for now. It might actually make sense to do this if the UK orders the EK variant like Germany to restore SEAD/DEAD capability.
Not such a bad idea. Considering F-16s are likely to be enough for Ukraine (Sopwith Camels sadly being no longer available) Typhoons seem more than enough for us.
One key lesson from the Russo-Ukranian war is that lots of "good enough" equipment is better than a small amount of "cutting edge".
IMV it depends. A small amount of cutting-edge equipment can prove very useful if you have large amounts of good enough kit as well, and strategy and tactics to benefit. For instance, a few stealth bombers in a suppression of enemy air defences role might make your existing force of 'good enough' fighters much more effective.
But a few top-of-the-range kit with few cheaper systems can be pointless, aside from keeping capability and learning going. IMV that's where we are with our tank fleet: too small to be a significant part in a war at Ukraine's scale, but very useful in keeping institutional knowledge and learning going.
What the Ukrainians lack is the top-range kit, and it is alleged they have proved rather reluctant at times to use western tactics and strategy. Then again, many western tactics and strategy sometimes depends on kit we haven't given the Ukrainians...
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
That's not far off what happens in NI.
Fee-paying schools get the normal state contribution, and then charge a mandatory 'capital fee' (determined according to a Department of Education formula) and a 'voluntary charge' on top.
Even accounting for the state grant, you'd expect English schools to cost maybe £8-10k, but they don't, they're all twice or three times as much.
Why, though? I don't really understand why there's such a huge gap - it's not even as if they get better results (in fact, schools in NI tend to be at the top of any combined league tables).
I'm all for private education (and healthcare, for that matter), but don't see why it should attract tax breaks. Just treat it like a normal business, like everything else.
That's fascinating to know.
My view is that subsidising education (by providing a tax break via zero VAT) is a good thing. But subsidising education for all by giving everyone a voucher to ensure minimum standards then letting people top up - probably spending the amount you suggest above - would be better.
In my hypothetical scenario where everyone gets a £7200 voucher, I probably wouldn't keep the VAT exemption, because my aim to encourage people to spend more on educating their kids than the state minimum would be achieved in other ways.
In a scenario where the govt provides a state voucher of £7200, I envision a lot of schools in the 10-13k range with pupils invested in the process because their parents are paying for it (parental contribution to fees being a major factor in discipline in schools). Rather than the stiuation Labour will give us, which is a small number of poshos going to public schools, vs everyone else's education being determined by the parents' ability to buy in the right postcode.
Agreed. The real poison comes from the elitism - the enormous, unbridgeable gap between the top public schools and everyone else.
If there were a range of institutions charging a few thousand a year (or your £10-13k inc. the state voucher), it would be much more achievable for people on middling incomes.
In NI, something like 40% of the population goes to a fee-paying grammar of the sort I mentioned - and fewer than 1% go to a public school.
It's that middling sort that have been stamped upon in England - you get 5% of the population desperately trying to pay £15k for public school, and everyone else goes to a comprehensive. And if only the elite are to be privately educated, then there shouldn't be any tax breaks for it.
Exactly my view. Set a floor at say, £7200 and encourage people to spend 3-5k if they can. It's the dichotomy of either the local comp or the impossible 20k+ per pupil that creates the current bifurcation.
VAT on schools is a nice idea, in terms of it reducing the overall number of privately educated kids, but its actual effect will be to create a much more bifurcated system of poshos vs everyone else.
I'm well up for a system where anyone from the humblest of background can top their kids fees up from the state minumum to an extra £50 a week, hopefully improving the educational attainment of a lot more. The current system we have encourages bifurcation, either pay the 20k+ a year or go without. I'd like to see a system where even a £50 extra contribution a week makes a difference.
Back in the real world, do you seriously believe that any people from the "humblest of backgrounds" could afford an extra £50 a week (per child) when they're struggling to pay their everyday bills?
I watched somebody today in the supermarket beg for [x £2.99 item for free] as they were too poor to afford it.
After being denied, they also added a £30 bag of golden virginia to their shop.
People have choices how they spend their money. I believe that most people can go without something to afford an extra £50 a week. And that is why I favour a marketised education system. Most households can probably find £50 savings a week if they look for it. Very few can afford £20k a year+ for the current private system. A system that would give people circa 7k a year for free, plus the ability to top up, would be better than the current system we have now, where someone who _does_ have £50 a week extra can't spend it on education, as you'd either need 20k a year to afford private school fees, or an extra £100k from somewhere to afford to live in a better catchment area.
£50 seems like a lot, but it's a lot less than the other options. My suggestion is an imperfect way of democratising a system that at the moment, is far more elitist.
£50 a week for 2 kids annually would be about £5k.
So if you were both earners and went camping rather than jetting off in your summer holidays, ran an older car, and maybe extended your mortgage term by a year or two you could do it.
A double bluff, he really wants Harris who is Hillary without the charisma and common touch, whereas Biden beat him last time
Hmmm. Not convinced. He may have felt that a month ago but then he stood at that debate and watched Biden implode completely.
If Harris is nominee Trump could well win every state between Maryland and the Pacific west coast with the possible exception of Illinois
In the likely event Biden implodes again at the next debate what are the Dems chances then ?
Fakes a 'medical condition', stands down as president, Harris takes over as president. "Biden" already printed on the ballot papers becomes a de-facto Harris choice. Betfair market goes bonkers.
It's a good question. Will Betfair actually settle the market after the Dem convention?
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
Trump is lying. Here is what he said about the Heritage Foundation's plans before it became a liability.
“Heritage does such an incredible job, this is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America"
Isn't this pretty standard politics? Tell your base how great they are and how much you want to do the stuff they like, then tell other people that you don't really mean to do any of it, and wink and nudge at both groups that you're just stringing the other lot along to make sure you get elected.
I can't say I like the practice, but politicians have been telling lies along these lines since time in memorial.
Trump is a different kind of liar. His untruths are so egregious that he effectively makes his audience complicit in his lies. This is so corrosive that it effectively abandons the very idea of what is true. If you only believe his crap, everything else is not a matter of objective truth, it is merely "different facts". It is poisonous to any kind of debate when opinions lose all contact with facts. It's incredibly dangerous too, since allows witch hunts and oppression simply on the day so of the liar-in-chief.
I mean, she looks a bit like a slightly less successful Barbara Streisand after licking piss off a nettle but is there any reason why KLOBUCHAR isn't featuring at all?
She could do the job, plus is a Senator in a rust belty state.
One #Israel strike on Houthis in #Yemen has done more damage than months of "war" by a US-led 10-nation coalition. And the US had announced that its intervention was designed to preempt escalation. Not a single piece of Biden Mideast policy worked.
This is all getting very Rhodesian: at war with virtually every adjacent nation, uber hard on terrorists, technologically superior, but gradually being overwhelmed by sheer numbers and sympathetic nations tiring of then whole region being destabilised.
There won't be a Lancaster House agreement to transfer power without a bloodbath this time though.u
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
Trump is lying. Here is what he said about the Heritage Foundation's plans before it became a liability.
“Heritage does such an incredible job, this is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America"
Isn't this pretty standard politics? Tell your base how great they are and how much you want to do the stuff they like, then tell other people that you don't really mean to do any of it, and wink and nudge at both groups that you're just stringing the other lot along to make sure you get elected.
I can't say I like the practice, but politicians have been telling lies along these lines since time in memorial.
Trump is a different kind of liar. His untruths are so egregious that he effectively makes his audience complicit in his lies. This is so corrosive that it effectively abandons the very idea of what is true. If you only believe his crap, everything else is not a matter of objective truth, it is merely "different facts". It is poisonous to any kind of debate when opinions lose all contact with facts. It's incredibly dangerous too, since allows witch hunts and oppression simply on the day so of the liar-in-chief.
