Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Good point, under PR people vote for the party not the individual, he should step down.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
Mr. Jonathan, I think that's true but not the whole truth. Thatcher had and has many supporters as well as detractors. Blair's actions in Iraq alienated a lot of people who might otherwise remember him rather more fondly.
Mr. Observer, nonsense. My Islington jam association universally agreed that Corbyn is the best man for the job. We both really like him.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Good point, under PR people vote for the party not the individual, he should step down.
The problem the EU faces is that their usual stance on trade is protectionism for heavy plant, automotive and food production. These are all areas where they turn very substantial trade surpluses with the UK, so barriers become acts of self-harm.
There can be no doubt that the UK must reciprocate in kind if they attempt punishment, cherry picking or having their cake and eating it.
We have to formulate our WTO reaction plan to deal with any breakdown in the conversation, and I would guess a transition that will last no more than one year. The government will need the EU wrapped up before the dissolution of Parliament in April 2020.
The government essentially has three pots of money, worth £13-£14bn each, £40bn or so in total per annum, to fund a reaction plan.
These are WTO tariff income (Civitas estimate), overseas aid and the UK's gross contribution to the EU.
It seems feasible that the government finances will be in balance by the time we reach Brexit.
Barriers only become self harm if they reduce sales. Is there any evidence, for example, that people would stop buying BMW's in the UK because they are more expensive. Isn't that the point of them? They are a premium product. Likewise, is there any evidence that other car manufacturers would not raise their prices if they felt they had less competition?
Likewise, erecting barriers becomes self harm if you cannot source cheaper alternatives elsewhere, or within a scaleable timeframe. This would be the case for a lot of specialist equipment imported from the EU.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
If the Blairites failed, they failed in the three GE wins. 100+ seat majority, force your opponent to change sense of the word.
More correctly the blairites time has passed, as far as the members go.
As ever, it depends what you mean by Blairites. It's a very ill defined term. At present anyone who slightly disagrees with Jez can be called a Blairite.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Good point, under PR people vote for the party not the individual, he should step down.
You think he can get any lower?
I'm sure if he and Carswell could turn the clock back 3 years they'd think again. I admire them both, they left the Conservatives because they didn't approve of the way Cameron was taking things, a big shame it hasn't worked out as they hoped.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
If the Blairites failed, they failed in the three GE wins. 100+ seat majority, force your opponent to change sense of the word.
More correctly the blairites time has passed, as far as the members go.
Not sure I’d use NF as a marker for appropriate conduct.
Didn't say it was, but that was merely the most extreme example, plenty of cases of list oeople switching not quitting. I agree they should, but whether he goes Tory or Indy, everyone has accepted such defections before so if he doesn't quit, it's not a big deal.
The Labour Left do have a point, when they say that the Blairites hollowed out the party in its heartlands. The problem is that they've hollowed it out further.
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
If the Blairites failed, they failed in the three GE wins. 100+ seat majority, force your opponent to change sense of the word.
More correctly the blairites time has passed, as far as the members go.
As ever, it depends what you mean by Blairites. It's a very ill defined term. At present anyone who slightly disagrees with Jez can be called a Blairite.
Sounds about right. More correct to say perhaps that the time for anyone perceived as a blairite has passed.
The problem the EU faces is that their usual stance on trade is protectionism for heavy plant, automotive and food production. These are all areas where they turn very substantial trade surpluses with the UK, so barriers become acts of self-harm.
There can be no doubt that the UK must reciprocate in kind if they attempt punishment, cherry picking or having their cake and eating it.
We have to formulate our WTO reaction plan to deal with any breakdown in the conversation, and I would guess a transition that will last no more than one year. The government will need the EU wrapped up before the dissolution of Parliament in April 2020.
The government essentially has three pots of money, worth £13-£14bn each, £40bn or so in total per annum, to fund a reaction plan.
These are WTO tariff income (Civitas estimate), overseas aid and the UK's gross contribution to the EU.
It seems feasible that the government finances will be in balance by the time we reach Brexit.
Barriers only become self harm if they reduce sales. Is there any evidence, for example, that people would stop buying BMW's in the UK because they are more expensive. Isn't that the point of them? They are a premium product. Likewise, is there any evidence that other car manufacturers would not raise their prices if they felt they had less competition?
Likewise, erecting barriers becomes self harm if you cannot source cheaper alternatives elsewhere, or within a scaleable timeframe. This would be the case for a lot of specialist equipment imported from the EU.
The point is its fundamentally wrong that govt can impose a price hike on a company, its nobody's business how much a company sells cars for, the market will decide the price.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
I still think part of the problem here is management rather than employees and skills, which I wouldn't blame on Labour. Most people in management positions are not a product of the New Labour education system.
Reckless isn’t a consituency AM, is he. He’s a list AM, elected specifically as a UKIP rep. Surely if he resigns from UKIP, he should leave the Assembly and be replaced by the next Kipper on the list.
Maybe should if that's the case, but MEPs are list elected and they've never done that when defecting. Heck, one national front mep quit within days of election.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
If the Blairites failed, they failed in the three GE wins. 100+ seat majority, force your opponent to change sense of the word.
More correctly the blairites time has passed, as far as the members go.
As ever, it depends what you mean by Blairites. It's a very ill defined term. At present anyone who slightly disagrees with Jez can be called a Blairite.
