BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.
@HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.
The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.
Trump 1.9 Kamala 2.2
The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:- Dem 1.37 Rep 3.6
This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.
It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke@Driver@williamglenn@Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.
Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.
Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
RCP has Trump winning Pennsylvania but Harris still narrowly winning the EC as she holds Georgia
RCP has their average for Pennsylvania as a tie but give it to Trump for some reason.
They know about 'shy Trumpers' who never answer polling?
It’s possible but unlikely that the Conservatives could poll even worse than 2024. And it’s also possible that Labour will improve their share.
5 candidates remain. Two are nice but incompetent. Two are nasty but competent. Neither scenario is a winning formula.
The other candidate manages to be both incompetent AND nasty, and she’s the preference for the decaying corpse of tory membership.
The Conservatives will heavily lose the next General Election with any of these five. The only question is by how much?
Really, they’re not very relevant.
It isn't possible to say that the Tories will for certain lose the next election with any of the remaining five, unpromising though they are.
All politics is relative. The % gap between the parties in GE 2024 was smaller than expected (Tories higher, Labour lower). In 2024 that the Tories lost it is is much more explanatory than that Labour won it.
If Labour lose it in 2028/9, then the chances that the Tories will win it or at least come first remains high. That the great British public could fall out with Labour remains quite possible.
The Tories could win in 2029 but several unrelated things probably need to align.
Most importantly they need Reform to disappear and for current Reform voters to switch to them so they don't lose seats to a Labour on a split vote. This has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity and Reform voters currently dislike the Tories.
They need Labour to be more unpopular than they are. Long way to go on that.
They still have a Lib Dem problem even if the first two are sorted out. They might be able to scrape a government together without dealing with the Lib Dems, which also has nothing to do with Labour unpopularity, but it would be tight.
I think Labour winning the next election is a reasonable assumption until we see significant movement on these three problems.
I think the question there may be:
The previous Government lost in measure several elements of their voter coalition from 2019 - which I might term Brexiteers, pro-Boris and anti-Corbyn. Or perhaps Red Wall, Blue Wall and One Nation.
These were a ride-three-horses-at-once temporary circus act by Boris playing his Buster Keaton character. https://youtu.be/frYIj2FGmMA?t=55
How many of these can they get back? How many do they need to get back?
OK, they don't need all of them back, but they probably need most of them. Or they need the LibLab vote to become less efficient again.
That's going to be tricky. The anti-Jez thing was really important in 2019, and it's unlikely to come back. (Even if you don't like Starmer and his version of Labour, it's not as bad as the Corbyn version, is it?). Without that glue, it's much harder to hold the coalition together. And any gesture to Lib Dem or Reform defectors looks like just annoying the other side.
I suggest forecasting the next UK General Election is beyond tricky at the moment, and one reason I say that is that we haven't seen how the newly elected MP's, especially the LibDems, operate. Quite a lot off the new MP's have solid backgrounds elsewhere are are not going to be happy with the confrontational set-up of our Parliament.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
I follow quite a few American lefties on TwiX. They have aneurysms when Trump posts a polling lead
Not credible that you follow any lefties when 100% of your twitter links on here are to right wing/MAGA/conspiracy bollocks tweets?
See the histrionic comments under this
“NYT poll showing Trump 48-47 nationally is undiluted bad news and may mean reversion. But let's take something constructive from it: Look at big % of groups she still must improve among (young, nonwhite) who say they need to know more about her. Still opportunity here to grow:”
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
The courts seem to be forcing Michigan and North Carolina to change what's on the ballots (to remove RFK), even though it's 'too late', so not sure what would count as too late.
But yes Trump isn't going to drop Vance. At least I don't think so.
As for new towns being founded, give them a ****ing chance.
This government have, in my view, made some mistakes. But the ridiculous way some people are writing them off already, after only a few weeks, says more about the critics than the government.
Youre an engineer
You know as well as I do that if the plans arent ready to go now then its 3 years of messing about before anything starts. Even with accelerated planning permissions.
Theyre using up their lives as we speak and so far appear to have nothing ready.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Wow. If that's true it's difficult to see how Rachel can avoid having to resign - the ensuing questions of moral competence will be unanswerable. And who leaked it is what I want to know. It was either an ally of Sir Keir or an enemy, and the answer to that will shed significant light on the dynamics currently playing out within Labour.
I follow quite a few American lefties on TwiX. They have aneurysms when Trump posts a polling lead
Not credible that you follow any lefties when 100% of your twitter links on here are to right wing/MAGA/conspiracy bollocks tweets?
See the histrionic comments under this
“NYT poll showing Trump 48-47 nationally is undiluted bad news and may mean reversion. But let's take something constructive from it: Look at big % of groups she still must improve among (young, nonwhite) who say they need to know more about her. Still opportunity here to grow:”
The argument de jour is that the triple lock has been running for ages, so pensioners shouldn't be poor any more, so they ought to be able to heat their homes. That's what was spun on radio 5 this morning.
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
Trump doesn't seem to have a great record of identifying loyalists? He ends up surrounding himself with unscrupulous people who will say whatever it takes to ingratiate themselves with him. If power is about to move to the next guy, they'll ingratiate themselves with the next guy.
I doubt any pensioner will die directly due to the scrapping of winter fuel payments; it's unlikely to feature on a death certificate, for instance.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
I would also like to know who commissioned the poll - the last one that found how brilliantly popular compared to everyone else James Cleverly was was commissioned by... James Cleverly.
The positioning of the candidates is very interesting. Tommy Tugend seems to be pivoting back to the wet left with his 'yelling at foreigners from the white cliffs' soundbite - no doubt to try and get some Stride votes and position himself as the soggy candidate of choice, before he flips back to being righter-than-right if he makes it to the members' ballot. To be fair he hasn't really changed his policies, but he is playing a very different-sounding tune. Robert Jenrick at least gets points for consistency. He remains the go-to choice for me.