I think too that Trump is manipulated fairly easily. Narcissists are easily flattered, and he cares little for policy, mostly wanting petty revenge.
Project 2025 is the goal of those who control the American Right.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Because the Australians won't accept anything but the US one and the British won't accept anything but the UK/European one.
Remember how this came about. Shortfin Barracuda was a Turnbull project and ScoMo fucking hates the air Turnbull breathes and the ground Turnbull walks on so he was desperate to kill it. He couldn't do that without an alternative that could be marketed as superior hence, nuclear powered. He phoned Johnson who said yes instantly without reflection or consulting anybody else. ScoMo said this in an interview and it sounds eminently believable of Johnson who was then in his fully erect #globalbritain pomp. Johnson then shouted VERY LOUDLY in Biden's left ear and convinced him so now AUKUS had political momentum and we'd had enough of experts pointing out troublesome problems like 2 x CCS.
What a load of pathetic waffle.
Probably true though. We know it was Scott Morrison who withdrew from Australia's agreement to buy French submarines. We know AUKUS involves Britain and the United States, and we can be pretty sure it was not the Americans who needed Britain to be involved, which means the first call must have been to Britain (B Johnson, prop) as Dura_Ace said, albeit more colourfully.
In the eyes of China, Russia, France et al, Aukus, Five eyes etc is just a continuation of the British Empire by other means with Washington being Constantinople to London's Rome.
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
Trump is lying. Here is what he said about the Heritage Foundation's plans before it became a liability.
“Heritage does such an incredible job, this is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America"
Isn't this pretty standard politics? Tell your base how great they are and how much you want to do the stuff they like, then tell other people that you don't really mean to do any of it, and wink and nudge at both groups that you're just stringing the other lot along to make sure you get elected.
I can't say I like the practice, but politicians have been telling lies along these lines since time in memorial.
Trump is a different kind of liar. His untruths are so egregious that he effectively makes his audience complicit in his lies. This is so corrosive that it effectively abandons the very idea of what is true. If you only believe his crap, everything else is not a matter of objective truth, it is merely "different facts". It is poisonous to any kind of debate when opinions lose all contact with facts. It's incredibly dangerous too, since allows witch hunts and oppression simply on the day so of the liar-in-chief.
I think too that Trump is manipulated fairly easily. Narcissists are easily flattered, and he cares little for policy, mostly wanting petty revenge.
Project 2025 is the goal of those who control the American Right.
"NHS hospital told nurse who tried to support Lucy Letby ‘she shouldn’t give evidence’
Medics say they were advised against getting involved in the case as it could harm their career...
"The nurse who trained with Letby said she believed she was innocent, and had been made a scapegoat for bad practice on the neonatal ward, which she witnessed first hand..."
“I was approached by her lawyers to ask if I would be a character witness. I talked to my trust about it and I was advised it would be better not to, as it could hurt my career.”
The impression I got was that the various campaigns had almost no effect at all, with the possible exception of Ed Davey whose various antics got attention for the Lib Dems and really boosted their performance well beyond what was expected.
Starmer had his ming vase strategy, desperate to make no mistakes and retain the lead he had been given. Either the polling was seriously wrong or he failed in this because the Labour vote was 6-7% below what the polls were telling us but he succeeded in his main object of a substantial majority.
Sunak was simply not being listened to. He had that silly National Service idea but basically he was largely ignored, despite some quite good economic news during the campaign. I find the chart surprising in that context, the strong impression that i had throughout was that people had made up their minds that the Tories were gonners.
Swinney did as well in elections as he usually does but the SNP faced a similar problem to the Tories. They have been in government too long to blame anyone else and people are tired of them.
I confess I really don't know anyone who votes Reform. The relative failure of their campaign compared to that of the Lib Dems shows they have a lot to learn about how to be effective in a FPTP system, something Farage has never mastered.
The 2024 Labour campaign did have an effect. The timid Ming vase strategy caused Labour to shed millions of votes. It was a dire campaign from start to finish, totally lacking in ambition. Labour won because the Conservatives were so dire, yet with a GB wide vote vote share of just 35% Labour very nearly blew it in the space of just 6 weeks.
It's worth comparing the Labour campaigns of 2017 (not 2019!) with 2024. In both campaigns, the Conservatives messed up badly (social care in 2017, D day etc in 2024.) In both campaigns, Brexit wasn't an issue either (much as the Conservatives tried to make it one.) So the door was open to Labour in both campaigns.
Yet in 2017, during the campaign Labour's polling increased by 15% (from 26% to 41%) whereas in 2024 Labour's share fell by 10% (from about 45% to 35%).
The difference was that in 2017, Labour set out ambitious plans, together with a costed programme of how it was going to be paid for that was plausible enough to reassure rather than scare voters off. Now how plausible that funding programme was in reality was another thing of course, but the fact is that plenty of people were prepared to vote for it.
In 2017 we lost. This year we won.
Everything else is secondary.
That's a head in the sand attitude guaranteed to lead to defeat in 2029. You think that Labour can continue to win general elections with just 35% of the vote. I don't and I think lessons need to be learned. This year Starmer got lucky thanks to Reform, and thus an absolutely inept Labour campaign was insufficient to erode enough the 20% advantage which (to his credit) he'd built up and maintained since 2022.
It's a real question - why did Labour's vote share deteriorate so much from the 45% at the start of the campaign to the actual 35% achieved on polling day, despite the apparent horlicks that Sunak made of the Conservative campaign? About 7% of that decline was in the opinion polls, and a further 3% the difference between the final polls and the actual result, but the latter shouldn't be accepted as inevitable either because in 2017 Labour polled better than the final polls were suggesting in contrast to 2024. I think that the answer to why the polls were wrong in 2024 but not 2017 is simple - in 2017 Labour supporters were motivated positively to vote, whereas in 2024 the positive motivation was much less.
As per the Ashcroft data, Labour started with nearly half of those who had made up their mind before the campaign, won a quarter of those who decided during the campaign (which would include any mind-changers), to finish with about a third of the vote overall. Of those who decided during the campaign, a large number only made their minds up late, and hence their decision wasn’t polled. That’s both the story of the campaign and the story of the polling fail.
Some analyst made the point elsewhere that Labour and the LibDems in the south can now almost be regarded psephologically as the same party campaigning in different colours, attracting the same people for broadly the same reasons. Their combined seat haul can therefore be understood as the result of a 45% v 24% landslide FPTP result.
As well as voters being adept at working out which opposition party to back in their seat (Heathener and Palmer excepted), other reasons for the low winning %age are likely to include:
- a safety-first campaign from Labour, intended not to upset its existing support rather than inspire or convert the undecideds; - abstentions esp in Labour held seats as people knew they’d win anyway (turnout did fall the most in Labour’s holds); - Green, Indy and other left-wing votes in Labour held seats, ditto; - the collapse of the SNP enabling Labour to sweep Scotland without extra votes; - an absence of tactical voting amongst the parties of the right; - Farage/Reform being seen as a free hit for both NOTO protestors and, again, voters in seats Labour was going to win anyway.
A lot if Tories including our HY seem to think that solving the Reform problem would put the Tories straight back in the game. But then lots of Labour people have imagined that if only the centre party would disappear, they’d be able to beat the Tories alone, but the former has never yet happened.
Aside from their lack of ground game and flaky candidates, Reform has the disadvantage that whereas the LibDems can be seen as Labour-lite (in some ways unfairly, but there we are), Reform is clearly Tory-heavy, and not attractive to more moderate Tories. Hence the Rotherham result that, despite no Tory candidate, didn’t see any significant boost to Reform. And similarly, this time at least, Reform voters (despite being majority former Tories) didn’t have any net preference for the Tories as second choice over LibDem/Labour - hence the West Dorset result.