Sounds about right. More correct to say perhaps that the time for anyone perceived as a blairite has passed.
Passed? Or merely on hold? The Tories time was passed in 2001. Tge Labour right's time was passed in 83. Nothing lasts forever. Change is rarely permanent.
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
I still think part of the problem here is management rather than employees and skills, which I wouldn't blame on Labour. Most people in management positions are not a product of the New Labour education system.
It's not the whole story, but one reason for low productivity is high employment. If we had French levels of unemployment, we'd hugely boost productivity per worker.
Speaking as a socialist, I don't see that Hamon has objectively much to lose by withdrawing in favour of somebody. If he keeps going he will clearly be fifth, which is just embarrassing for him and his party. If he endorses either Macron or Melanchon, he can claim a share in the good result.
But speaking as a former MP/candidate whoi's talked to other candidates about withdrawing, I know it's remarkably difficult to withdraw. People have been knocking themselves out for you for months, lots of your supporters will dislike whoever you endorse, and the sense of betrayal will be strong. I think he'll stick it out, and then endorse the non-Le Pen finalist.
Le Pen does seem to be weakening slowly if the polls are correct. Her score in the post-debate poll for "most convincing candidate" was only 18%. Fillon's resilience is interesting - he's down a bit but 18% or so of the electorate are still sticking by him despite an avalanche of bad news. Presumably the mainstream conservative vote who find Le Pen too extreme/vulgar and Melanchon too liberal/wet.
First full post debate poll from Leave had Le Pen still tied with Macron for the lead but I agree Hamon won't withdraw but will endorse Macron in the runoff
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
LOL, Toom Tabard has rolled out of her pit. Nicola to be reminded once again of what happens when you are shackled to a dictatorship who bleed your economy dry, mess it up to shore up their own and then get their tame idiots to point out "look a squirrel". PS: REmind who runs a balanced budget and who owes £2 trillion and still borrows £70 billion a year "O Wise One". You got any links to the UK debts and deficit and how the UK cannot solve them.
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
To put the 0.2% average annual productivity increase of the last decade into perspective UK annual productivity increased by over ten times that amount in the 1972 to 1992 period.
An era which included four recessions, four Middle Eastern crises, three miners strikes, at least two sterling crises, at least two stock market crashes, an IMF crisis, a three day week and a winter of discontent.
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
LOL, Toom Tabard has rolled out of her pit. Nicola to be reminded once again of what happens when you are shackled to a dictatorship who bleed your economy dry, mess it up to shore up their own and then get their tame idiots to point out "look a squirrel". PS: REmind who runs a balanced budget and who owes £2 trillion and still borrows £70 billion a year "O Wise One". You got any links to the UK debts and deficit and how the UK cannot solve them.
Woman of principle "once in a generation" Sturgeon......LOL.....
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
Given a majority of Labour voters backed Remain though if Labour pick a Leave backing leader it would be a gift to the LDs and could leave them in an even worse state while failing to pick up many Leavers from the Tories and UKIP
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
I still think part of the problem here is management rather than employees and skills, which I wouldn't blame on Labour. Most people in management positions are not a product of the New Labour education system.
It's not the whole story, but one reason for low productivity is high employment. If we had French levels of unemployment, we'd hugely boost productivity per worker.
How much of the UK's employment is dependent upon debt fuelled and government subsidised wealth consumption ?
Just think, the Conservatives could have avoided all the political damage that three million unemployed brought if they'd pumped a few billion more into the economy in the 1980s.
The Labour Left do have a point, when they say that the Blairites hollowed out the party in its heartlands. The problem is that they've hollowed it out further.
The Blairites also won seats like Shrewsbury, Warwick and Leamington, Enfield Southgate, Thanet and Braintree Labour had never won before
The problem the EU faces is that their usual stance on trade is protectionism for heavy plant, automotive and food production. These are all areas where they turn very substantial trade surpluses with the UK, so barriers become acts of self-harm.
There can be no doubt that the UK must reciprocate in kind if they attempt punishment, cherry picking or having their cake and eating it.
We have to formulate our WTO reaction plan to deal with any breakdown in the conversation, and I would guess a transition that will last no more than one year. The government will need the EU wrapped up before the dissolution of Parliament in April 2020.
The government essentially has three pots of money, worth £13-£14bn each, £40bn or so in total per annum, to fund a reaction plan.
These are WTO tariff income (Civitas estimate), overseas aid and the UK's gross contribution to the EU.
It seems feasible that the government finances will be in balance by the time we reach Brexit.
Barriers only become self harm if they reduce sales. Is there any evidence, for example, that people would stop buying BMW's in the UK because they are more expensive. Isn't that the point of them? They are a premium product. Likewise, is there any evidence that other car manufacturers would not raise their prices if they felt they had less competition?
Likewise, erecting barriers becomes self harm if you cannot source cheaper alternatives elsewhere, or within a scaleable timeframe. This would be the case for a lot of specialist equipment imported from the EU.
BMW is mid range rather than premium and the european automotive sector isn't restricted to this type of vehicle. Fiat, Skoda, Citreon etc.
How consumers react remains to be seen, but judging by the comments on both sides of the channel, manufacturers would prefer not to find out.
As for the EU being irreplaceable as a source of goods. I'm inclined to imagine not. The food production sector looks especially vulnerable.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
I think the massive transition costs on the Euro are playing out now. The upside is greater trade and economic activity. Reasonably benign overall, provided national governments maintain fiscal discipline without a strongly enforced central policy. Which is by no means a given.