Wow. If that's true it's difficult to see how Rachel can avoid having to resign - the ensuing questions of moral competence will be unanswerable. And who leaked it is what I want to know. It was either an ally of Sir Keir or an enemy, and the answer to that will shed significant light on the dynamics currently playing out within Labour.
The slight problem there is that keeping the state system at 99% full is an obsession, throughout the country. So there are no spare spaces.
Especially, as @ydoethur has pointed out, part way through the school year.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
I doubt any pensioner will die directly due to the scrapping of winter fuel payments; it's unlikely to feature on a death certificate, for instance.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
The courts seem to be forcing Michigan and North Carolina to change what's on the ballots (to remove RFK), even though it's 'too late', so not sure what would count as too late.
But yes Trump isn't going to drop Vance. At least I don't think so.
There’s still a question mark over the ballot issue . The Michigan SOS has appealed to the State Supreme Court which has a 4-3 Dem majority .
In NC there’s still a question over whether there will be an appeal to SSC although that happens to have a GOP majority.
This is in itself highlights the big problem in the USA where the judiciary is so politicized . You do sometimes get judges just applying the law but particularly in SSCs decisions often come down to party lines .
Is this the government's first use of the 'misspoke' defence?
Government sources saying that Home Office minister Diana Johnson misspoke this morning when she said that the Treasury was looking at ways to soften the impact of the winter fuel allowance cut, including a social tariff for energy bills
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.
@HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.
The poll says Trump should be favourite. Trump is favourite. Where's the betting angle? It's not like PBers get to vote in November, what with 1776 and all that.
Trump 1.9 Kamala 2.2
The betting angle might be Betfair's market on the popular vote winner:- Dem 1.37 Rep 3.6
This site doesn't discuss anything that's "good" for Trump, which is unforgiveable on a betting site.
It could lose people an awful lot of money come November.
There’s a few of us who try to add some balance in US reporting. @Alanbrooke@Driver@williamglenn@Luckyguy1983 and others actually read both sides of the American news. I try and post items of interest and especially to betting, rather than anything too hyperbolic or partisan nonesense.
Ignoring one side of the debate because you think the guy is Hitler, isn’t conducive to working out what might actually be happening on the ground, when it’s clear that damn nearly half the country actually likes the guy.
Personally I’m paying a lot of attention to anything out of Pennsylvania, as I think that state holds the key to the election. Not sure that there’s many people who wil change their mind in the next couple of months, so it’s now mostly about voter registration and then getting the vote out on the day.
RCP has Trump winning Pennsylvania but Harris still narrowly winning the EC as she holds Georgia
RCP has their average for Pennsylvania as a tie but give it to Trump for some reason.
They know about 'shy Trumpers' who never answer polling?
Thanks for the shout out @Casino_Royale. I don’t really consume much US media at all, but I get my US electoral info from watching the Freddie Gray Spectator 'Americano' podcast. Freddie Gray seems broadly neutral to wryly Trump-sympathetic. It's an approachable rightish take on US politics and I'd recommend it to anyone seeking balance without wanting to watch Tucker Carlson or Fox News. I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Because WFA goes almost entirely to people who don't need it. The people who might get caught out are those not applying for benefits they qualify for, in particular Pension Credit, which is a much important benefit anyway.
The politics might be dreadful for Labour but it makes sense in policy terms
I doubt any pensioner will die directly due to the scrapping of winter fuel payments; it's unlikely to feature on a death certificate, for instance.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
The Telegraph is really doing a number on Starmer and Labour. I get the sense the hacks and subs are enjoying - at long last - the chance to assail a government with unalloyed glee. And vigour
Also they genuinely despise him. Some of the photos they find, of him, are brilliantly cruel
I doubt any pensioner will die directly due to the scrapping of winter fuel payments; it's unlikely to feature on a death certificate, for instance.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
The Telegraph is really doing a number on Starmer and Labour. I get the sense the hacks and subs are enjoying - at long last - the chance to assail a government with unalloyed glee. And vigour
Also they genuinely despise him. Some of the photos they find, of him, are brilliantly cruel
I cannot believe people would use brilliantly cruel photos for articles.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
I doubt any pensioner will die directly due to the scrapping of winter fuel payments; it's unlikely to feature on a death certificate, for instance.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
The Telegraph is really doing a number on Starmer and Labour. I get the sense the hacks and subs are enjoying - at long last - the chance to assail a government with unalloyed glee. And vigour
Also they genuinely despise him. Some of the photos they find, of him, are brilliantly cruel
I cannot believe people would use brilliantly cruel photos for articles.
I just cannot comprehend it.
It's simply that, with your legendary modesty and quiet taste in shoes, you find such wretched acts of villainy alien to your nature....
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
I suspect the thought was that, because the WFA was introduced by silly old Gordon and no one - especially on the Right - gives him any credit these days, its abolition would go pretty much unlamented. Bit naïve. Instead Labour have given their enemies a huge and unexpected cudgel to pulverize them with.
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.
Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.
Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?
They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?
I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.
*Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
I hope the buyers insist on specific performance 😂
The structure of the cinema in St Neots was nearly complete when the builders had to take it down and rebuild it, because it had been built 30 inches out of place.
Wow. If that's true it's difficult to see how Rachel can avoid having to resign - the ensuing questions of moral competence will be unanswerable. And who leaked it is what I want to know. It was either an ally of Sir Keir or an enemy, and the answer to that will shed significant light on the dynamics currently playing out within Labour.
Labour hit piece from when the Conservatives proposed means-testing the WFA in 2017;
The Conservatives rejected Labour’s claims. “This is irresponsible scaremongering by Jeremy Corbyn – who can’t be honest about the fact he is relying on his magic money tree to pay for all of his uncosted promises,” said Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary.
