It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
It appears corbyn job wants not only to label us all Tories now, but all rich Tories.
I would be really enjoying the total destruction of the Corbyn left if it did not involve the coronation of Theresa May. It's a shame that she is the price we must pay for the humiliation of the far left.
You have to destroy to rebuild. Ten years from now we'll probably be talking about an imminent Labour landslide,
Indeed, 20 years ago, we were.
The journey from landslide to disaster for both parties was 13-14 years so we can assume 2032 will be the next big Conservative disaster.
I'm not convinced - I think it will happen before that.
I suspect here in East Ham Stephen Timms probably doesn't see his 35,000 majority as being under serious threat. I think he would be an interesting Labour leader but I'm in a minority of one on that I expect.
Last time he got 77% of the vote on a 60% turnout. I've not heard much talk about turnout - will some Conservatives bother if it appears a one-horse race ? Here I'm wondering if we'll get above 50% turnout. On that basis, Timms would be back with a 15,000 majority I'd imagine.
Catching the top of the hour sky news with jezza in full on rant mode, I have a headache after 2 minutes of it, let alone 2 months. He sounds like the nutters you get at speakers corner.
He IS one of the nutters you get at speakers corner.
targetting the rich is fair game but that 70k figure should be 100k. 100k is a good figure to run with...
It's arbitrary, but it just feels like a good cut off if we try to define rich - I'd double and then some my wages if I was on 70k, I'd consider it very well off, but possibly not rich, but I odn't know that anyone could claim to be merely well off if on 6 figures.
£70k in London is far from rich, I can assure you of that.
Be interesting to see how that message goes down in places like Bristol west...Packed full of rich professionals and students from rich professionals...But then the greens are equally nutty.
I would be really enjoying the total destruction of the Corbyn left if it did not involve the coronation of Theresa May. It's a shame that she is the price we must pay for the humiliation of the far left.
You have to destroy to rebuild. Ten years from now we'll probably be talking about an imminent Labour landslide,
Indeed, 20 years ago, we were.
The journey from landslide to disaster for both parties was 13-14 years so we can assume 2032 will be the next big Conservative disaster.
I'm not convinced - I think it will happen before that.
I suspect here in East Ham Stephen Timms probably doesn't see his 35,000 majority as being under serious threat. I think he would be an interesting Labour leader but I'm in a minority of one on that I expect.
Last time he got 77% of the vote on a 60% turnout. I've not heard much talk about turnout - will some Conservatives bother if it appears a one-horse race ? Here I'm wondering if we'll get above 50% turnout. On that basis, Timms would be back with a 15,000 majority I'd imagine.
We got barely below 60% turnout in 2001 on a foregone conclusion, so I'd expect something in that range for this one.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
The figure is still important - too low and the anti-aspiration message hits home hard. If it is generally accepted, the blowback is lessened, even if it still has an impact.
There's no way VAT on schools would put two thirds out of business. Either parents would pay more, schools would cut costs or some combination of the two.
FFS.
Most private schools run on margins of about 2%. I know there are exceptions like Eton and Harrow but they are unusual. It is a business with high overheads and low income streams. You think they could absorb a 20% rise in costs on that basis?
Most parents who pay for private schooling have to live right on the margins in order to do so. In Bristol, at Redland school where I used to do a lot of work in music, it was extremely rare to see a parent with a car less than four years old, and about half of all holidays were spent camping in Devon. Do you think they could afford a 20% rise? Could they heck. And remember if even half of them can't, the school shuts.
SNIP Classes of 75 would appear possible. Thanks a bunch for wishing that on me.
There is a hell of a lot of ignorance about the reality of private schooling and why it persists even though the concept is unpopular. Corbyn, for a start, doesn't get how it just about keeps the state sector afloat in this country. The majority is not based on wealthy people - it is based on middle income people for whom personal comfort is less important than the quality of their child's education. This policy would smash the model. That's clearly the intention. Well, I've no quarrel with people who oppose private education in principle. But to destroy the state sector to destroy the private sector? Criminal insanity. If by a chance in a million Corbyn wins and enacts it I'm launching a private prosecution against him for lying on his nomination papers (he still has to declare he's sane, doesn't he)?
I'd imagine most of the rise would be made up with cost cutting. But the price elasticity of a whole class of education will not be as high as to put two thirds of schools out of business.
The average cost of sending a kid to a private school is up 550% over past 25 years. This is not a sector afraid of raising prices.