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
I still think part of the problem here is management rather than employees and skills, which I wouldn't blame on Labour. Most people in management positions are not a product of the New Labour education system.
It's not the whole story, but one reason for low productivity is high employment. If we had French levels of unemployment, we'd hugely boost productivity per worker.
How much of the UK's employment is dependent upon debt fuelled and government subsidised wealth consumption ?
Just think, the Conservatives could have avoided all the political damage that three million unemployed brought if they'd pumped a few billion more into the economy in the 1980s.
Output of government services has shrunk as a proportion of total service output since 2010.
It's very easy to hire people cheaply, and then make them redundant, in this country, so employers do so in preference to investing in plant and machinery. In a country with stringent labour laws like France, it makes much more sense to invest in plant and machinery.
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
Its a ridiculous idea and epitomises why he's doomed to failure
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
LOL, Toom Tabard has rolled out of her pit. Nicola to be reminded once again of what happens when you are shackled to a dictatorship who bleed your economy dry, mess it up to shore up their own and then get their tame idiots to point out "look a squirrel". PS: REmind who runs a balanced budget and who owes £2 trillion and still borrows £70 billion a year "O Wise One". You got any links to the UK debts and deficit and how the UK cannot solve them.
Woman of principle "once in a generation" Sturgeon......LOL.....
Better than a twisted emigrant for sure, she has done something for Scotland other than milk it.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
Given a majority of Labour voters backed Remain though if Labour pick a Leave backing leader it would be a gift to the LDs and could leave them in an even worse state while failing to pick up many Leavers from the Tories and UKIP
This is one of Labour's problems - it is competing for Remain voters with the LibDems, Greens and Nats while the Leave voters are increasingly mopped-up by the Conservatives.
Labour can exist on a share of Remain voters but to win it needs to attract Leave voters.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
Given a majority of Labour voters backed Remain though if Labour pick a Leave backing leader it would be a gift to the LDs and could leave them in an even worse state while failing to pick up many Leavers from the Tories and UKIP
This is one of Labour's problems - it is competing for Remain voters with the LibDems, Greens and Nats while the Leave voters are increasingly mopped-up by the Conservatives.
Labour can exist on a share of Remain voters but to win it needs to attract Leave voters.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
I presume that is someone with a first in JSA talking. All it does is kill aspiration. Matters not a jot to rich people , only hits hard working pwople who try to enhance their childs future by spending every penny they hav etrying to get them a better education. Only result will be many more not being able to afford it and having to send their children to state schools and thu sharming the prospects of other children there. A stupid stupid petty mean idea.
I think the massive transition costs on the Euro are playing out now. The upside is greater trade and economic activity. Reasonably benign overall, provided national governments maintain fiscal discipline without a strongly enforced central policy. Which is by no means a given.
Blairites have failed, Brownites have failed, the Potemkin Princes have failed and now Corbyn's extremists have failed.
Perhaps they should give the EUsceptics a go:
Ronnie Campbell John Cryer Frank Field Roger Godsiff Kate Hooey Kelvin Hopkins John Mann Dennis Skinner Graham Stringer Gisela Stuart
You never know, Labour might even get back in touch with working class voters.
Given a majority of Labour voters backed Remain though if Labour pick a Leave backing leader it would be a gift to the LDs and could leave them in an even worse state while failing to pick up many Leavers from the Tories and UKIP
This is one of Labour's problems - it is competing for Remain voters with the LibDems, Greens and Nats while the Leave voters are increasingly mopped-up by the Conservatives.
Labour can exist on a share of Remain voters but to win it needs to attract Leave voters.
On every referendum that comes along - AV, Sindy, Brexit - Labour is unable to be the leading champion of one side or the other, whereas its rivals, from Tory through LibDem to SNP, are able to map out clear and principled positions. Referendums define political divisions in new ways, and Labour's perpetual position either divided or 'on the fence' is a key reason why it becomes less and less clear what the party actually stands for or who it is trying to attract.
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
I still think part of the problem here is management rather than employees and skills, which I wouldn't blame on Labour. Most people in management positions are not a product of the New Labour education system.
It's not the whole story, but one reason for low productivity is high employment. If we had French levels of unemployment, we'd hugely boost productivity per worker.
How much of the UK's employment is dependent upon debt fuelled and government subsidised wealth consumption ?
Just think, the Conservatives could have avoided all the political damage that three million unemployed brought if they'd pumped a few billion more into the economy in the 1980s.
Output of government services has shrunk as a proportion of total service output since 2010.
It's very easy to hire people cheaply, and then make them redundant, in this country, so employers do so in preference to investing in plant and machinery. In a country with stringent labour laws like France, it makes much more sense to invest in plant and machinery.
But those low cost workers are themselves dependent upon various social security entitlements and government housing and services.
Speaking as a socialist, I don't see that Hamon has objectively much to lose by withdrawing in favour of somebody. If he keeps going he will clearly be fifth, which is just embarrassing for him and his party. If he endorses either Macron or Melanchon, he can claim a share in the good result.
But speaking as a former MP/candidate whoi's talked to other candidates about withdrawing, I know it's remarkably difficult to withdraw. People have been knocking themselves out for you for months, lots of your supporters will dislike whoever you endorse, and the sense of betrayal will be strong. I think he'll stick it out, and then endorse the non-Le Pen finalist.