Had Reform not stood, all the evidence is that the Tories would have won just as badly - something they will struggle to accept, as having a supposed ‘split’ to blame offers the same comfort blanket that Labour activists clung to in 1983.
I concur with all of this and emphasise that Sunak, for all his uselessness as a politician, probably had a net neutral effect on the result. No-one else either then, or as a replacement now, would likely improve the Conservative position. They are in dismal place electorally that I don't think they are fully aware of.
One #Israel strike on Houthis in #Yemen has done more damage than months of "war" by a US-led 10-nation coalition. And the US had announced that its intervention was designed to preempt escalation. Not a single piece of Biden Mideast policy worked.
This is all getting very Rhodesian: at war with virtually every adjacent nation, uber hard on terrorists, technologically superior, but gradually being overwhelmed by sheer numbers and sympathetic nations tiring of then whole region being destabilised.
There won't be a Lancaster House agreement to transfer power without a bloodbath this time though.u
If it were Rhodesian, though, Jews would only be 5% of the population of Israel as opposed to 75%.
I concur with all of this and emphasise that Sunak, for all his uselessness as a politician, probably had a net neutral effect on the result. No-one else either then, or as a replacement now, would likely improve the Conservative position. They are in dismal place electorally that I don't think they are fully aware of.
Whenever I see Sunak, I am reminded of Anthony Bourdain's observation about Jamie Oliver.
"I wish I could go back in time and bully him at school."
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
I concur with all of this and emphasise that Sunak, for all his uselessness as a politician, probably had a net neutral effect on the result. No-one else either then, or as a replacement now, would likely improve the Conservative position. They are in dismal place electorally that I don't think they are fully aware of.
Whenever I see Sunak, I am reminded of Anthony Bourdain's observation about Jamie Oliver.
"I wish I could go back in time and bully him at school."
I concur with all of this and emphasise that Sunak, for all his uselessness as a politician, probably had a net neutral effect on the result. No-one else either then, or as a replacement now, would likely improve the Conservative position. They are in dismal place electorally that I don't think they are fully aware of.
Whenever I see Sunak, I am reminded of Anthony Bourdain's observation about Jamie Oliver.
"I wish I could go back in time and bully him at school."
A double bluff, he really wants Harris who is Hillary without the charisma and common touch, whereas Biden beat him last time
Hmmm. Not convinced. He may have felt that a month ago but then he stood at that debate and watched Biden implode completely.
If Harris is nominee Trump could well win every state between Maryland and the Pacific west coast with the possible exception of Illinois
In the likely event Biden implodes again at the next debate what are the Dems chances then ?
Fakes a 'medical condition', stands down as president, Harris takes over as president. "Biden" already printed on the ballot papers becomes a de-facto Harris choice. Betfair market goes bonkers.
It's a good question. Will Betfair actually settle the market after the Dem convention?
They should certainly settle the nominee market. Trump/Vance was settled on the final day of the RNC. If Trump couldn't run for whatever reason it wouldn't change him before Ng the official nominee
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
That's not far off what happens in NI.
Fee-paying schools get the normal state contribution, and then charge a mandatory 'capital fee' (determined according to a Department of Education formula) and a 'voluntary charge' on top.
Even accounting for the state grant, you'd expect English schools to cost maybe £8-10k, but they don't, they're all twice or three times as much.
Why, though? I don't really understand why there's such a huge gap - it's not even as if they get better results (in fact, schools in NI tend to be at the top of any combined league tables).
I'm all for private education (and healthcare, for that matter), but don't see why it should attract tax breaks. Just treat it like a normal business, like everything else.
That's fascinating to know.
My view is that subsidising education (by providing a tax break via zero VAT) is a good thing. But subsidising education for all by giving everyone a voucher to ensure minimum standards then letting people top up - probably spending the amount you suggest above - would be better.
In my hypothetical scenario where everyone gets a £7200 voucher, I probably wouldn't keep the VAT exemption, because my aim to encourage people to spend more on educating their kids than the state minimum would be achieved in other ways.
In a scenario where the govt provides a state voucher of £7200, I envision a lot of schools in the 10-13k range with pupils invested in the process because their parents are paying for it (parental contribution to fees being a major factor in discipline in schools). Rather than the stiuation Labour will give us, which is a small number of poshos going to public schools, vs everyone else's education being determined by the parents' ability to buy in the right postcode.
Agreed. The real poison comes from the elitism - the enormous, unbridgeable gap between the top public schools and everyone else.
If there were a range of institutions charging a few thousand a year (or your £10-13k inc. the state voucher), it would be much more achievable for people on middling incomes.
In NI, something like 40% of the population goes to a fee-paying grammar of the sort I mentioned - and fewer than 1% go to a public school.
It's that middling sort that have been stamped upon in England - you get 5% of the population desperately trying to pay £15k for public school, and everyone else goes to a comprehensive. And if only the elite are to be privately educated, then there shouldn't be any tax breaks for it.
Exactly my view. Set a floor at say, £7200 and encourage people to spend 3-5k if they can. It's the dichotomy of either the local comp or the impossible 20k+ per pupil that creates the current bifurcation.
VAT on schools is a nice idea, in terms of it reducing the overall number of privately educated kids, but its actual effect will be to create a much more bifurcated system of poshos vs everyone else.
I'm well up for a system where anyone from the humblest of background can top their kids fees up from the state minumum to an extra £50 a week, hopefully improving the educational attainment of a lot more. The current system we have encourages bifurcation, either pay the 20k+ a year or go without. I'd like to see a system where even a £50 extra contribution a week makes a difference.
Back in the real world, do you seriously believe that any people from the "humblest of backgrounds" could afford an extra £50 a week (per child) when they're struggling to pay their everyday bills?
I watched somebody today in the supermarket beg for [x £2.99 item for free] as they were too poor to afford it.
After being denied, they also added a £30 bag of golden virginia to their shop.
People have choices how they spend their money. I believe that most people can go without something to afford an extra £50 a week. And that is why I favour a marketised education system. Most households can probably find £50 savings a week if they look for it. Very few can afford £20k a year+ for the current private system. A system that would give people circa 7k a year for free, plus the ability to top up, would be better than the current system we have now, where someone who _does_ have £50 a week extra can't spend it on education, as you'd either need 20k a year to afford private school fees, or an extra £100k from somewhere to afford to live in a better catchment area.
£50 seems like a lot, but it's a lot less than the other options. My suggestion is an imperfect way of democratising a system that at the moment, is far more elitist.
£50 a week for 2 kids annually would be about £5k.
So if you were both earners and went camping rather than jetting off in your summer holidays, ran an older car, and maybe extended your mortgage term by a year or two you could do it.
An excellent strategy to pay the VAT uptick on private school receipts.
There is no point in "independent" pay review bodies if you just ignore their recommendations.
Might as well abolish them if you are going to do that.
CPI is 2%. Give them that, no more. Otherwise inflation will be up up and away again.
And change their pension schemes to DC 10% contributions from the employer from 2025, should be applied to all public sector. 👍
Fine if you want fewer teachers and nurses than you have now. Pay isn't the only thing that matters (incidentally @dixiedean , all the best for what is to come, buy you know you've made the right choice) but it's a substantial factor in recruitment.
It's human nature to think that I should be paid more for my work at the same time as I should pay less for the work of others, but it doesn't add up over society as a whole.
Things and people cost what they cost. If you don't want to pay for it, get by with less of it. And look up what Maggie said about bucking the market.