I doubt any pensioner will die directly due to the scrapping of winter fuel payments; it's unlikely to feature on a death certificate, for instance.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
BTW, given we seem to have a thread header out most times when there is negative polling for Trump, maybe we can have one for balance's sake as to the significance of the NYT / Siena poll.
@HYFUD highlighted it yesterday but the usual suspects who highlight every poll that is positive for Harris seem to have gone unusually quiet.
The pollsters will be waiting until after the debate.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Because WFA goes almost entirely to people who don't need it. The people who might get caught out are those not applying for benefits they qualify for, in particular Pension Credit, which is a much important benefit anyway.
The politics might be dreadful for Labour but it makes sense in policy terms
Are Pension Credits being competently administered these days? I knew several people who applied for them when they first came out and ended up having to pay back thousands. Sir Keir doesn't want a repetition of all that if he's planning to use them to get him off the WFA hook.
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
Churchill to Maclean (who suggested that this Tito chap was a bit of a lefty): do you propose to live in Yugoslavia after the war? Don't know about you but I am not a senior Democrat.
Anyway people worked out how to deal with him last time round. They just ignored him
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
Churchill to Maclean (who suggested that this Tito chap was a bit of a lefty): do you propose to live in Yugoslavia after the war? Don't know about you but I am not a senior Democrat.
Anyway people worked out how to deal with him last time round. They just ignored him
I’m just enjoying the sphincter-narrowing, gusset-dampening, scrotum-tightening hysteria
“Distressing—depressing—alarming.
After everything—after January 6th, after clear evidence a second term would be far more authoritarian than the first, after the ever-increasing radicalization of MAGA world—Trump now has more support than he had in 2016 or 2020.”
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
He would love to, but he won't imo - pretty sure he understands the basic principle of the political pendulum, and won't want a trip to the slammer himself when he's no longer President. I can imagine a lot of other legal troubles for those who've antagonised him though.
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Because WFA goes almost entirely to people who don't need it. The people who might get caught out are those not applying for benefits they qualify for, in particular Pension Credit, which is a much important benefit anyway.
The politics might be dreadful for Labour but it makes sense in policy terms
Are Pension Credits being competently administered these days? I knew several people who applied for them when they first came out and ended up having to pay back thousands. Sir Keir doesn't want a repetition of all that if he's planning to use them to get him off the WFA hook.
Ironically an outcome of the WFA business might be a higher take-up of Pension Credit, which will do vastly more for reducing pensioner poverty than WFA, while costing the State more overall once the WFA changes are implemented.
On the politics, a key long term indicator would be if the opposition party is likely to overturn the controversial policy of it takes power. On the basis of the Conservatives showing no sign of doing so, I think Starmer will be OK.
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
He would love to, but he won't imo - pretty sure he understands the basic principle of the political pendulum, and won't want a trip to the slammer himself when he's no longer President. I can imagine a lot of other legal troubles for those who've antagonised him though.
Given the amount of time and money he's spent trying to avoid jail - I can easily see him being vindictive and trying all means possible to get those who he believes have tried to get him in jail subjected to the similar attempts..
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
First legal action on VAT on Independent School fees, report from the Telegraph, about the alleged impact on SEND pupils.
IMO the tricky bits will be around who are SEND pupils (the large majority the claim is about do not have the certificate. Seems to be 90%+), and the exemption which will be in the legislation as stated by the Govt AIUI so it's a bit difficult to see how a Judgement can be made before the facts are established.
The Telegraph have not explained how this squares with their articles about Councils not having enough funds, and about how Council Tax must be controlled.
The letter says so-called SEND (special educational needs and disabilities) children risk being forced out of private school if their parents can no longer afford higher fees, with the state sector unable to meet their more demanding educational needs. https://archive.ph/GwBzD
Richard Tice talking about it on the Camilla Tominey show on I think GBNews, and how it will use the Human Rights Act and the ECHR. (Which Tice wants to abolish. Cough.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8P-MLh45s&t=163s
I think the opposition may be making a mistake going after all these things all at once, at point of announcement, with so little meat on the bones. (Or, to put it another way, Labour are probably doing the right thing getting these things out in a flood.) I assume the government calculation is that these policies _actually_ impact so few people (and even fewer come 2028/9) any positives coming from the cycle will make the current attacks fade in memory.
The danger is that they become a "poll tax" - a poorly implemented policy which, had it been done after the rateable value recalculations might actually have been popular - and grow in the public consciousness beyond their immediate impact
As an aside, I find the current complaints that it "isn't fair" that single occupants will have to pay the full council tax somewhat ironic; I'm guessing there is a generation that doesn't remember the poll tax.
The poll tax was however fairer in this situation 1 resident adult pay x, 2 resident adults pay 2x. If they take the the discount away I in effect as a renter will pay approximately £400 more a year for my bin collection. Meanwhile the couple next door who own their own home will not pay anything extra.
I don't disagree; personally, I think a local income tax is a much fairer system than a property tax but probably too expensive to administer, and a poll tax is possibly fairer than a property tax - though it depends how things are banded. If a single person is renting a high-band property and your hypothetical couple are in a single-bedroom flat in an area of poor housing, I don't see that you paying less *is* fairer.
Why should a council be in the business of redistribution? Shouldn’t they be about service delivery and the appropriate funding thereof?
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
He would love to, but he won't imo - pretty sure he understands the basic principle of the political pendulum, and won't want a trip to the slammer himself when he's no longer President. I can imagine a lot of other legal troubles for those who've antagonised him though.
He'll be 90 if he lives the end of JDV's second term so, to the limited extent that he even engages with reality, I don't think he gives much of a fuck about the "political pendulum".
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
By what mechanism?
By the exact same methods Dems have pursued lawfare against him. Politicised prosecutors
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
Trump doesn't seem to have a great record of identifying loyalists? He ends up surrounding himself with unscrupulous people who will say whatever it takes to ingratiate themselves with him. If power is about to move to the next guy, they'll ingratiate themselves with the next guy.