Le Pen does seem to be weakening slowly if the polls are correct. Her score in the post-debate poll for "most convincing candidate" was only 18%. Fillon's resilience is interesting - he's down a bit but 18% or so of the electorate are still sticking by him despite an avalanche of bad news. Presumably the mainstream conservative vote who find Le Pen too extreme/vulgar and Melanchon too liberal/wet.
Endorsing the non-Le Pen finalist is going to be difficult for Macron if it's a contest between Le Pen and Fillon, which is still a real possibility.
The first fully post debate poll that I saw had Macron 23.5% (-2%) Le Pen 23.5% (-0.5%), Fillon 19% (+1), Melenchon 17% (+2), Hamon 9% (-1). (Changes from the previous polling company's last poll a week ago in brackets). If that is sustained in other polls, it would seem to be in Hamon's gift to put Melenchon into the run off with a withdrawal and an endorsement. Or for that matter to get Macron over the finishing line with an endorsement which for him just means getting into a run off which he would be near certain to win.
The one thing, as someone from the left, that really worries me about Melenchon getting into the 2nd round is that it could easily then be a Melenchon - Le Pen contest, which basically opens up a potential path for Le Pen to win. That ought to weigh on Hamon's mind and might be a further reason why he could choose to soldier on.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
I presume that is someone with a first in JSA talking. All it does is kill aspiration. Matters not a jot to rich people , only hits hard working pwople who try to enhance their childs future by spending every penny they hav etrying to get them a better education. Only result will be many more not being able to afford it and having to send their children to state schools and thu sharming the prospects of other children there. A stupid stupid petty mean idea.
How dare they have to send their children to state school and harm the prospects of others!
I think the plan deliberately IS that many more will not be able to afford it...
Speaking as a socialist, I don't see that Hamon has objectively much to lose by withdrawing in favour of somebody. If he keeps going he will clearly be fifth, which is just embarrassing for him and his party. If he endorses either Macron or Melanchon, he can claim a share in the good result.
But speaking as a former MP/candidate whoi's talked to other candidates about withdrawing, I know it's remarkably difficult to withdraw. People have been knocking themselves out for you for months, lots of your supporters will dislike whoever you endorse, and the sense of betrayal will be strong. I think he'll stick it out, and then endorse the non-Le Pen finalist.
Le Pen does seem to be weakening slowly if the polls are correct. Her score in the post-debate poll for "most convincing candidate" was only 18%. Fillon's resilience is interesting - he's down a bit but 18% or so of the electorate are still sticking by him despite an avalanche of bad news. Presumably the mainstream conservative vote who find Le Pen too extreme/vulgar and Melanchon too liberal/wet.
Endorsing the non-Le Pen finalist is going to be difficult for Macron if it's a contest between Le Pen and Fillon, which is still a real possibility.
The first fully post debate poll that I saw had Macron 23.5% (-2%) Le Pen 23.5% (-0.5%), Fillon 19% (+1), Melenchon 17% (+2), Hamon 9% (-1). (Changes from the previous polling company's last poll a week ago in brackets). If that is sustained in other polls, it would seem to be in Hamon's gift to put Melenchon into the run off with a withdrawal and an endorsement. Or for that matter to get Macron over the finishing line with an endorsement which for him just means getting into a run off which he would be near certain to win.
The one thing, as someone from the left, that really worries me about Melenchon getting into the 2nd round is that it could easily then be a Melenchon - Le Pen contest, which basically opens up a potential path for Le Pen to win. That ought to weigh on Hamon's mind and might be a further reason why he could choose to soldier on.
Speaking as a socialist, I don't see that Hamon has objectively much to lose by withdrawing in favour of somebody. If he keeps going he will clearly be fifth, which is just embarrassing for him and his party. If he endorses either Macron or Melanchon, he can claim a share in the good result.
But speaking as a former MP/candidate whoi's talked to other candidates about withdrawing, I know it's remarkably difficult to withdraw. People have been knocking themselves out for you for months, lots of your supporters will dislike whoever you endorse, and the sense of betrayal will be strong. I think he'll stick it out, and then endorse the non-Le Pen finalist.
Le Pen does seem to be weakening slowly if the polls are correct. Her score in the post-debate poll for "most convincing candidate" was only 18%. Fillon's resilience is interesting - he's down a bit but 18% or so of the electorate are still sticking by him despite an avalanche of bad news. Presumably the mainstream conservative vote who find Le Pen too extreme/vulgar and Melanchon too liberal/wet.
Endorsing the non-Le Pen finalist is going to be difficult for Macron if it's a contest between Le Pen and Fillon, which is still a real possibility.
The first fully post debate poll that I saw had Macron 23.5% (-2%) Le Pen 23.5% (-0.5%), Fillon 19% (+1), Melenchon 17% (+2), Hamon 9% (-1). (Changes from the previous polling company's last poll a week ago in brackets). If that is sustained in other polls, it would seem to be in Hamon's gift to put Melenchon into the run off with a withdrawal and an endorsement. Or for that matter to get Macron over the finishing line with an endorsement which for him just means getting into a run off which he would be near certain to win.