It's over £15k/year for day school. They're not paying the teachers loads more. A lot of it is going into a (taxpayer subsidised) school facilities arms race. New sports facilities, theatres, lovely grounds, state of the art computer labs etc...
The idea is not to smash the sector. It is to make sure that it is fairly taxed as a business.... Which it clearly is!
By contrast i do disagree strongly with those who oppose private schools in principle. Parents have the right to pay for tutors, private schools etc. for their children if they want.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
targetting the rich is fair game but that 70k figure should be 100k. 100k is a good figure to run with...
It's arbitrary, but it just feels like a good cut off if we try to define rich - I'd double and then some my wages if I was on 70k, I'd consider it very well off, but possibly not rich, but I odn't know that anyone could claim to be merely well off if on 6 figures.
£70k in London is far from rich, I can assure you of that.
Most of the UK does not live in London, I can assure you of that
TM seems to have calculated that enough remain Tories will stay with her to target UKIP and Labour leavers with her Brexit policy.
I am not one of those who will stay. I may be a Conservative party member but I am voting Lib Dem this election after the Daily Mail headlines today. My seat is SNP solid so it will make little difference but it is the principle.
I never thought I would see the split up of the UK but today is the first day that I can imagine it happening.
Unionist parties may actually gain some seats from the SNP
Unfortunately that does not really speak to the longer term chances of the union. They did better than coukd have been dreamed last time, losing a handful of seats doesn't make them not the most popular party in Scotland and a few percentage points from victory.
If the SNP lose any seats though May will use that as an excuse to ignore Sturgeon's indyref2 demands for the foreseeable future
I'm glad you see it as a mere excuse.
A pretty poor one too. There were good, sound reasons for delaying the demands before the GE was called, but they don't look sustainable anymore, claiming the qualitative difference between a GE and an IndyRef is so significant as to make one ok and the other not does not stack up in my view.
Before the GE was called the reasons were that Brexit was too important to negotiate and have Independence debated at the same time and that the time wasn't right until the negotiations were over and we knew what alternatives Scotland would be choosing between.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
The figure is still important - too low and the anti-aspiration message hits home hard. If it is generally accepted, the blowback is lessened, even if it still has an impact.
It's not a great message for Labour, but not something the Tories need to bang on relentlessly about - £70k is alot of money in the places I'm betting on !
And remember if even half of them can't, the school shuts.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind,
Yes, never mind. I mean it's not as though the local state schools can't pick up all those extra pupils. They're not short of money or anything. They've got lots of teachers and ample classrooms.
Labour's members - shitting all over one of the groups that should be rock-solid for them after Gove and Morgan to try and leave their lives of privilege behind them.
Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?
and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves
Surely they are back by now?
I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.
we.re still on hols in the Midlands
Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)
Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.
malc - if you could stop being an utter cockwomble for 5 minutes you would see I replied in the original thread.
If you want to frame something around over/under 50 SNPs MPs post the GE then would be delighted to have a sporting wager.
So you are back peddling then , you were talking about 10 or more SNP losses, now down to half that. However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
Barry Gardiner now having a right go at billy bunter on sky about being biased to the tories. I wonder if this is going to be labours tactic?
He looks completely ridiculous.
So did trump...Is probably the thinking. With the BBC article talking about how corbyn is going to go on about fighting the establishment and the media.
Barry Gardiner is actually better than looking like a poundshop trump.
targetting the rich is fair game but that 70k figure should be 100k. 100k is a good figure to run with...
It's arbitrary, but it just feels like a good cut off if we try to define rich - I'd double and then some my wages if I was on 70k, I'd consider it very well off, but possibly not rich, but I odn't know that anyone could claim to be merely well off if on 6 figures.
£70k in London is far from rich, I can assure you of that.
Most of the UK does not live in London, I can assure you of that
Indeed, but a large minority do live here, or in the Home Counties, where salaries and cost of living are pegged to the London economy.
And remember if even half of them can't, the school shuts.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind,
Yes, never mind. I mean it's not as though the local state schools can't pick up all those extra pupils. They're not short of money or anything. They've got lots of teachers and ample classrooms.
Labour's members - shitting all over one of the groups that should be rock-solid for them after Gove and Morgan to try and leave their lives of privilege behind them.
(By the way, your punctuation is a bit off.)
Nothing of value will be lost if a few third rate Dotheboys have to be shuttered.