Trump is not really a politician. He probably does not even know enough people to fill his Cabinet, let alone their loyalties.
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
Trump doesn't seem to have a great record of identifying loyalists? He ends up surrounding himself with unscrupulous people who will say whatever it takes to ingratiate themselves with him. If power is about to move to the next guy, they'll ingratiate themselves with the next guy.
Trump is not really a politician. He probably does not even know enough people to fill his Cabinet, let alone their loyalties.
Something left out of this discussion is that it seems absolutely inevitable that pensioners are going to have to pay more tax in the future. Which means that the screaming over the withdrawal of the WFA is merely a foretaste of what’s to come.
The papers that serve a predominantly over 65s will offer great swathes of fan service to their readership but that won’t necessarily bear much relationship to how the labour voter base sees the issue.
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
Trump doesn't seem to have a great record of identifying loyalists? He ends up surrounding himself with unscrupulous people who will say whatever it takes to ingratiate themselves with him. If power is about to move to the next guy, they'll ingratiate themselves with the next guy.
Trump is not really a politician. He probably does not even know enough people to fill his Cabinet, let alone their loyalties.
Hence the 2025 project. Which is based on the idea that if they offer to get whatever Trump wants done, he will acquiesce to their lunacy.
Trying to enjoy my hour or so at the Oval despite having shelled out £90 for it yesterday. Couldn't get here before 12pm due to trains. Seems they learnt nothing from Lords in terms of ticket prices on the 4th day.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
My worry is an increase in numbers that ends up not being funded and just results in even bigger classes.
I’m also worried that some parents might be expecting a similar level of service…
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
More worryingly there's actually an outside chance of frost later this week in vulnerable spots. Including the bottom of my vineyard...
I saw a new paper (via Watts Up With That, so caveat emptor) that suggests rumours of the death of the AMOC are vastly overstated. Time will tell.
For now - get those vineyard fires burning!
Doesn't surprise me. It was always a theory that relied on a number of positive feedbacks all moving in one direction. From a policy point of view it also creates problems - focusing on a small chance of a sudden catastrophic switch you can't do anything about rather than a predictable, quasi-linear warming trend everyone can see and which can at least be partly planned for and mitigated.
Remarkable that WUWT is still going. Its "heyday" was in the late noughties and early 2010s when it really managed to influence particularly US policymakers and muddy the waters successfully. Conveniently coupled with a few years of warming hiatus.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
By what mechanism?
By the exact same methods Dems have pursued lawfare against him. Politicised prosecutors
You seem to have swallowed Trumps talking points . All the cases have a strong legal basis regardless of who was prosecuting them .
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
Tell me about it. Fees have been going up inexorably. The VAT is just another in a series of step-wise rises.
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
"Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006."
LOL
So you ignore links to papers because you don't like the editorial take? Take it with a pinch of salt, but I think Watts posts and hosts work from people who are not 'deniers'. Take polar bear numbers as a start.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
My worry is an increase in numbers that ends up not being funded and just results in even bigger classes.
I’m also worried that some parents might be expecting a similar level of service…
Why are you worried about the inevitable?
As a Mystic Shower Curtain observed....
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
"Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006."
LOL
Something coming up via WUWT doesn't mean it's not a decent paper. What the site does is scour the academic press for papers that might possibly support its world view, and then spin or misrepresent the hell out of them. But the underlying papers are often perfectly sensible.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
More worryingly there's actually an outside chance of frost later this week in vulnerable spots. Including the bottom of my vineyard...
I saw a new paper (via Watts Up With That, so caveat emptor) that suggests rumours of the death of the AMOC are vastly overstated. Time will tell.
For now - get those vineyard fires burning!
I think what they've done there is demolish a strawman. The collapse of the AMOC is in definitely maybe territory. It's a known risk of global warming, but one that is very hard to quantify.
If Starmer and Reeves are monumentally unlucky, then we will soon see the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (aka the Gulf Stream) collapse, and everyone will - of necessity - become unwilling experts in draught exclusion and other heat-retention measures.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
My worry is an increase in numbers that ends up not being funded and just results in even bigger classes.
I’m also worried that some parents might be expecting a similar level of service…
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
If I remember correctly that proportion rises to something like 20% for sixth-form, so it won’t just be pupils being taken out of a school, but also parents deciding that switching is no longer worth it.
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
My worry is an increase in numbers that ends up not being funded and just results in even bigger classes.
I’m also worried that some parents might be expecting a similar level of service…
And I thought schools wanted engaged parents…
There is a happy medium. Never hearing from them is bad. Being emailed every time their child has homework is in some ways worse.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
My worry is an increase in numbers that ends up not being funded and just results in even bigger classes.
I’m also worried that some parents might be expecting a similar level of service…
And I thought schools wanted engaged parents…
There is a happy medium. Never hearing from them is bad. Being emailed every time their child has homework is in some ways worse.
What every teacher wants - "Parents giving glowing praise on every interaction. Plus awesome home made cake." What every teacher gets......
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
By what mechanism?
By the exact same methods Dems have pursued lawfare against him. Politicised prosecutors
You seem to have swallowed Trumps talking points . All the cases have a strong legal basis regardless of who was prosecuting them .
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
If I remember correctly that proportion rises to something like 20% for sixth-form, so it won’t just be pupils being taken out of a school, but also parents deciding that switching is no longer worth it.
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
I think they will have looked at the wealth that the top 10% have accumulated over the last 20 years and thought - they'll probably manage to cope.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
If I remember correctly that proportion rises to something like 20% for sixth-form, so it won’t just be pupils being taken out of a school, but also parents deciding that switching is no longer worth it.
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
I think they will have looked at the wealth that the top 10% have accumulated over the last 20 years and thought - they'll probably manage to cope.
I suspect you are right; that probably was the extent of the analysis.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
The problem isn’t the policy per se, it’s the timing and the politics.