The one thing, as someone from the left, that really worries me about Melenchon getting into the 2nd round is that it could easily then be a Melenchon - Le Pen contest, which basically opens up a potential path for Le Pen to win. That ought to weigh on Hamon's mind and might be a further reason why he could choose to soldier on.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
We have c. 500, 000 students at private schools in the UK. Fees can range from the thousands to the tens of thousands.
How much would free school meals for all primary children all year cost? It's c. 5 million (banding on uk stats is 3.5 million between 5-9 and 3.6 in 10-14). School dinners are charged at around £3 a day, so £15 a week for 5 million children for 39 weeks a year means gives £2.9 billion needed.
You're looking at getting a VAT bill on the fees each of those students of, on average, nearly £6000 a year. Guess that assumes that the fees being paid are c. £30k a year.
The problem the EU faces is that their usual stance on trade is protectionism for heavy plant, automotive and food production. These are all areas where they turn very substantial trade surpluses with the UK, so barriers become acts of self-harm.
There can be no doubt that the UK must reciprocate in kind if they attempt punishment, cherry picking or having their cake and eating it.
We have to formulate our WTO reaction plan to deal with any breakdown in the conversation, and I would guess a transition that will last no more than one year. The government will need the EU wrapped up before the dissolution of Parliament in April 2020.
The government essentially has three pots of money, worth £13-£14bn each, £40bn or so in total per annum, to fund a reaction plan.
These are WTO tariff income (Civitas estimate), overseas aid and the UK's gross contribution to the EU.
It seems feasible that the government finances will be in balance by the time we reach Brexit.
Barriers only become self harm if they reduce sales. Is there any evidence, for example, that people would stop buying BMW's in the UK because they are more expensive. Isn't that the point of them? They are a premium product. Likewise, is there any evidence that other car manufacturers would not raise their prices if they felt they had less competition?
Likewise, erecting barriers becomes self harm if you cannot source cheaper alternatives elsewhere, or within a scaleable timeframe. This would be the case for a lot of specialist equipment imported from the EU.
BMW is mid range rather than premium and the european automotive sector isn't restricted to this type of vehicle. Fiat, Skoda, Citreon etc.
How consumers react remains to be seen, but judging by the comments on both sides of the channel, manufacturers would prefer not to find out.
As for the EU being irreplaceable as a source of goods. I'm inclined to imagine not. The food production sector looks especially vulnerable.
That includes the UK's food production sector, of course. What we will also find extremely hard to find new sources for are high-priced goods, backed by patents, that are produced by a restricted number of companies. Look at the German stranglehold on machinery and equipment, for example. Our manufacturers will still need it, they will find it hard to get elsewhere and tariffs will just make it more expensive.
But if there’s one thing the voters won’t forgive, it’s being played for mugs.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
All governments spin. And don't all major deals take months of prep but generally get announced, for example, when a leader is on a foreign trip?
Honestly, I'm sure the trip has been a big publicity stunt, but I'm not feeling the outrage. That's what politicians do.
The Scottish Sun's objection seems to be that the SNP government has downplayed the role of Scottish Enterprise in these efforts so as not to detract limelight from "Woman of Principle" Sturgeon....
We have c. 500, 000 students at private schools in the UK. Fees can range from the thousands to the tens of thousands.
How much would free school meals for all primary children all year cost? It's c. 5 million (banding on uk stats is 3.5 million between 5-9 and 3.6 in 10-14). School dinners are charged at around £3 a day, so £15 a week for 5 million children for 39 weeks a year means gives £2.9 billion needed.
You're looking at getting a VAT bill on the fees each of those students of, on average, nearly £6000 a year. Guess that assumes that the fees being paid are c. £30k a year.
Thoughts?
Very many public schools (secondary) are within a smidge of £30k/year.
Of course as you say there is a whole bunch of private schools with fees in a very broad band but if that's what the calcs show then it shows Lab's ineptitude as they have assumed every public schoolboy is at a £30k/year school.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
I presume that is someone with a first in JSA talking. All it does is kill aspiration. Matters not a jot to rich people , only hits hard working pwople who try to enhance their childs future by spending every penny they hav etrying to get them a better education. Only result will be many more not being able to afford it and having to send their children to state schools and thu sharming the prospects of other children there. A stupid stupid petty mean idea.
How dare they have to send their children to state school and harm the prospects of others!
I think the plan deliberately IS that many more will not be able to afford it...
so costing taxpayers more money or making state schools worse you cretinous halfwit. Typical loser wanting to bleed people dry , not happy that you are being looked after by these people you want to beggar them so they become losers like you.
We have c. 500, 000 students at private schools in the UK. Fees can range from the thousands to the tens of thousands.
How much would free school meals for all primary children all year cost? It's c. 5 million (banding on uk stats is 3.5 million between 5-9 and 3.6 in 10-14). School dinners are charged at around £3 a day, so £15 a week for 5 million children for 39 weeks a year means gives £2.9 billion needed.
You're looking at getting a VAT bill on the fees each of those students of, on average, nearly £6000 a year. Guess that assumes that the fees being paid are c. £30k a year.
Thoughts?
Corbyn is bonkers, that's all you need to know. He wants to destroy private education.
The Labour Left do have a point, when they say that the Blairites hollowed out the party in its heartlands. The problem is that they've hollowed it out further.
No, no. The Labour party itself is full to bursting these days. It's the party's vote that has been hollowed out. Has anyone done a ratio of party members:national vote?
We have c. 500, 000 students at private schools in the UK. Fees can range from the thousands to the tens of thousands.