There is no point in "independent" pay review bodies if you just ignore their recommendations.
Might as well abolish them if you are going to do that.
CPI is 2%. Give them that, no more. Otherwise inflation will be up up and away again.
And change their pension schemes to DC 10% contributions from the employer from 2025, should be applied to all public sector. 👍
Fine if you want fewer teachers and nurses than you have now. Pay isn't the only thing that matters (incidentally @dixiedean , all the best for what is to come, buy you know you've made the right choice) but it's a substantial factor in recruitment.
It's human nature to think that I should be paid more for my work at the same time as I should pay less for the work of others, but it doesn't add up over society as a whole.
Things and people cost what they cost. If you don't want to pay for it, get by with less of it. And look up what Maggie said about bucking the market.
It's all about money with those on the right, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Actually it might do. At the moment, the public sector spends a lot (I mean, A LOT) on agency staff. Not just to cover absence, but to cover failures to recruit. They're expensive and even when they're good, they're new to the building so are less effective than permanent staff.
I'm not saying that improving permanent staff numbers by paying more would be cheaper than the status quo, but it's not impossible that it would be more productive.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
I've not seen any suggestions for extra taxation on private sector workers that wouldn't also tax public sector workers.
Personally, as I've said many times before, I would prefer extra taxation to land on those with high incomes and high wealth who are not working - wealthy retirees, those living on inherited wealth or dividends from businesses for which they do f*ck all. Extend NI to all income. (That would adversely affect me btw but why should I pay lower tax rates on my income than say a worker like you?)
There is no point in "independent" pay review bodies if you just ignore their recommendations.
Might as well abolish them if you are going to do that.
CPI is 2%. Give them that, no more. Otherwise inflation will be up up and away again.
And change their pension schemes to DC 10% contributions from the employer from 2025, should be applied to all public sector. 👍
Fine if you want fewer teachers and nurses than you have now. Pay isn't the only thing that matters (incidentally @dixiedean , all the best for what is to come, buy you know you've made the right choice) but it's a substantial factor in recruitment.
It's human nature to think that I should be paid more for my work at the same time as I should pay less for the work of others, but it doesn't add up over society as a whole.
Things and people cost what they cost. If you don't want to pay for it, get by with less of it. And look up what Maggie said about bucking the market.
It's all about money with those on the right, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Utterly meaningless saying. The value of something to you will be completely different to the value of the same thing to me and it can change over time too.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
You also need to remember that both of those jobs are rather less flexible than most equivalent office jobs. You have to be at school between 8 and 4 (sometimes later) if you are a teacher. You have to be on the wards if you are a doctor. Meanwhile hybrid working elsewhere is becoming increasingly normal. Reduced travel time and expenses might add between 6 and 7% to value of salary for such jobs.
There is no point in "independent" pay review bodies if you just ignore their recommendations.
Might as well abolish them if you are going to do that.
CPI is 2%. Give them that, no more. Otherwise inflation will be up up and away again.
And change their pension schemes to DC 10% contributions from the employer from 2025, should be applied to all public sector. 👍
Fine if you want fewer teachers and nurses than you have now. Pay isn't the only thing that matters (incidentally @dixiedean , all the best for what is to come, buy you know you've made the right choice) but it's a substantial factor in recruitment.
It's human nature to think that I should be paid more for my work at the same time as I should pay less for the work of others, but it doesn't add up over society as a whole.
Things and people cost what they cost. If you don't want to pay for it, get by with less of it. And look up what Maggie said about bucking the market.
It's all about money with those on the right, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Utterly meaningless saying. The value of something to you will be completely different to the value of the same thing to me and it can change over time too.
Your second sentence does not prove your first.
Your mistake is that you are flummoxed by trying to judge 'value' as a number.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
I'm not sure you would solve that even if you paid them what train drivers get paid (it hasn't stopped widespread cancellations due to train driver shortages).
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
I'm not sure you would solve that even if you paid them what train drivers get paid (it hasn't stopped widespread cancellations due to train driver shortages).
That's not a good example as the lack of train drivers was an explicit Tory Government policy, don't recruit or train new drivers because its costs money to train them...
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
I've not seen any suggestions for extra taxation on private sector workers that wouldn't also tax public sector workers.
Personally, as I've said many times before, I would prefer extra taxation to land on those with high incomes and high wealth who are not working - wealthy retirees, those living on inherited wealth or dividends from businesses for which they do f*ck all. Extend NI to all income. (That would adversely affect me btw but why should I pay lower tax rates on my income than say a worker like you?)
I expect labour to move on CGT and move in this direction given all the tax increases they have ruled out.
They need the money and that is one way.
I’d like to see reform of business rates and council tax too.
Also I expect tinkering with pensions, such as the tax free lump sum being reduced, as well as ISA reform. On pensions too there will be a big push to access money to drive ‘growth in Britain’.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
You also need to remember that both of those jobs are rather less flexible than most equivalent office jobs. You have to be at school between 8 and 4 (sometimes later) if you are a teacher. You have to be on the wards if you are a doctor. Meanwhile hybrid working elsewhere is becoming increasingly normal. Reduced travel time and expenses might add between 6 and 7% to value of salary for such jobs.
I suspect the reduced expenses can add 20-30% to the value of a salary...
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
I'm not sure you would solve that even if you paid them what train drivers get paid (it hasn't stopped widespread cancellations due to train driver shortages).
That's not a good example as the lack of train drivers was an explicit Tory Government policy, don't recruit or train new drivers because its costs money to train them...
although to be fair, ‘don’t recruit or train new teachers’ seems to have been the policy of the DfE for the last four years, including two botched reorganisations of teacher training.
It’s one reason why I’ll believe this figure of ‘6,500 new teachers’ when they’re actually in classrooms and not one second before.
There is no point in "independent" pay review bodies if you just ignore their recommendations.
Might as well abolish them if you are going to do that.
CPI is 2%. Give them that, no more. Otherwise inflation will be up up and away again.
And change their pension schemes to DC 10% contributions from the employer from 2025, should be applied to all public sector. 👍
Fine if you want fewer teachers and nurses than you have now. Pay isn't the only thing that matters (incidentally @dixiedean , all the best for what is to come, buy you know you've made the right choice) but it's a substantial factor in recruitment.
It's human nature to think that I should be paid more for my work at the same time as I should pay less for the work of others, but it doesn't add up over society as a whole.
Things and people cost what they cost. If you don't want to pay for it, get by with less of it. And look up what Maggie said about bucking the market.
It's all about money with those on the right, they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Utterly meaningless saying. The value of something to you will be completely different to the value of the same thing to me and it can change over time too.
Your second sentence does not prove your first.
Your mistake is that you are flummoxed by trying to judge 'value' as a number.
I’m not judging it as a number thought in numerical terms. More it’s usefulness or utility.
Anyway I have not seen the word flummoxed for a long time and that quite put a smile on my face.
I mean, she looks a bit like a slightly less successful Barbara Streisand after licking piss off a nettle but is there any reason why KLOBUCHAR isn't featuring at all?
She could do the job, plus is a Senator in a rust belty state.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
You also need to remember that both of those jobs are rather less flexible than most equivalent office jobs. You have to be at school between 8 and 4 (sometimes later) if you are a teacher. You have to be on the wards if you are a doctor. Meanwhile hybrid working elsewhere is becoming increasingly normal. Reduced travel time and expenses might add between 6 and 7% to value of salary for such jobs.
(Does a quick check on the daily cost and time of my commute) yes, that's pretty plausible. And that's before you factor in the value people put on a bit of flexibility.