For combined odds of just under 1/2. I'd be very surprised if Labour went under the 100 mark and not much less surprised at present if they got 200 or more.
Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?
and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves
Surely they are back by now?
I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.
we.re still on hols in the Midlands
Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)
Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.
malc - if you could stop being an utter cockwomble for 5 minutes you would see I replied in the original thread.
If you want to frame something around over/under 50 SNPs MPs post the GE then would be delighted to have a sporting wager.
So you are back peddling then , you were talking about 10 or more SNP losses, now down to half that. However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
What's that old saying, it's always quietest before the Scottish Tory Surge?
TM seems to have calculated that enough remain Tories will stay with her to target UKIP and Labour leavers with her Brexit policy.
I am not one of those who will stay. I may be a Conservative party member but I am voting Lib Dem this election after the Daily Mail headlines today. My seat is SNP solid so it will make little difference but it is the principle.
I never thought I would see the split up of the UK but today is the first day that I can imagine it happening.
Unionist parties may actually gain some seats from the SNP
Unfortunately that does not really speak to the longer term chances of the union. They did better than coukd have been dreamed last time, losing a handful of seats doesn't make them not the most popular party in Scotland and a few percentage points from victory.
If the SNP lose any seats though May will use that as an excuse to ignore Sturgeon's indyref2 demands for the foreseeable future
I'm glad you see it as a mere excuse.
A pretty poor one too. There were good, sound reasons for delaying the demands before the GE was called, but they don't look sustainable anymore, claiming the qualitative difference between a GE and an IndyRef is so significant as to make one ok and the other not does not stack up in my view.
Just so. I look forward to certain parties on here quantifying exactly what constitutes a decisive, strong mandate that allows a leader and her party to to follow through on their stated aims. I strongly suspect that the figures will differ south and north of the Tweed.
Simple.
50%+ of the vote for separatist parties. That's an unanswerable demand for a second referendum.
You managed it handsomely last time - around 51.5%. Are you saying you are not confident of doing as well again?
The high probability of that figure being reached plus torpedoing her own argument that a referendum would be too disruptive is one of the reasons I am very surprised May went for an election.
That's an unanswerable demand for UDI. First Indy referendum called after SNP got 45% of vote. EU referendum called after Tories got 37% of the vote.
Of course if you're saying Tessy needs 50%+ for her as yet undefined Brexitier than a Brexity thing Brexit, I salute your consistency.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
The figure is still important - too low and the anti-aspiration message hits home hard. If it is generally accepted, the blowback is lessened, even if it still has an impact.
It's not a great message for Labour, but not something the Tories need to bang on relentlessly about - £70k is alot of money in the places I'm betting on !
Indeed arguing that £70 000 is Just About Managing, rather than Rich is just what Labour needs Tories to say. It will not go down well with Kipper and Labour voters in Leaverstan.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
I chatted to a checkout lady at my local supermarket yesterday, and asked her if she was excited by the upcoming election. To my surprise, she said she was. She also said that the referendum was the first time she had ever voted, and was definitely going to vote this time.
(I didn't ask who for).
She was (being charitable) in her fifties, yet it was the first time she had voted. Perhaps a referendum effect might increase turnout on what would otherwise be a low-turnout affair?
Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?
and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves
Surely they are back by now?
I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.
we.re still on hols in the Midlands
Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)
Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.
malc - if you could stop being an utter cockwomble for 5 minutes you would see I replied in the original thread.
If you want to frame something around over/under 50 SNPs MPs post the GE then would be delighted to have a sporting wager.
So you are back peddling then , you were talking about 10 or more SNP losses, now down to half that. However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
What's that old saying, it's always quietest before the Scottish Tory Surge?
You have no chance Ruth, come out of hiding, been hiding for over a week now.
I chatted to a checkout lady at my local supermarket yesterday, and asked her if she was excited by the upcoming election. To my surprise, she said she was. She also said that the referendum was the first time she had ever voted, and was definitely going to vote this time.
(I didn't ask who for).
She was (being charitable) in her fifties, yet it was the first time she had voted. Perhaps a referendum effect might increase turnout on what would otherwise be a low-turnout affair?
It is very strange. People do seem to want to vote on a GE, which normally means they want to kick the government in the nuts, but the polling suggests totally the opposite.
I chatted to a checkout lady at my local supermarket yesterday, and asked her if she was excited by the upcoming election. To my surprise, she said she was. She also said that the referendum was the first time she had ever voted, and was definitely going to vote this time.
(I didn't ask who for).