How much would free school meals for all primary children all year cost? It's c. 5 million (banding on uk stats is 3.5 million between 5-9 and 3.6 in 10-14). School dinners are charged at around £3 a day, so £15 a week for 5 million children for 39 weeks a year means gives £2.9 billion needed.
You're looking at getting a VAT bill on the fees each of those students of, on average, nearly £6000 a year. Guess that assumes that the fees being paid are c. £30k a year.
Thoughts?
Typical lefty economics, it is just envy and does not even think that most of teh parents can afford school meals. If the idiots at least looked to do something real about really poor people it might be OK but it is anything but that.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
F1: just perusing the markets idly, again. Not a tip (I'm looking at it but undecided currently) but there's a startling divergence between Massa (1.28) and Stroll (2.75) for points.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
LOL, a Tax on aspiration , that will get them elected for certain
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
LOL, a Tax on aspiration , that will get them elected for certain
While "The 1%" was transparent bolleaux, "The 7%" is a legitimate concept.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
Pointy-elbowed parents send their children to good State schools, not bad ones.
I think the massive transition costs on the Euro are playing out now. The upside is greater trade and economic activity. Reasonably benign overall, provided national governments maintain fiscal discipline without a strongly enforced central policy. Which is by no means a given.
Intentional trade has increased for the eurozone other than Germany since the advent of the Euro although not by as much. It hasn't increased for the UK. Which perhaps removes an argument for the UK staying in the EU. By being semi-detached we're not getting the full benefits of membership. (And have also avoided the very considerable costs of the Euro too, which may be now be playing out).
Edit: the currency is a multiplier. Germany does well fundamentally because it supplies products that people want to buy.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
The elite is already entrenched. The only way that will change is to focus relentlessly on improving our state education system. The more people invested in that the better.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
Pointy-elbowed parents send their children to good State schools, not bad ones.
And they turn bad schools into good ones. See London.
All these people fretting about tariffs need to relax, the Chinese will make us anything we need. Then watch the German reaction to EU tariffs
That would involve us scrapping intellectual property laws. Watch everyone's reaction to that.
I've no idea why you think Germany is the only country with the capacity and capability to make things. Who knows, leaving the EU might prompt us to start making things again.
Either way, ring Mr BMW and ask him if a tariff on his cars will be good for his business.
I'm afraid your stance is so entrenched you've lost all sense of reason and perspective.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
Pointy-elbowed parents send their children to good State schools, not bad ones.
Not if they don't live nearby in an inflated priced local house. And they have a propensity and incentive to make bad schools less bad.
Mr. Topping/Mr. (Malcolm) G, indeed. It'd thin out the middle. Millionaires would be fine, many people would be unaffected, but those making sacrifices to send their children to public school and can just about afford it would not be able to any longer.
There'd be no more tax money flowing into the system, but demand would rise.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
The elite is already entrenched. The only way that will change is to focus relentlessly on improving our state education system. The more people invested in that the better.
It is a government nudge crossed with market incentive.
As I said, it's difficult to criticise as a Labour policy if, as @BannedInParis has noted, it stacks up mathematically (big if).
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
Pointy-elbowed parents send their children to good State schools, not bad ones.
And they turn bad schools into good ones. See London.
That is more highly motivated immigrants in inner London academies, middle class white parents send their children to top comprehensive or faith schools in the leafy suburbs or to grammar schools if they do not send them private
All these people fretting about tariffs need to relax, the Chinese will make us anything we need. Then watch the German reaction to EU tariffs
That would involve us scrapping intellectual property laws. Watch everyone's reaction to that.
I've no idea why you think Germany is the only country with the capacity and capability to make things. Who knows, leaving the EU might prompt us to start making things again.
Either way, ring Mr BMW and ask him if a tariff on his cars will be good for his business.
I'm afraid your stance is so entrenched you've lost all sense of reason and perspective.
Of course BMW would want to avoid tariffs. But it is not the zero sum game some think it is. Increasing the price of BMW cars may well cause the company some harm, but it has a strong brand and that may well see it through. People want to buy cars with the BMW marque.
If you do not understand that a lot of high-priced premium products that we currently import from EU countries are protected by IP laws and could not be replicated without immediately attracting infringement suits, then I am afraid our conversation is pointless. There is a reason why Chinese-made smartphones are very hard to buy in the US and Europe, for example: patents.
I've no idea why you think Germany is the only country with the capacity and capability to make things. Who knows, leaving the EU might prompt us to start making things again.
Either way, ring Mr BMW and ask him if a tariff on his cars will be good for his business.
I'm afraid your stance is so entrenched you've lost all sense of reason and perspective.
You can't run a JIT manufacturing line if your supplier is onthe other side of the World without massive (and expensive) stock piles.
And Mr BMW will be dlighted if tariffs make a fully manufactured BMW cheaper than a Jaguar built with Chinese parts.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
The elite is already entrenched. The only way that will change is to focus relentlessly on improving our state education system. The more people invested in that the better.
It is a government nudge crossed with market incentive.
As I said, it's difficult to criticise as a Labour policy if, as @BannedInParis has noted, it stacks up mathematically (big if).
Very big if. Most independent schools are day schools that don't charge anything like 30K a year. And the potential tax base would be bound to shrink a bit if you hike fees by 20%.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of limiting free school meals to primary schools either. Do they stop eating when they reach 12?