Office jobs in schools used to get away with paying less because school hours/term time was gold-standard family friendliness. The rise of hybrid work has blown that out of the water.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
I'm not sure you would solve that even if you paid them what train drivers get paid (it hasn't stopped widespread cancellations due to train driver shortages).
That's not a good example as the lack of train drivers was an explicit Tory Government policy, don't recruit or train new drivers because its costs money to train them...
I think you will find a similar issue with Teaching and Nursing/Medical school places.
And like the former, TOCs struggle to recruit and get through training those who they are allowed to recruit.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
I'm not sure you would solve that even if you paid them what train drivers get paid (it hasn't stopped widespread cancellations due to train driver shortages).
That's not a good example as the lack of train drivers was an explicit Tory Government policy, don't recruit or train new drivers because its costs money to train them...
although to be fair, ‘don’t recruit or train new teachers’ seems to have been the policy of the DfE for the last four years, including two botched reorganisations of teacher training.
It’s one reason why I’ll believe this figure of ‘6,500 new teachers’ when they’re actually in classrooms and not one second before.
Be interested in your thoughts on this. . It’s quite a depressing read but seems full of Daily Mail cliches. Came across it in a twitter thread about the changes in e schooling being proposed which people seem to either think is great or will punish the majority who want to learn.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
The other problem that GCAP is facing is that Starmer might be forced into another RAF Typhoon order to stop BAE closing the Wharton FAL and every quid spent on Typhoon is a quid less for GCAP.
Once the Qatari deliveries are concluded in 2025 there are no more to build unless the Saudis can be begged to order more. Spain and Germany have already had to order more EF to keep their lines going. The Italians are snacking on the Kuwaiti order for now. It might actually make sense to do this if the UK orders the EK variant like Germany to restore SEAD/DEAD capability.
Not such a bad idea. Considering F-16s are likely to be enough for Ukraine (Sopwith Camels sadly being no longer available) Typhoons seem more than enough for us.
One key lesson from the Russo-Ukranian war is that lots of "good enough" equipment is better than a small amount of "cutting edge".
IMV it depends. A small amount of cutting-edge equipment can prove very useful if you have large amounts of good enough kit as well, and strategy and tactics to benefit. For instance, a few stealth bombers in a suppression of enemy air defences role might make your existing force of 'good enough' fighters much more effective.
But a few top-of-the-range kit with few cheaper systems can be pointless, aside from keeping capability and learning going. IMV that's where we are with our tank fleet: too small to be a significant part in a war at Ukraine's scale, but very useful in keeping institutional knowledge and learning going.
What the Ukrainians lack is the top-range kit, and it is alleged they have proved rather reluctant at times to use western tactics and strategy. Then again, many western tactics and strategy sometimes depends on kit we haven't given the Ukrainians...
In 1914, Lord Kitchener was roundly reviled as an idiot. Because he predicted the war would last 3 years.
His reasoning was that it would take 3 years for the U.K. to raise, equip and *train* a mass army.
What observers in the successful attacks of 1918 noticed was the coordination in the U.K. forces between the various arms - men confidently and effectively using the rolling barrage to get to the German trenches relatively unscathed, for example.
The training we are giving the Ukrainians (amongst others) is, by comparison, a starter course in infantry tactics.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
You also need to remember that both of those jobs are rather less flexible than most equivalent office jobs. You have to be at school between 8 and 4 (sometimes later) if you are a teacher. You have to be on the wards if you are a doctor. Meanwhile hybrid working elsewhere is becoming increasingly normal. Reduced travel time and expenses might add between 6 and 7% to value of salary for such jobs.
(Does a quick check on the daily cost and time of my commute) yes, that's pretty plausible. And that's before you factor in the value people put on a bit of flexibility.
Office jobs in schools used to get away with paying less because school hours/term time was gold-standard family friendliness. The rise of hybrid work has blown that out of the water.
Yes Teaching. Doctoring and Nursing is a blue collar job like train driving working on the front line, that is treated as a profession.
Although if you saw the dickensian way junior doctors and teachers are treated you would have your doub'ts on the profession bit.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
You also need to remember that both of those jobs are rather less flexible than most equivalent office jobs. You have to be at school between 8 and 4 (sometimes later) if you are a teacher. You have to be on the wards if you are a doctor. Meanwhile hybrid working elsewhere is becoming increasingly normal. Reduced travel time and expenses might add between 6 and 7% to value of salary for such jobs.
(Does a quick check on the daily cost and time of my commute) yes, that's pretty plausible. And that's before you factor in the value people put on a bit of flexibility.
Office jobs in schools used to get away with paying less because school hours/term time was gold-standard family friendliness. The rise of hybrid work has blown that out of the water.
Yes Teaching. Doctoring and Nursing is a blue collar job like train driving working on the front line, that is treated as a profession.
Although if you saw the dickensian way junior doctors and teachers are treated you would have your doub'ts on the profession bit.
How are they treated ? What makes it Dickensian ? They are professions of which I know little. So I don’t really opine on them.
VAT on private school fees expected as soon as January
Labour is preparing to bring forward from September next year a change that may see bills go up by 20%
Parents could have to pay VAT on their children’s private school fees as soon as January as Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, prepares to bring in the policy nine months earlier than expected.
The government confirmed it will remove the 20 per cent tax exemption in last week’s King’s Speech. The change, which ministers expect will raise £1.6 billion a year to fund an additional 6,500 teachers, will be included in Reeves’s first budget this autumn.
It will become law after being passed in Labour’s first finance bill, which means the earliest it could take effect would be in the term starting in January 2025.
It had been widely expected that the policy would probably not come into force until the start of the school year in September 2025.
But senior Whitehall sources have now said the government is preparing to introduce the changes “as soon as possible” and they could take effect as soon as January — nine months earlier.
Boo hiss. An ideological move that asshats will cheer, and will not help state school kids one jot.
a negative move to start government - well done labour - will mean even more so that only the very rich can afford it- Do Labour really want an elite?
Only the very rich can already afford it.
Most families with kids have 2 kids, and paying 2 kids fees alone takes more than the median salary.
I'd like to see ways to make it more affordable, but it being unaffordable for the overwhelming majority is already the case.
Set the price of a state education at, say £7200 a year. Give every parent a voucher for education to the value of £7200 a year.
Allow parents to use that voucher in the state system, or to use it as partial credit towards a private education and top up the fees with their own money.
Marketise the school system, abolish catchment areas, allow anyone to attend any school with the voucher acting as the baseline to ensure a basic education, let parents decide on the value of an education.
Make all children go to their nearest school. This will get rid of half the cars off the road and free up bus space for wheelchairs, as we discussed last week. It will not alter the number of children at any particular school, so is neutral in that regard.
That's an appalling suggestion. So people should be compelled to go to an inferior school rather than go to a better school that's further away, even if the better school is also a state school?
Your logic is like saying all adults need to work at the nearest employer.
The purpose of the roads and transport is to get people moved about, education is every bit as valuable as employment. I have far more respect for people who care about their kids education enough to drive them to a school that suits them, than just dumping them in any old local school as if school is nothing more than a glorified daycare.
Parental choice also assumes parents can tell a good school from a bad one, especially as most schools are much of a muchness, and also that school quality is static despite the annual turnover of staff and pupils. In any case, the net result is the same number of children in the same number of schools. If you send your twins to Eton, two children who otherwise could have gone to Eton will end up at Harrow.
So we end up driving children across town for no real benefit.
That's the thing with choice, people make choices. Its up to them to decide what's beneficial, not you, and education is every bit as powerful and important as any other reason to be on the road.
I drive my children to their school every day on my way to my own work. They were assigned the school (our second preference for my eldest) years ago and we quite like the school and their friends and support network are at the school.