She was (being charitable) in her fifties, yet it was the first time she had voted. Perhaps a referendum effect might increase turnout on what would otherwise be a low-turnout affair?
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
The figure is still important - too low and the anti-aspiration message hits home hard. If it is generally accepted, the blowback is lessened, even if it still has an impact.
It's not a great message for Labour, but not something the Tories need to bang on relentlessly about - £70k is alot of money in the places I'm betting on !
Indeed arguing that £70 000 is Just About Managing, rather than Rich is just what Labour needs Tories to say. It will not go down well with Kipper and Labour voters in Leaverstan.
Exactly. If the election becomes about this - it's much better for Labour.
That's why i think 70k is actually better (politically) than 150k say. Catches some influential people who don't know they are rich and it becomes more of a story.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
We already know that. Insofar as it transferring greater richer to lower earners is never going to happen in a million years. Was always a bizarre working class fantasy.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
The figure is still important - too low and the anti-aspiration message hits home hard. If it is generally accepted, the blowback is lessened, even if it still has an impact.
It's not a great message for Labour, but not something the Tories need to bang on relentlessly about - £70k is alot of money in the places I'm betting on !
Indeed arguing that £70 000 is Just About Managing, rather than Rich is just what Labour needs Tories to say. It will not go down well with Kipper and Labour voters in Leaverstan.
Funny thing is when newspapers do articles about JAM families £70k is often on the low end of those depicted!
The Tories shouldn't bang on about it, but let it seep in that to John McDonnell £70k is rich. The message is clear enough without over-egging it, the merely "well off" can figure out what it means.
Barry Gardiner now having a right go at billy bunter on sky about being biased to the tories. I wonder if this is going to be labours tactic?
Yup, when you watch the 83, 87 and 92 election coverage the default position of Labour is to blame reporting of their product rather than admit that the product was crap and nobody was interested in buying it.
Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?
and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves
Surely they are back by now?
I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.
we.re still on hols in the Midlands
Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)
Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.
malc - if you could stop being an utter cockwomble for 5 minutes you would see I replied in the original thread.
If you want to frame something around over/under 50 SNPs MPs post the GE then would be delighted to have a sporting wager.
So you are back peddling then , you were talking about 10 or more SNP losses, now down to half that. However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
Would be a waste of time arguing what the SNP starting point is 56 or 53 ... But your terms are agreeable - if you want we can add that if exactly 50 then both donate to charity - or not.
Barry Gardiner now having a right go at billy bunter on sky about being biased to the tories. I wonder if this is going to be labours tactic?
Yup, when you watch the 83, 87 and 92 election coverage the default position of Labour is to blame reporting of their product rather than admit that the product was crap and nobody was interested in buying it.
The left-wing loons screaming bias at the broadcast media sound as deranged as the right-wing loons who routinely do it.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
The figure is still important - too low and the anti-aspiration message hits home hard. If it is generally accepted, the blowback is lessened, even if it still has an impact.
It's not a great message for Labour, but not something the Tories need to bang on relentlessly about - £70k is alot of money in the places I'm betting on !
Indeed arguing that £70 000 is Just About Managing, rather than Rich is just what Labour needs Tories to say. It will not go down well with Kipper and Labour voters in Leaverstan.
Exactly. If the election becomes about this - it's much better for Labour.
That's why i think 70k is actually better (politically) than 150k say. Catches some influential people who don't know they are rich and it becomes more of a story.
It is just plain stupid. None of the money will reach the people lower down and it will piss off the people who vote and thus will ensure that you get the real good kicking you deserve sooner than you expected. It will just encourage ways to get round it etc and help no-one. Labour as ever desperate to kill aspiration and hard work.
Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?
and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves
Surely they are back by now?
I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.
we.re still on hols in the Midlands
Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)
Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.
malc - if you could stop being an utter cockwomble for 5 minutes you would see I replied in the original thread.
If you want to frame something around over/under 50 SNPs MPs post the GE then would be delighted to have a sporting wager.
So you are back peddling then , you were talking about 10 or more SNP losses, now down to half that. However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
Would be a waste of time arguing what the SNP starting point is 56 or 53 ... But your terms are agreeable - if you want we can add that if exactly 50 then both donate to charity - or not.
I'd like to nominate the scottish economy as a worthy charity.
Labour MPs fear a general election bloodbath after a top pollster told them a quarter of the Parliamentary party could lose their seats in June.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
The problem with 'soaking the rich' is that there simply isn't enough of them to actually raise any meaningful money. It always seeps down to middle and average earners paying more.