We have c. 500, 000 students at private schools in the UK. Fees can range from the thousands to the tens of thousands.
How much would free school meals for all primary children all year cost? It's c. 5 million (banding on uk stats is 3.5 million between 5-9 and 3.6 in 10-14). School dinners are charged at around £3 a day, so £15 a week for 5 million children for 39 weeks a year means gives £2.9 billion needed.
You're looking at getting a VAT bill on the fees each of those students of, on average, nearly £6000 a year. Guess that assumes that the fees being paid are c. £30k a year.
Thoughts?
The are weaknesses in the the state education sector. Food is not one of them. I think the VAT/school meals policy fails to cost the impact of moving X0,000 pupils from private to state sectors if the price of private education is raised.
Team Jezzas have got a new tax hike proposal tomorrow....VAT on private school fees to pay for free school meals for ALL.
So 1% increase in NI for middle class self employed bad, 20% on school fees for middle class good...
As Corbyn policies go, that's not a bad one. It's difficult to mount a substantive objection other than it'll trigger a rash of glum looking, crossed armed middle class arsehole photos in the Daily Mail.
In principle, yes. But it feels like "let's think of a policy that suits our agenda" than one that really connects with the public. At the end of the day most parents will feed their children without that job being taken on by the State
As ever it's the unintended consequences. Yes it might force some pointy-elbowed parents to send their children to the local comp with all the undoubted benefit that would bring, but it would also entrench the "elite" and perhaps exacerbate what divide there is between factions within society.
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
Pointy-elbowed parents send their children to good State schools, not bad ones.
And they turn bad schools into good ones. See London.
Nothing to with London receiving more funding per pupil ... than, for example, Labour-run Wales.
Comments
Mr. Observer, nonsense. My Islington jam association universally agreed that Corbyn is the best man for the job. We both really like him.
Likewise, erecting barriers becomes self harm if you cannot source cheaper alternatives elsewhere, or within a scaleable timeframe. This would be the case for a lot of specialist equipment imported from the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39504339
https://twitter.com/ecb/status/849881836025249792
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/labourproductivity/timeseries/lzvb/prdy
The last year in which productivity growth exceed 2% was as far back as 2003 while the average annual increase during the last decade has been a mighty 0.2%.
Now lets remember some of the things we were told:
1) 'Education, Education, Education' will give a much more skilled workforce
2) Increased immigration will lead to a higher skilled, harder working workforce
3) An increasingly service based economy will be more productive
4) Having London as a 'World City' will boost economic output
Doesn't look to be working does it.
In other news, I'm having a Colonoscopy later today so haven't eaten for about 12 hours. All this talk of school meals is making me hungry!
Still works, I guess.
And there is no doubt, the government spin machine has spun the First Minister’s US trip into orbit. They are boasting that Nicola Sturgeon will be coming home from the States with multi-million-pound investment deals. In fact the truth is that all these deals were signed and sealed weeks, if not months ago.
If Nicola Sturgeon played any part in securing that business — and it looks like she didn’t — she didn’t do it single handed and she didn’t do it overnight. .....Now that the whole thing has been exposed, it makes the FM’s world tour of America look a lot less like a trade mission and a lot more like a taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.
But when Nicola Sturgeon returns to Scotland she will find a stack of figures on her desk, all of them pointing to a stagnant and stuttering home economy that’s performing well behind that of the rest of the UK.
Maybe it’s time to give that a wee bit of attention too.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/828509/government-pr-machine-boasting-of-multi-million-pound-deals-on-nicola-sturgeons-us-tour-which-were-actually-agreed-months-ago/
Honestly, I'm sure the trip has been a big publicity stunt, but I'm not feeling the outrage. That's what politicians do.
PS: REmind who runs a balanced budget and who owes £2 trillion and still borrows £70 billion a year "O Wise One". You got any links to the UK debts and deficit and how the UK cannot solve them.
An era which included four recessions, four Middle Eastern crises, three miners strikes, at least two sterling crises, at least two stock market crashes, an IMF crisis, a three day week and a winter of discontent.
Just think, the Conservatives could have avoided all the political damage that three million unemployed brought if they'd pumped a few billion more into the economy in the 1980s.
How consumers react remains to be seen, but judging by the comments on both sides of the channel, manufacturers would prefer not to find out.
As for the EU being irreplaceable as a source of goods. I'm inclined to imagine not. The food production sector looks especially vulnerable.
It was Blair's good fortune that he came to power with a strong economy and a peaceful world.
It's very easy to hire people cheaply, and then make them redundant, in this country, so employers do so in preference to investing in plant and machinery. In a country with stringent labour laws like France, it makes much more sense to invest in plant and machinery.
Economic strength? Chronic state underfunding to undo and dot com crash?
Labour can exist on a share of Remain voters but to win it needs to attract Leave voters.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-04-05/euro-saves-germany-slaughters-pigs-feeds-blics
But speaking as a former MP/candidate whoi's talked to other candidates about withdrawing, I know it's remarkably difficult to withdraw. People have been knocking themselves out for you for months, lots of your supporters will dislike whoever you endorse, and the sense of betrayal will be strong. I think he'll stick it out, and then endorse the non-Le Pen finalist.