We've subsequently moved, but chose that since we like the school they're at and they're settled there we don't want to disrupt their education by relocating them to the closer school. It'd make my life easier if they just went to the local school, but their education is too important to disrupt it unnecessarily.
Oh and since my wife and I both work, the kids will be dropped off by car no matter which school they go to. The era of one parent typically not working and being able to walk the kids in is long over.
Another sign of the times is that your children need to be taken to school. My mother walked me to school only once, on my first day, at age 5. Jumpers for goalposts!
Is that an English thing? I don't know many German primary school children who don't get to school by themselves.
English? British thing I think. I'd be interested to see figures for other countries, especially Ireland which has much British DNA in its transport culture (see, for example, their "Rules of the Road".
I've no real idea why the 75 year cultural trend to make it more difficult to walk, and think it more dangerous; it's where we are.
It's strange - the same people who sometimes say "crime has fallen" and "our roads are the safest in the world", wrap their children up in cotton wall and keep them in cages. I did a daily photo about it about two or three weeks ago. *
Something about perceptions of safety, which would be the normal claimed reason.
Maybe an impact from places where people are further from their schools, and walking being perceived as "for poor people"; that is also a standard drive-by anti-cyclist smear by people trying to minimise or avoid facing careless or dangerous driving on social media.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
You also need to remember that both of those jobs are rather less flexible than most equivalent office jobs. You have to be at school between 8 and 4 (sometimes later) if you are a teacher. You have to be on the wards if you are a doctor. Meanwhile hybrid working elsewhere is becoming increasingly normal. Reduced travel time and expenses might add between 6 and 7% to value of salary for such jobs.
(Does a quick check on the daily cost and time of my commute) yes, that's pretty plausible. And that's before you factor in the value people put on a bit of flexibility.
Office jobs in schools used to get away with paying less because school hours/term time was gold-standard family friendliness. The rise of hybrid work has blown that out of the water.
Yes Teaching. Doctoring and Nursing is a blue collar job like train driving working on the front line, that is treated as a profession.
Although if you saw the dickensian way junior doctors and teachers are treated you would have your doub'ts on the profession bit.
I don't get your point there.
The issue is that office work has moved to hybrid or even 100% remote work and suddenly the you need to be in the office x days a week is a problem unless the pay is brilliant.
Where Mrs Eek works they've just discovered that issue. Two people (including Mrs Eek) are going and literally no-one applied for the roles because at the pay it made zero sense. When they looked back the problem has actually existed for 7 years but the recruitment hole was fixed by friends of colleagues joining.
That recruitment path has been used up so a long standing problem - pay not good enough due to the commute has finally become obvious..
The Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle was using Signal to communicate with colleagues.
For those who don’t know, immediately after Farcebook bought WhatsApp, a number of the people who ran it gave Suckerberg the finger and founded Signal. It’s a more secure and slightly better WhatsApp.
If you have to use a third party comma app, it’s probably the best in terms of security. Maybe the politicians are upset they didn’t think of it?
A comment from Rachel Reeves made me smile. Starmer referred to the Chancellor and she thought 'What has he done now?' then realised he was referring to her.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
I've not seen any suggestions for extra taxation on private sector workers that wouldn't also tax public sector workers.
Personally, as I've said many times before, I would prefer extra taxation to land on those with high incomes and high wealth who are not working - wealthy retirees, those living on inherited wealth or dividends from businesses for which they do f*ck all. Extend NI to all income. (That would adversely affect me btw but why should I pay lower tax rates on my income than say a worker like you?)
How do you differentiate between dividends from business where the owner does f*ck all and those where the owner works their socks off?
I mean I've a decent paper income from my engineering business, although half of that is money I currently don't see as its paying off the previous owner, so my real income is under the UK median. I work pretty bally hard (eg. my first child was born last Sunday, I've still worked about 20 hours on the premises plus 10 hours from home this week). I'm currently employing 4 1/2 people, having put a substantial chunk of my personal cash on the line three years ago to make it happen. At some point, when I've paid the previous owners off (only one year to go now) and I've stopped reinvesting virtually all the profit (depends how big I want to grow things - we're double the size we were when I took over) I'll probably earn a lot of money - but it's basically deferred income from 5 years of working really hard without much reward.
I'm assuming I'm not the sort of person you think should pay extra tax for doing f*ck all?
I know people who get a similar paper income to me, but from renting property on Airbnb. Virtually nothing to do except watch the money roll in.
Of course, and our taxes will go up to pay for it.
I've got little issue with tax increases - and I now you differ on this. I'm just unsure whether this is the 'best' way of spending the extra money.
Extra taxation on private sector workers to pay for wage hikes for public sector workers will squeeze the former but do nothing for the productivity of the latter.
Slight problem there is that the NHS is still losing staff who are resigning and teacher training numbers for this year are at "we have a serious problem here" level
I'm not sure you would solve that even if you paid them what train drivers get paid (it hasn't stopped widespread cancellations due to train driver shortages).
That's not a good example as the lack of train drivers was an explicit Tory Government policy, don't recruit or train new drivers because its costs money to train them...
although to be fair, ‘don’t recruit or train new teachers’ seems to have been the policy of the DfE for the last four years, including two botched reorganisations of teacher training.
It’s one reason why I’ll believe this figure of ‘6,500 new teachers’ when they’re actually in classrooms and not one second before.
Be interested in your thoughts on this. . It’s quite a depressing read but seems full of Daily Mail cliches. Came across it in a twitter thread about the changes in e schooling being proposed which people seem to either think is great or will punish the majority who want to learn.
Elements of all that are present in most schools. But he does rather oversimplify and over egg the stratification. Plenty of good teachers still in the profession because it’s a great job and they love it. However, they tend not to get promoted and also tend not to talk much about it, being busy with other things.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
A plane for fighting China seems rather unnecessary, as we have no way to project force there. This isn't the 19th Century.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Comments
US woman freed after 43 years in prison for murder she didn’t commit
I'm also child-free, so shouldn't really have a say in this - but as an outside observer, it seems obvious to me that the situation in England as it currently stands is utterly poisonous.
Probably the best situation we can hope for in the medium term is that English public schools concentrate on the international market, letting the home market dwindle. Perhaps the Tories can change direction in 8-10 years or so - but until then, Starmer is as friendly towards the private sector as things are going to get.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/article/2024/jul/20/ray-reardon-snooker-dies-aged-91
The Democrats wouldn't be considering dumping Biden if this was Romney, McCain or Bush. The panic then feeds back on itself aided by a quicker than ever media.
& yes yes I know the reasons but it's working.
It's about 2 sentences.
The whining is pathetic.
https://www.royalparks.org.uk/read-watch-listen/albert-age-empire
Trump on Project 2025: "Some on the right -- severe right -- came up with this Project 25. And I don't even know ... they're sorta the opposite of the radical left ... I don't know what the hell it is ... some of the things -- they're seriously extreme."
Romney, McCain, or Bush are all on the side of America. And all three of them in their prime would easily beat Biden in 2024.
Trump / Vance, though? They're for Gilead. They should be easily beatable.
I just don't understand what's going on. I have a moderate amount on Harris as next Pres, but have otherwise avoided betting on any of this - I've never felt so confused by American politics as I do today.
Botched update by security software maker CrowdStrike has left companies struggling to recover"
https://www.ft.com/content/366dbb65-f03c-4b31-a489-405b078268f4
However I don't believe current Labour would have any problems with setting by ability, which I think would be a matter for the school.
* The wording would be something like "let him be an anathema maranatha", which is like an eternal excommunication, in incorporating 'let him judged at Christ's return'. Restoration is possible, however. The "maranatha" is "come quickly, Lord Jesus" or similar from 1 Corinthians 16:22.