Labour MPs fear a general election bloodbath after a top pollster told them a quarter of the Parliamentary party could lose their seats in June.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
We already know that. Insofar as it transferring greater richer to lower earners is never going to happen in a million years. Was always a bizarre working class fantasy.
Labour should campaign for the Workers Brexit vs the Bosses Brexit.
There may well be a red bus with a £350 million per week slogan available somewhere...
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
We already know that. Insofar as it transferring greater richer to lower earners is never going to happen in a million years. Was always a bizarre working class fantasy.
This 70k thing does show the great inequality in the country. You London boys probably do believe 70k a year ain't no great shakes, but that's more than double my annual pay. As I've said, I've lived ok with the choices I've made and don't begrudge higher earners a penny, but Londoners ain't going to get any sympathy from the rest of the country if they can't make ends meet on 70 grand a year. Brexit didn't create the faultiness in Britain, it just made them visible.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
Not to worry. You will be poorer following Brexit, but you will probably not notice, if you believe that is a win for Brexit.
Something like - "I pledge allegiance to the glorious Corbyn, and to the Republic which he will create, one Nation under Marx, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all Party members"
Labour MPs fear a general election bloodbath after a top pollster told them a quarter of the Parliamentary party could lose their seats in June.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
Labour MPs fear a general election bloodbath after a top pollster told them a quarter of the Parliamentary party could lose their seats in June.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
The problem with 'soaking the rich' is that there simply isn't enough of them to actually raise any meaningful money. It always seeps down to middle and average earners paying more.
It would play well with the punters though. Let the rich pay.
Labour MPs fear a general election bloodbath after a top pollster told them a quarter of the Parliamentary party could lose their seats in June.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
The problem with 'soaking the rich' is that there simply isn't enough of them to actually raise any meaningful money. It always seeps down to middle and average earners paying more.
You might want to have a look at the wealth distribution in the UK?
Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".
Good stuff Nick. But I wonder if you could be persuaded out of Broxtowe? I would vote for Soubry in a flash, because I hate what the Tories have become and want as many Tories with concerns over their party's direction elected as possible.
I wonder if your undoubted talents might be best deployed elsewhere?
There's no way VAT on schools would put two thirds out of business. Either parents would pay more, schools would cut costs or some combination of the two.
FFS.
Most private schools run on margins of about 2%. I know there are exceptions like Eton and Harrow but they are unusual. It is a business with high overheads and low income streams. You think they could absorb a 20% rise in costs on that basis?
Most parents who pay for private schooling have to live right on the margins in order to do so. In Bristol, at Redland school where I used to do a lot of work in music, it was extremely rare to see a parsnip ew sports facilities, theatres, lovely grounds, state of the art computer labs etc...
The idea is not to smash the sector. It is to make sure that it is fairly taxed as a business.... Which it clearly is!
By contrast i do disagree strongly with those who oppose private schools in principle. Parents have the right to pay for tutors, private schools etc. for their children if they want.
One other thing, my youngest went to a private school for about 2 and a half years.
It was a specialist school for children with conditions like Autism and Dyslexia.
We forced the State to send him there after a lengthy and expensive and soul destroying battle because the State school system had failed him utterly.
We had a broken, crushed young boy who we were told would never be able to write for himself and would fall further and further behind each year.
He ended up a school refuser.
2 and a half years later we have a completely different son, he can read he can write and is back in the State system studying for his GCSE's and is a much happier lad.
Oh, and he is moving up through the sets in various subjects.
Children with those conditions can have a torrid time in mainstream, but some time out to get the skills they need and importantly de-stress and gain confidence and they can have a good and fulfilling educational experience
The cost? it was the same as sending him to the state sector (we know this as we had to force the authority to provide costs - they had to revise their costs up several times - who can say why they were so reluctant to provide accurate figures.
Even years later I am so angry about what the system put my family through, it damn near broke my wife - You could never argue they had the child's best interests at heart, at times it was clear he was the last thing on their mind.
Do we really want to close down that avenue for desperate kids and their parents?
The problem McDonnell has with the £70k figure is that MPs earn £74k so he is labelling himself, Corbyn and the entire PLP as filthy rich whilst promoting an anti-wealth agenda. It is criminally inept.
The fact that there's a website full of crap that supposedly helps Corbyn yet actually points out why he's the worst option for PM ever put forward by a major party is amazing.