A government that just won election promising meaningful change and the promise of better days, and this is what they announce as one of their very first moves?
Foolish, foolish, foolish. I think Reeves has fallen into that trap that often befalls Chancellors riding high on their own supply - trying to be too clever by half and then creating a political storm in so doing. This was her trying to trip up the Tories, and in contrast causing significant issues for the government. It’s 10p tax all over again.
A much smarter way of doing it would have been keeping it on the books this winter, announce it was going from 2025 in the budget, and then spend the intervening time working out the implementation and mitigation measures.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
If I remember correctly that proportion rises to something like 20% for sixth-form, so it won’t just be pupils being taken out of a school, but also parents deciding that switching is no longer worth it.
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
I think they will have looked at the wealth that the top 10% have accumulated over the last 20 years and thought - they'll probably manage to cope.
I suspect you are right; that probably was the extent of the analysis.
I've written many times on the assumption that society will hold still and respond as required to a government policy.
The problem, as Herman Kahn observed, is that "the other guys" always seem to react by doing what is most inconvenient for you, the decision maker.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Good afternoon
There is no way out for Reeves and she has to stand by her decision or lose all creditability and even her post of COE
Even if she mitigated it the mindset that Grandma's winter fuel allowance was sacrificed for train drivers pay awards giving them £70,000 pa will remain and is going to be used ad infinutum, no matter what she does and even how true it is
It is really perverse, and shows just how poor the Treasury are, when a policy they decide would raise 1.5 billion would actually cause huge controversy and that the 800,000 pensioners who do not yet claim pension credit will now be actively targeted to claim, and in targeting them the likely cost will be billions more to be found over any perceived saving
To govern is to chose and this was Reeves first political error in her choice
I don't really have or need a source of anti-Trump commentary because I'm treated to it here all the time.
There are plenty of basic bitches on here who are terrified of Trump 47 even though his ability to effect the life of anyone in the UK is negligible. Trump 45 was a right laff and they should just enjoy the lolz. It's going to be funnier still now he's 100% more gaga, 80% more vindictive and has surrounded himself with even more of a sycophantic freak show.
Trump might actually jail senior Democrats
Churchill to Maclean (who suggested that this Tito chap was a bit of a lefty): do you propose to live in Yugoslavia after the war? Don't know about you but I am not a senior Democrat.
Anyway people worked out how to deal with him last time round. They just ignored him
Wasn't Maclean awarded a house in some delightful part of the Adriatic by Tito? I guess he did live there some of the time anyway.
Edit: I see he bought it himself but it was expedited by Tito as foreigners couldn't buy property in Yugoslavia at that point. The joys of dictatorship..
'In the late 1960s, Maclean bought the Palazzo Boschi villa on the Adriatic island of Korčula (present-day Croatia),where he spent a good part of each year.
Yugoslav legislation at the time barred foreigners from buying real-estate property, but Tito intervened to allow Maclean to do so. The town of Korčula was declared a free city, and the Macleans were declared its citizens. As soon as the purchase was registered with city authorities, the free city status was revoked.'
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Here's a thought.
The state pension is forecast to increase by around £400 next year. Pay the increase early as a lump sum this December to cope with heating. And ensure it remains taxable so there is clawback from wealthy pensioners.
Incidentally, when it comes to house building, there are rumours that one of the housebuilders around here is getting sued because the homes they sold 'on plan' were way off plan.
Naturally enough, the differences were to the advantage of the builder and not the new homeowner.
Sorry, as a layman what does that actually mean ?
They had not got planning permission, had not built to the spec ?
I would not buy a new build in a month of Sundays.
You can buy an unbuilt house 'to plan'. In other words, the housebuilder shows you the plans, and often takes you around a showhome to show the prospective buyers.
*Scuttlebutt* is that the sizes of the rooms (and houses overall) are not as the builder promised when they were sold. I won't mention which builder, as although apparently an investigation is ongoing, the rest is local rumour.
Thanks, that's interesting.
I wonder how much of it can be construed as a "sales puff" and how much as a contractual commitment.
I do remember people complaining, years ago, about new build flats where the brochures had stuff like brass door handles and when they moved in they were plastic.
I successfully sued a builder in Aberdeen on behalf of a client for this. The "as built" was materially smaller than the size indicated in the plans. Some of this was because cupboards etc had been included in the room dimensions when they should not have been. A lot turns on the terms of the contract, what plans etc are actually provided, whether they are to scale or indicative, etc etc.
The case settled, in part because a builder being sued in that situation has to weigh the negative impact on their reputation and standing. They can find themselves in a situation where even if they won they would lose.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
If I remember correctly that proportion rises to something like 20% for sixth-form, so it won’t just be pupils being taken out of a school, but also parents deciding that switching is no longer worth it.
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
I think they will have looked at the wealth that the top 10% have accumulated over the last 20 years and thought - they'll probably manage to cope.
I suspect you are right; that probably was the extent of the analysis.
No, I think it's a good point. In my experience, a private education is often seen by rich households as a form of inheritance. It's not just a function of costs and income; like most other decisions, not entirely rational.
If it does have an effect, it will be over the long term and affect some households on the margin.
VAT on education is simply wrong. (BTW, nothing would induce me to vote Tory.)
Agreed, but as others have pointed out it’s most there as red meat to the base, rather than as a result of any considered policy argument. It’s 2024’s fox hunting.
Except fox hunting affected only a relatively few people, and was low-cost.
VAT on private school fees affects many more people, both directly and indirectly.
It will be interesting to see how many pupils end up transferring to the state system, and whether the cost of this was accounted for in the estimate of the money raised by the policy. Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
Due to the demographic profile, the marginal cost won't be too dramatic, with any switchers simply making up for the general aging of the population.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
Even allowing for that, it means that the state will now be paying to educate more pupils than expected AND not collecting the VAT on their fees it was expecting. This might be a trivial proportion of the total, but I’d like to see that it had been taken into account.