The equivalent phrase in protestant circles might be "let him be handed over to Satan", the final stage in church discipline in some strict Evangelical systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate
Yet Trump is not a particularly strong opponent, rather the Democrats are behind in the polls because Biden has a big net disapproval score in polling, at a level never experienced a few months out by any President who has gone on to win a 2nd term. With each remaining day that they stick with a plainly senile candidate, the Democrats chances of turning that around diminish.
“Heritage does such an incredible job, this is a great group, and they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do and what your movement will do when the American people give us a colossal mandate to save America"
One #Israel strike on Houthis in #Yemen has done more damage than months of "war" by a US-led 10-nation coalition.
And the US had announced that its intervention was designed to preempt escalation.
Not a single piece of Biden Mideast policy worked.
"Tories who lost seats at general election want formal role in leadership race
Former MPs plan to return swiftly to parliament amid fears of a lurch to the right if Conservatives fail to explore reasons for defeat"
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/20/tories-lost-seats-formal-role-leadership-race-former-mps
In a recent call on July 6, Prime Ministers Fumio Kishida of Japan and Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom reaffirmed their commitment to the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/japan-and-uk-reaffirm-commitment-to-new-fighter-jet/
Labour’s tough defence choice: Submarines or next-generation fighter jet?
The new government has declined to commit to a supersonic combat jet to take on Chinese rivals
https://www.thetimes.com/article/dacea54f-ab60-492b-8b57-545e54047484?shareToken=c43f02803872edd15f3bb1611e273310
The thing is, I'll really miss walking him in. We've had so many wonderful conversations during those walks, about school, life, penguingebra (*), politics, media... the list feels endless. It's not that we don't talk at home - we do - it's just that talking whilst walking feels different, more freeform.
(*) Algebra with penguins.
Some analyst made the point elsewhere that Labour and the LibDems in the south can now almost be regarded psephologically as the same party campaigning in different colours, attracting the same people for broadly the same reasons. Their combined seat haul can therefore be understood as the result of a 45% v 24% landslide FPTP result.
As well as voters being adept at working out which opposition party to back in their seat (Heathener and Palmer excepted), other reasons for the low winning %age are likely to include:
- a safety-first campaign from Labour, intended not to upset its existing support rather than inspire or convert the undecideds;
- abstentions esp in Labour held seats as people knew they’d win anyway (turnout did fall the most in Labour’s holds);
- Green, Indy and other left-wing votes in Labour held seats, ditto;
- the collapse of the SNP enabling Labour to sweep Scotland without extra votes;
- an absence of tactical voting amongst the parties of the right;
- Farage/Reform being seen as a free hit for both NOTO protestors and, again, voters in seats Labour was going to win anyway.
A lot if Tories including our HY seem to think that solving the Reform problem would put the Tories straight back in the game. But then lots of Labour people have imagined that if only the centre party would disappear, they’d be able to beat the Tories alone, but the former has never yet happened.
Aside from their lack of ground game and flaky candidates, Reform has the disadvantage that whereas the LibDems can be seen as Labour-lite (in some ways unfairly, but there we are), Reform is clearly Tory-heavy, and not attractive to more moderate Tories. Hence the Rotherham result that, despite no Tory candidate, didn’t see any significant boost to Reform. And similarly, this time at least, Reform voters (despite being majority former Tories) didn’t have any net preference for the Tories as second choice over LibDem/Labour - hence the West Dorset result.
Had Reform not stood, all the evidence is that the Tories would have won just as badly - something they will struggle to accept, as having a supposed ‘split’ to blame offers the same comfort blanket that Labour activists clung to in 1983.
The MoD haven't committed anything other than a small fraction of the funds it would actually take to do something like GCAP and the program has now been running for seven years without producing much of anything other than deadlines that keep moving inexorably into the future. So they'll probably keep funding it with small amounts that are re-announced multiple times and hope that the Japanese or Italians pull out and collapse it. At that point, they'll do the classic bait-and-switch saying that they are re-allocating the GCAP funding to Project X which is more relevant, agile, lethal and modern where Project X is something they are going to do anyway. See the 'Mosquito' UAS program.
Astute successor, aka SSN-AUKUS, has been made way more expensive and complicated because the design now has to accomodate two completely different combat control systems. What might happen there is that the Australians will realise that if they continue their navy will consist of nuclear submarines and nothing else so they'll stick with their 5 x Virginia and SSN-AUKUS will revert to being New Astute solely for the Royal Navy.
This is turning out to be a very political government led by a very political prime minister accompanied by a very political cabinet. With 40 servings of intended legislation, one of the chunkiest menus presented by a government in modern times, [the King’s speech] ran the risk of being a themeless mess. Yet it heralded several striking and radical departures from what came before.
First, it conveyed a view of capitalism that accepts the free market but not the free-for-all version of it. Interventions in areas where capitalist models haven’t worked is evident both in the nationalisation of the rail network as operator franchises expire and the most serious challenge to the filthy practices of the water companies since their privatisation in 1989.
Laws to create a football regulator and protect tenants tell us that Starmerism is interventionist. It is also unabashedly “workerist”.
Planning is good. This is an article of faith of Starmerism and one of its starkest ruptures with the belief systems of the Tory years.
Starmerism also seems to have a meaningful interest in spreading power more evenly across the kingdom.
One thing is already clear. The Starmer government is not at all libertarian.
How governments choose to tax and spend usually plays a large role in how they are defined. More clarity about that awaits Ms Reeves’s first budget and spending review. To keep the Labour party happy, the crowd-pleaser would be to concede and bring an immediate end to the [two-child] cap. Viewed from Number 10 and the Treasury, that would be precisely the wrong thing to do. Not buckling to the first outbreak of backbench pressure is seen as crucial to sustaining their parliamentary authority and credibility with financial markets.
Critical elements of the government’s intentions, especially how it intends to approach public sector reform, remain misty. It is also true that it will be kneaded into shape by events as yet unforeseen and conflicts as yet unfought. These are early days. Even so, no one need set out on any more expeditions to seek after Starmerism. It begins to take form before our eyes.
Submarines are more useful for an Island nation like us or Australia, but why two combat control systems?
Remember how this came about. Shortfin Barracuda was a Turnbull project and ScoMo fucking hates the air Turnbull breathes and the ground Turnbull walks on so he was desperate to kill it. He couldn't do that without an alternative that could be marketed as superior hence, nuclear powered. He phoned Johnson who said yes instantly without reflection or consulting anybody else. ScoMo said this in an interview and it sounds eminently believable of Johnson who was then in his fully erect #globalbritain pomp. Johnson then shouted VERY LOUDLY in Biden's left ear and convinced him so now AUKUS had political momentum and we'd had enough of experts pointing out troublesome problems like 2 x CCS.
"The AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System is currently fitted aboard the Royal Australian Navy’s (RAN) Collins class conventional attack submarines, as well as United States Navy (USN) Virginia, Seawolf, Ohio and Los Angeles class nuclear powered submarines.
According to previous statements by the AUKUS partners this new combat system will also equip the SSN AUKUS submarines built for the British Royal Navy (RN). The RN’s nuclear powered submarines including both the Astute and Vanguard class are currently equipped with BAE Systems Common Combat System (BAECCS) which performs a similar role to AN/BYG-1. "
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/12/ssn-aukus-to-feature-an-byg-1-combat-control-system/
and from a few months ago:
"The AUKUS partners will also develop a joint combat system as an expansion of the US-Australia combat system."
https://www.asa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/SSNAUKUS-Factsheet.pdf
It might just be @Dura_Ace being utterly negative as usual. Although in the case of military procurement, is it possible to be negative enough?