Le Pen does seem to be weakening slowly if the polls are correct. Her score in the post-debate poll for "most convincing candidate" was only 18%. Fillon's resilience is interesting - he's down a bit but 18% or so of the electorate are still sticking by him despite an avalanche of bad news. Presumably the mainstream conservative vote who find Le Pen too extreme/vulgar and Melanchon too liberal/wet.
Endorsing the non-Le Pen finalist is going to be difficult for Macron if it's a contest between Le Pen and Fillon, which is still a real possibility.
The first fully post debate poll that I saw had Macron 23.5% (-2%) Le Pen 23.5% (-0.5%), Fillon 19% (+1), Melenchon 17% (+2), Hamon 9% (-1). (Changes from the previous polling company's last poll a week ago in brackets). If that is sustained in other polls, it would seem to be in Hamon's gift to put Melenchon into the run off with a withdrawal and an endorsement. Or for that matter to get Macron over the finishing line with an endorsement which for him just means getting into a run off which he would be near certain to win.
The one thing, as someone from the left, that really worries me about Melenchon getting into the 2nd round is that it could easily then be a Melenchon - Le Pen contest, which basically opens up a potential path for Le Pen to win. That ought to weigh on Hamon's mind and might be a further reason why he could choose to soldier on.
I think the plan deliberately IS that many more will not be able to afford it...
The first fully post debate poll that I saw had Macron 23.5% (-2%) Le Pen 23.5% (-0.5%), Fillon 19% (+1), Melenchon 17% (+2), Hamon 9% (-1). (Changes from the previous polling company's last poll a week ago in brackets). If that is sustained in other polls, it would seem to be in Hamon's gift to put Melenchon into the run off with a withdrawal and an endorsement. Or for that matter to get Macron over the finishing line with an endorsement which for him just means getting into a run off which he would be near certain to win.
The one thing, as someone from the left, that really worries me about Melenchon getting into the 2nd round is that it could easily then be a Melenchon - Le Pen contest, which basically opens up a potential path for Le Pen to win. That ought to weigh on Hamon's mind and might be a further reason why he could choose to soldier on.
Ignore all that please, I'll repost.
The first fully post debate poll that I saw had Macron 23.5% (-2%) Le Pen 23.5% (-0.5%), Fillon 19% (+1), Melenchon 17% (+2), Hamon 9% (-1). (Changes from the previous polling company's last poll a week ago in brackets). If that is sustained in other polls, it would seem to be in Hamon's gift to put Melenchon into the run off with a withdrawal and an endorsement. Or for that matter to get Macron over the finishing line with an endorsement which for him just means getting into a run off which he would be near certain to win.
The one thing, as someone from the left, that really worries me about Melenchon getting into the 2nd round is that it could easily then be a Melenchon - Le Pen contest, which basically opens up a potential path for Le Pen to win. That ought to weigh on Hamon's mind and might be a further reason why he could choose to soldier on.
We have c. 500, 000 students at private schools in the UK. Fees can range from the thousands to the tens of thousands.
How much would free school meals for all primary children all year cost? It's c. 5 million (banding on uk stats is 3.5 million between 5-9 and 3.6 in 10-14). School dinners are charged at around £3 a day, so £15 a week for 5 million children for 39 weeks a year means gives £2.9 billion needed.
You're looking at getting a VAT bill on the fees each of those students of, on average, nearly £6000 a year. Guess that assumes that the fees being paid are c. £30k a year.
Thoughts?
"Try a fiver on Mr Fillon". Dear me.
Of course as you say there is a whole bunch of private schools with fees in a very broad band but if that's what the calcs show then it shows Lab's ineptitude as they have assumed every public schoolboy is at a £30k/year school.
Has anyone done a ratio of party members:national vote?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/vat-fees-greedy-private-schools-coming/
Macron 25% (-1)
Le Pen 24% (-1)
Fillon 18% ( nc)
Melenchon 17% (+3.5)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
That said, it is difficult to argue in principle that this is something the Labour Party should not be doing.
F1: just perusing the markets idly, again. Not a tip (I'm looking at it but undecided currently) but there's a startling divergence between Massa (1.28) and Stroll (2.75) for points.
Edit: the currency is a multiplier. Germany does well fundamentally because it supplies products that people want to buy.
Either way, ring Mr BMW and ask him if a tariff on his cars will be good for his business.
I'm afraid your stance is so entrenched you've lost all sense of reason and perspective.
Mr. Topping/Mr. (Malcolm) G, indeed. It'd thin out the middle. Millionaires would be fine, many people would be unaffected, but those making sacrifices to send their children to public school and can just about afford it would not be able to any longer.
There'd be no more tax money flowing into the system, but demand would rise.
Very class war.
As I said, it's difficult to criticise as a Labour policy if, as @BannedInParis has noted, it stacks up mathematically (big if).
If you do not understand that a lot of high-priced premium products that we currently import from EU countries are protected by IP laws and could not be replicated without immediately attracting infringement suits, then I am afraid our conversation is pointless. There is a reason why Chinese-made smartphones are very hard to buy in the US and Europe, for example: patents.
And Mr BMW will be dlighted if tariffs make a fully manufactured BMW cheaper than a Jaguar built with Chinese parts.
I'm not sure I follow the logic of limiting free school meals to primary schools either. Do they stop eating when they reach 12?
I think the VAT/school meals policy fails to cost the impact of moving X0,000 pupils from private to state sectors if the price of private education is raised.
Labour treats its heartlands with contempt.
That is why it is losing them (vide Scotland).