A poster here (forget who, sadly) posted a basic modelling of the situation - IIRC he based the demand curve guess for the private schooling on stuff from COVID.
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
It can't be that sensitive - private school students as a proportion are consistent at around 6/7%, while fees have increased by 55% in real turns since 2003.
If I remember correctly that proportion rises to something like 20% for sixth-form, so it won’t just be pupils being taken out of a school, but also parents deciding that switching is no longer worth it.
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
I think they will have looked at the wealth that the top 10% have accumulated over the last 20 years and thought - they'll probably manage to cope.
They will cope. But the methodology by which they cope is less certain.
There is already a move, by a number of parents with children in private schools , to put their children in high end state schools (where they can) for sixth form. By that age, learning and study patterns are pretty much set. Add in a chunk of tutoring and it's all great.
The school (and teachers) love a bunch of hard working students who will get good grades. And the teenagers get to cosplay "I'm a state schooler" for interview at university....
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
Trump doesn't seem to have a great record of identifying loyalists? He ends up surrounding himself with unscrupulous people who will say whatever it takes to ingratiate themselves with him. If power is about to move to the next guy, they'll ingratiate themselves with the next guy.
Trump is not really a politician. He probably does not even know enough people to fill his Cabinet, let alone their loyalties.
Something left out of this discussion is that it seems absolutely inevitable that pensioners are going to have to pay more tax in the future. Which means that the screaming over the withdrawal of the WFA is merely a foretaste of what’s to come.
The papers that serve a predominantly over 65s will offer great swathes of fan service to their readership but that won’t necessarily bear much relationship to how the labour voter base sees the issue.
The labour base have mums and dads... The euphoria of getting rid of the Tories overrides everything at the moment but that will soon dissipate.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
I suspect the thought was that, because the WFA was introduced by silly old Gordon and no one - especially on the Right - gives him any credit these days, its abolition would go pretty much unlamented. Bit naïve. Instead Labour have given their enemies a huge and unexpected cudgel to pulverize them with.
A newly elected landslide government hitting mid term unpopularity ten weeks in. Remarkable mistake.
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Good afternoon
There is no way out for Reeves and she has to stand by her decision or lose all creditability and even her post of COE
Even if she mitigated it the mindset that Grandma's winter fuel allowance was sacrificed for train drivers pay awards giving them £70,000 pa will remain and is going to be used ad infinutum, no matter what she does and even how true it is
It is really perverse, and shows just how poor the Treasury are, when a policy they decide would raise 1.5 billion would actually cause huge controversy and that the 800,000 pensioners who do not yet claim pension credit will now be actively targeted to claim, and in targeting them the likely cost will be billions more to be found over any perceived saving
To govern is to chose and this was Reeves first political error in her choice
Quite so. She CHOSE this. And it’s not like she was rushed into it (no one believes the astonishing 22bn quid black hole story)
So Labour had months or years to get ready for this, and their planned first move was to hurl money at overpaid train drivers and take money away from hypothermic nans. Crass
They really do need to sharpen up because that apparently large majority is built on soft sand
Interesting that the WFA debate and vote comes on the day official data is likely to lead to an inflation busting increase in state pensions for next year !
Their best way out of this without gigantic loss of face is to announce a zillion% rise in pensions, starting a little earlier than usual, which would of course cost many billions more than than the WFA cost in the first place.
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
Good afternoon
There is no way out for Reeves and she has to stand by her decision or lose all creditability and even her post of COE
Even if she mitigated it the mindset that Grandma's winter fuel allowance was sacrificed for train drivers pay awards giving them £70,000 pa will remain and is going to be used ad infinutum, no matter what she does and even how true it is
It is really perverse, and shows just how poor the Treasury are, when a policy they decide would raise 1.5 billion would actually cause huge controversy and that the 800,000 pensioners who do not yet claim pension credit will now be actively targeted to claim, and in targeting them the likely cost will be billions more to be found over any perceived saving
To govern is to chose and this was Reeves first political error in her choice
Quite so. She CHOSE this. And it’s not like she was rushed into it (no one believes the astonishing 22bn quid black hole story)
So Labour had months or years to get ready for this, and their planned first move was to hurl money at overpaid train drivers and take money away from hypothermic nans. Crass
They really do need to sharpen up because that apparently large majority is built on soft sand
Just 1 in 5 registered voters gave them their support in July.
They spent the election campaign juggling the Ming vase so as not to frighten anyone away.
Then as soon as they are in Downing Street, they threw it at the picture of Maggie.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
That's because Starmer is simply following the Osborne playbook post 2010 step-by-step and expecting it to work.
- Will Vance be replaced? (hmmm, not sure how to rate this but anti-Trump if anything)
I don't think so, it's too late to change what's on the ballot papers so it would look quite chaotic to replace him, and it would probably upset Peter Thiel and friends who are still sending Trunp money.
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
But Trump picks the Cabinet. They will be ultra-loyalists and/or his own extended family.
Trump doesn't seem to have a great record of identifying loyalists? He ends up surrounding himself with unscrupulous people who will say whatever it takes to ingratiate themselves with him. If power is about to move to the next guy, they'll ingratiate themselves with the next guy.
Trump is not really a politician. He probably does not even know enough people to fill his Cabinet, let alone their loyalties.
Something left out of this discussion is that it seems absolutely inevitable that pensioners are going to have to pay more tax in the future. Which means that the screaming over the withdrawal of the WFA is merely a foretaste of what’s to come.
The papers that serve a predominantly over 65s will offer great swathes of fan service to their readership but that won’t necessarily bear much relationship to how the labour voter base sees the issue.
The labour base have mums and dads... The euphoria of getting rid of the Tories overrides everything at the moment but that will soon dissipate.