Betting PostF1: been a while since I've backed this market, but went for Piastri at 5.6 and Verstappen at 6.8 to lead lap 1.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2024/07/hungary-pre-race-2024.html
Once the Qatari deliveries are concluded in 2025 there are no more to build unless the Saudis can be begged to order more. Spain and Germany have already had to order more EF to keep their lines going. The Italians are snacking on the Kuwaiti order for now. It might actually make sense to do this if the UK orders the EK variant like Germany to restore SEAD/DEAD capability.
The answer I gave below had two links to articles and releases that hinted that @Dura_Ace - despite his 'expertise' - was wrong. Now, it could be that he has more info, or even scuttlebutt. But his version is thoroughly in line with his constant and hilariously inaccurate negativity, and on several occasions in the past that has caused him to give duff gen (*).
The answer is: 'we don't know' - but from what we can see below, it seems that the RN will use the same, or similar, version of the combat control system as Australia. At least at the moment.
(*) A phrase that AIUI was initially an RAF one meaning 'bad information', but which has crept into use on the railways, and especially railway enthusiasm.
One key lesson from the Russo-Ukranian war is that lots of "good enough" equipment is better than a small amount of "cutting edge".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng5n0my0zo
There's no money - except for our buddies...
I can't say I like the practice, but politicians have been telling lies along these lines since time in memorial.
But a few top-of-the-range kit with few cheaper systems can be pointless, aside from keeping capability and learning going. IMV that's where we are with our tank fleet: too small to be a significant part in a war at Ukraine's scale, but very useful in keeping institutional knowledge and learning going.
What the Ukrainians lack is the top-range kit, and it is alleged they have proved rather reluctant at times to use western tactics and strategy. Then again, many western tactics and strategy sometimes depends on kit we haven't given the Ukrainians...
So if you were both earners and went camping rather than jetting off in your summer holidays, ran an older car, and maybe extended your mortgage term by a year or two you could do it.
Is that anything more than the Betfair market feeling the balance of price has to go 'somewhere'?
Might as well abolish them if you are going to do that.
She could do the job, plus is a Senator in a rust belty state.
There won't be a Lancaster House agreement to transfer power without a bloodbath this time though.u
Project 2025 is the goal of those who control the American Right.
"NHS hospital told nurse who tried to support Lucy Letby ‘she shouldn’t give evidence’
Medics say they were advised against getting involved in the case as it could harm their career...
"The nurse who trained with Letby said she believed she was innocent, and had been made a scapegoat for bad practice on the neonatal ward, which she witnessed first hand..."
“I was approached by her lawyers to ask if I would be a character witness. I talked to my trust about it and I was advised it would be better not to, as it could hurt my career.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/20/claim-nhs-hospital-told-nurse-dont-give-evidence-lucy-letby/
And change their pension schemes to DC 10% contributions from the employer from 2025, should be applied to all public sector. 👍
If I were Mercedes I’d be painting over their logos too, they’re personae non grata in the IT world at the moment.
Your taxes CHANGING upwards
"I wish I could go back in time and bully him at school."
Civilised conservatives have convinced themselves they have to act like dingbats to get a look-in against the Badenochs and Bravermans?
See also the Republican Party.
The aphorism about arguing with an idiot applies here.
Have you considered getting some help?
It's human nature to think that I should be paid more for my work at the same time as I should pay less for the work of others, but it doesn't add up over society as a whole.
Things and people cost what they cost. If you don't want to pay for it, get by with less of it. And look up what Maggie said about bucking the market.
I'm not saying that improving permanent staff numbers by paying more would be cheaper than the status quo, but it's not impossible that it would be more productive.
Personally, as I've said many times before, I would prefer extra taxation to land on those with high incomes and high wealth who are not working - wealthy retirees, those living on inherited wealth or dividends from businesses for which they do f*ck all. Extend NI to all income. (That would adversely affect me btw but why should I pay lower tax rates on my income than say a worker like you?)
Your mistake is that you are flummoxed by trying to judge 'value' as a number.
They need the money and that is one way.
I’d like to see reform of business rates and council tax too.
Also I expect tinkering with pensions, such as the tax free lump sum being reduced, as well as ISA reform. On pensions too there will be a big push to access money to drive ‘growth in Britain’.
The Autumn statement will be very interesting.
It’s one reason why I’ll believe this figure of ‘6,500 new teachers’ when they’re actually in classrooms and not one second before.
Anyway I have not seen the word flummoxed for a long time and that quite put a smile on my face.
Office jobs in schools used to get away with paying less because school hours/term time was gold-standard family friendliness. The rise of hybrid work has blown that out of the water.
And like the former, TOCs struggle to recruit and get through training those who they are allowed to recruit.
https://im1776.com/2021/12/28/we-dont-need-no-education/
His reasoning was that it would take 3 years for the U.K. to raise, equip and *train* a mass army.
What observers in the successful attacks of 1918 noticed was the coordination in the U.K. forces between the various arms - men confidently and effectively using the rolling barrage to get to the German trenches relatively unscathed, for example.
The training we are giving the Ukrainians (amongst others) is, by comparison, a starter course in infantry tactics.
Expecting them to use dynamic all arms warfare….
Although if you saw the dickensian way junior doctors and teachers are treated you would have your doub'ts on the profession bit.
I've no real idea why the 75 year cultural trend to make it more difficult to walk, and think it more dangerous; it's where we are.
It's strange - the same people who sometimes say "crime has fallen" and "our roads are the safest in the world", wrap their children up in cotton wall and keep them in cages. I did a daily photo about it about two or three weeks ago. *
Something about perceptions of safety, which would be the normal claimed reason.
Maybe an impact from places where people are further from their schools, and walking being perceived as "for poor people"; that is also a standard drive-by anti-cyclist smear by people trying to minimise or avoid facing careless or dangerous driving on social media.
* "How children lost the right to roam in four generations"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children-lost-right-roam-generations.html
NEW THREAD
The issue is that office work has moved to hybrid or even 100% remote work and suddenly the you need to be in the office x days a week is a problem unless the pay is brilliant.
Where Mrs Eek works they've just discovered that issue. Two people (including Mrs Eek) are going and literally no-one applied for the roles because at the pay it made zero sense. When they looked back the problem has actually existed for 7 years but the recruitment hole was fixed by friends of colleagues joining.
That recruitment path has been used up so a long standing problem - pay not good enough due to the commute has finally become obvious..
Surely it's a good day after approximately 16,00 bad ones.
The Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle was using Signal to communicate with colleagues.
For those who don’t know, immediately after Farcebook bought WhatsApp, a number of the people who ran it gave Suckerberg the finger and founded Signal. It’s a more secure and slightly better WhatsApp.
If you have to use a third party comma app, it’s probably the best in terms of security. Maybe the politicians are upset they didn’t think of it?
https://signal.org/
I mean I've a decent paper income from my engineering business, although half of that is money I currently don't see as its paying off the previous owner, so my real income is under the UK median. I work pretty bally hard (eg. my first child was born last Sunday, I've still worked about 20 hours on the premises plus 10 hours from home this week). I'm currently employing 4 1/2 people, having put a substantial chunk of my personal cash on the line three years ago to make it happen. At some point, when I've paid the previous owners off (only one year to go now) and I've stopped reinvesting virtually all the profit (depends how big I want to grow things - we're double the size we were when I took over) I'll probably earn a lot of money - but it's basically deferred income from 5 years of working really hard without much reward.
I'm assuming I'm not the sort of person you think should pay extra tax for doing f*ck all?
I know people who get a similar paper income to me, but from renting property on Airbnb. Virtually nothing to do except watch the money roll in.
How do you differentiate us (hint - you can't).