I think this is a good point. It’s convenient to think about pensioners as this self-contained, monolithic bloc, but actually their children will see the impact this has on their parents. And when your elderly mum is telling you she’s worried about heating her home this winter, does your sympathy lie with her or with Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves? For a lot of people, it will obviously be the former.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
WFA: Starmer is on a bit of a no win that hasn't had attention much yet. Labour MPs will abstain or vote against this. There is a recent precedent for suspending the whip from such (on the 2 child cap). He will be in difficulties if he does, or he doesn't.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
Either, they thought it would lead to a fuss and therefore extended focus on the reason - which is their key message they wish to hammer home until our ears bleed - which is the infamous £22b black hole.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
I think you are right with the first suggestion - the "22Bn black hole"
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
That may be right. But they clearly didn’t think through the optics of freezing impoverished grannies to death AT THE SAME as bunging their train driving TUC friends another £10,000 on top of the £60,000 they’re already making
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
The problem isn’t the policy per se, it’s the timing and the politics.
A government that just won election promising meaningful change and the promise of better days, and this is what they announce as one of their very first moves?
Foolish, foolish, foolish. I think Reeves has fallen into that trap that often befalls Chancellors riding high on their own supply - trying to be too clever by half and then creating a political storm in so doing. This was her trying to trip up the Tories, and in contrast causing significant issues for the government. It’s 10p tax all over again.
A much smarter way of doing it would have been keeping it on the books this winter, announce it was going from 2025 in the budget, and then spend the intervening time working out the implementation and mitigation measures.
FWIW, I support means-testing the WFA and, indeed, would go further and abolish the triple-lock as well. But I can't deny I am much amused by the political ineptitude.
None of the "black hole" stuff will hit home because, unlike the playback they're ostensibly following from last time, they helped create this one through policy choices.
Comments
That's going to be tricky. The anti-Jez thing was really important in 2019, and it's unlikely to come back. (Even if you don't like Starmer and his version of Labour, it's not as bad as the Corbyn version, is it?). Without that glue, it's much harder to hold the coalition together. And any gesture to Lib Dem or Reform defectors looks like just annoying the other side.
I suggest forecasting the next UK General Election is beyond tricky at the moment, and one reason I say that is that we haven't seen how the newly elected MP's, especially the LibDems, operate.
Quite a lot off the new MP's have solid backgrounds elsewhere are are not going to be happy with the confrontational set-up of our Parliament.
Anecdotally we have already gained a few in the sixth-form, but I don’t know if it is more than usual.
“Labour’s winter fuel raid could kill nearly 4,000 pensioners”
“Almost 4,000 pensioners could die if Labour scraps winter fuel payments, according to the party’s own research.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/winter-fuel-raid-could-kill-4000-pensioners/
Being the government is HARD
A better question is whether Trump will be replaced by Vance if he wins. The Thiel people aren't sending Trump all this money just so he can wreck the economy with tariffs. He's clearly completely out of his tree. If the cabinet invoke the 25th amendment they need 2/3 of both houses, but the Dems will give them about half so they only need 1/3 of Republicans in each house to take the money...
“NYT poll showing Trump 48-47 nationally is undiluted bad news and may mean reversion. But let's take something constructive from it: Look at big % of groups she still must improve among (young, nonwhite) who say they need to know more about her. Still opportunity here to grow:”
https://x.com/gregtsargent/status/1832746240699715746?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
https://bsky.app/search?q=nyt+siena
But yes Trump isn't going to drop Vance. At least I don't think so.
You know as well as I do that if the plans arent ready to go now then its 3 years of messing about before anything starts. Even with accelerated planning permissions.
Theyre using up their lives as we speak and so far appear to have nothing ready.
(Exceptions apply - Edinburgh has a growing child population AND has loads of private schools)
The argument de jour is that the triple lock has been running for ages, so pensioners shouldn't be poor any more, so they ought to be able to heat their homes. That's what was spun on radio 5 this morning.
But it will contribute to deaths as a causal factor. And the papers will be filled with stories of one or two of such with headlines like "Killed by the cold!", even if the individual's circumstances are more complex.
Labour better hope for a mild winter (in fact, everyone should). If not, I can see them announcing "emergency" payments to try to stifle such headlines.
The positioning of the candidates is very interesting. Tommy Tugend seems to be pivoting back to the wet left with his 'yelling at foreigners from the white cliffs' soundbite - no doubt to try and get some Stride votes and position himself as the soggy candidate of choice, before he flips back to being righter-than-right if he makes it to the members' ballot. To be fair he hasn't really changed his policies, but he is playing a very different-sounding tune. Robert Jenrick at least gets points for consistency. He remains the go-to choice for me.
Especially, as @ydoethur has pointed out, part way through the school year.
My prediction is he will take no action and look weak. If he takes action, he is personally freezing OAPs to death.
Puzzle. They must have known the WFA thing is toxic. (It is simple, the issue is to some degree genuine, it involves old people - grannie - actually suffering/dying in some cases, its a gift to the Mail and the Telegraph) So they must have chosen this hill to defend or die on. I can't see why. Can anyone?
In NC there’s still a question over whether there will be an appeal to SSC although that happens to have a GOP majority.
This is in itself highlights the big problem in the USA where the judiciary is so politicized . You do sometimes get judges just applying the law but particularly in SSCs decisions often come down to party lines .
Government sources saying that Home Office minister Diana Johnson misspoke this morning when she said that the Treasury was looking at ways to soften the impact of the winter fuel allowance cut, including a social tariff for energy bills
https://x.com/hzeffman/status/1833044173919867056
The politics might be dreadful for Labour but it makes sense in policy terms
Also they genuinely despise him. Some of the photos they find, of him, are brilliantly cruel
I just cannot comprehend it.
Pre-Starmer
Old English folk saying
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/05/tory-winter-fuel-allowance-cuts-puts-4000-lives-at-risk-claims-labour
The Conservatives rejected Labour’s claims. “This is irresponsible scaremongering by Jeremy Corbyn – who can’t be honest about the fact he is relying on his magic money tree to pay for all of his uncosted promises,” said Damian Green, the work and pensions secretary.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/winter-fuel-payment-cut-starmer-uk-politics-latest-b2609326.html
Then we can see which are the rogue polls.
Anyway people worked out how to deal with him last time round. They just ignored him
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/22/politics/donald-trump-disobey-mueller-report
“Distressing—depressing—alarming.
After everything—after January 6th, after clear evidence a second term would be far more authoritarian than the first, after the ever-increasing radicalization of MAGA world—Trump now has more support than he had in 2016 or 2020.”
https://x.com/billkristol/status/1832772391576998299?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Could be worth keeping an eye on the monthly updates at https://climate.metoffice.cloud/amoc.html
On the politics, a key long term indicator would be if the opposition party is likely to overturn the controversial policy of it takes power. On the basis of the Conservatives showing no sign of doing so, I think Starmer will be OK.
More worryingly there's actually an outside chance of frost later this week in vulnerable spots. Including the bottom of my vineyard...
For now - get those vineyard fires burning!
It doesn't take an extreme amount of switchers for the policy to be non-net-tax raising.
The poster in question thought (and I agree) that the change is unlikely to be 100% immediate - if it is brought in mid year, most will try and complete the year. The biggest hits will be to future intake.
Or, Reeves was rushed into it by Treasury officials and is now bitterly regretting being captured by Treasury Mind so soon.
Stupid. Really stupid. Is the main conclusion either way.
All this for £1b and it wont even save that once the pension credit is taken into account.
"Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006."
LOL
Otherwise I can't see their way out without major embarrassment.
The papers that serve a predominantly over 65s will offer great swathes of fan service to their readership but that won’t necessarily bear much relationship to how the labour voter base sees the issue.
Trying to enjoy my hour or so at the Oval despite having shelled out £90 for it yesterday. Couldn't get here before 12pm due to trains. Seems they learnt nothing from Lords in terms of ticket prices on the 4th day.
I’m also worried that some parents might be expecting a similar level of service…
Remarkable that WUWT is still going. Its "heyday" was in the late noughties and early 2010s when it really managed to influence particularly US policymakers and muddy the waters successfully. Conveniently coupled with a few years of warming hiatus.
I suspect a range of things were in the initial plan, to be cut. And then, one by one, shot down as being too close to Labour values. WFA was what was left....
As a Mystic Shower Curtain observed....
The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote
That was basic ineptitude
Also, they hadn’t thought through their defense tactics when queried. To the point they’ve been claiming they “had to do it or there would be a run on the pound”
Which is the argumentation of a ten year old
Still, I’m sure all of this was fully taken into account when the policy was discussed…
What every teacher gets......
A government that just won election promising meaningful change and the promise of better days, and this is what they announce as one of their very first moves?
Foolish, foolish, foolish. I think Reeves has fallen into that trap that often befalls Chancellors riding high on their own supply - trying to be too clever by half and then creating a political storm in so doing. This was her trying to trip up the Tories, and in contrast causing significant issues for the government. It’s 10p tax all over again.
A much smarter way of doing it would have been keeping it on the books this winter, announce it was going from 2025 in the budget, and then spend the intervening time working out the implementation and mitigation measures.
The problem, as Herman Kahn observed, is that "the other guys" always seem to react by doing what is most inconvenient for you, the decision maker.
There is no way out for Reeves and she has to stand by her decision or lose all creditability and even her post of COE
Even if she mitigated it the mindset that Grandma's winter fuel allowance was sacrificed for train drivers pay awards giving them £70,000 pa will remain and is going to be used ad infinutum, no matter what she does and even how true it is
It is really perverse, and shows just how poor the Treasury are, when a policy they decide would raise 1.5 billion would actually cause huge controversy and that the 800,000 pensioners who do not yet claim pension credit will now be actively targeted to claim, and in targeting them the likely cost will be billions more to be found over any perceived saving
To govern is to chose and this was Reeves first political error in her choice
Edit: I see he bought it himself but it was expedited by Tito as foreigners couldn't buy property in Yugoslavia at that point. The joys of dictatorship..
'In the late 1960s, Maclean bought the Palazzo Boschi villa on the Adriatic island of Korčula (present-day Croatia),where he spent a good part of each year.
Yugoslav legislation at the time barred foreigners from buying real-estate property, but Tito intervened to allow Maclean to do so. The town of Korčula was declared a free city, and the Macleans were declared its citizens. As soon as the purchase was registered with city authorities, the free city status was revoked.'
The state pension is forecast to increase by around £400 next year.
Pay the increase early as a lump sum this December to cope with heating.
And ensure it remains taxable so there is clawback from wealthy pensioners.
The case settled, in part because a builder being sued in that situation has to weigh the negative impact on their reputation and standing. They can find themselves in a situation where even if they won they would lose.
If it does have an effect, it will be over the long term and affect some households on the margin.
There is already a move, by a number of parents with children in private schools , to put their children in high end state schools (where they can) for sixth form. By that age, learning and study patterns are pretty much set. Add in a chunk of tutoring and it's all great.
The school (and teachers) love a bunch of hard working students who will get good grades. And the teenagers get to cosplay "I'm a state schooler" for interview at university....
So Labour had months or years to get ready for this, and their planned first move was to hurl money at overpaid train drivers and take money away from hypothermic nans. Crass
They really do need to sharpen up because that apparently large majority is built on soft sand
They spent the election campaign juggling the Ming vase so as not to frighten anyone away.
Then as soon as they are in Downing Street, they threw it at the picture of Maggie.
"Wot are YOU looking at?"
I suspect her ghost is having a bit of a chuckle.
The man is a dissembler not a thinker.
None of the "black hole" stuff will hit home because, unlike the playback they're ostensibly following from last time, they helped create this one through policy choices.