The fact that there's a website full of crap that supposedly helps Corbyn yet actually points out why he's the worst option for PM ever put forward by a major party is amazing.
People will see the website and obviously vote for him.
Chatted to Regional Office about standing (yes I'm considering it, contrary to previous intentions - all hands to the pumps etc.). The official said drily "It's a bit quiet here really, I was preparing for World War III and all we've got is an election".
I'd imagine most of the rise would be made up with cost cutting. But the price elasticity of a whole class of education will not be as high as to put two thirds of schools out of business.
The average cost of sending a kid to a private school is up 550% over past 25 years. This is not a sector afraid of raising prices.
It's over £15k/year for day school. They're not paying the teachers loads more. A lot of it is going into a (taxpayer subsidised) school facilities arms race. New sports facilities, theatres, lovely grounds, state of the art computer labs etc...
The idea is not to smash the sector. It is to make sure that it is fairly taxed as a business.... Which it clearly is!
By contrast i do disagree strongly with those who oppose private schools in principle. Parents have the right to pay for tutors, private schools etc. for their children if they want.
Rubbish from start to finish. In London the average cost is just over 15,000, countrywide it's about 13,000 and is heavily skewed by London where a very large number of private schools are (in the north it's under 10,000). Looking at the figures, the increases have been below inflation.
These facilities - have you ever actually been to a private school? I was surprised at Redland and Princethorpe (where I had an interview) to find out how many classrooms were in portacabins. Technology in the state sector is miles better too - largely thanks to Brown splurging money at it (he had his good points). The arms race is largely a myth based on the top few schools. Indeed, in my experience state schools often have far better facilities. The only cost to cut would therefore be staff salaries - and they are on average lower in the independent sector anyway although as class sizes are smaller they tend to have less work (20 books to mark instead of 37 sounds rather nice). So again, your idea of cutting costs is completely wrong.
Since around half of private schools are businesses not charities anyway and therefore not entitled to claim tax relief - three of those five I mentioned are, with one a subsidiary of the Church of England and therefore only Stafford Grammar acting as an official charity - your point is again wrong (and since Corbyn has also vowed to directly strip tax relief from schools run as charities, how you link it to this policy I am not sure).
So you are running with a policy that is a fail on every level, ignoring the reality of the situation, overlooking the fundamental illogicality of the proposal, because you believe Corbyn should go after private education (or rather, a mythical construct of private education that bears little resemblance to the reality) even though the result will be to massively increase pressure on the state system at a time when it is already at breaking point. And then you say you have no objection to it in principle? I have to say I find that unconvincing.
However it is extremely instructive to see how even moderate Labour types care about the policy and not about the evidence behind it or the outcome. No wonder you've ended up with a half-witted drunken Fascist as leader.
I would be really enjoying the total destruction of the Corbyn left if it did not involve the coronation of Theresa May. It's a shame that she is the price we must pay for the humiliation of the far left.
You have to destroy to rebuild. Ten years from now we'll probably be talking about an imminent Labour landslide,
Indeed, 20 years ago, we were.
The journey from landslide to disaster for both parties was 13-14 years so we can assume 2032 will be the next big Conservative disaster.
I'm not convinced - I think it will happen before that.
I suspect here in East Ham Stephen Timms probably doesn't see his 35,000 majority as being under serious threat. I think he would be an interesting Labour leader but I'm in a minority of one on that I expect.
Last time he got 77% of the vote on a 60% turnout. I've not heard much talk about turnout - will some Conservatives bother if it appears a one-horse race ? Here I'm wondering if we'll get above 50% turnout. On that basis, Timms would be back with a 15,000 majority I'd imagine.
@stodge Apols if you've already answered this. Are you organizing a GE drinks do/Piss up in the Finborough Arms this year?
Barry Gardiner now having a right go at billy bunter on sky about being biased to the tories. I wonder if this is going to be labours tactic?
Yup, when you watch the 83, 87 and 92 election coverage the default position of Labour is to blame reporting of their product rather than admit that the product was crap and nobody was interested in buying it.
But we don't have a free and fair press. The press as well as the establishment is Tory. If this was happening in a third world country everyone would be crying 'banana republic' and the like!
The problem with 'soaking the rich' is that there simply isn't enough of them to actually raise any meaningful money. It always seeps down to middle and average earners paying more.
You might want to have a look at the wealth distribution in the UK?
I think richest ten% have about half.
Which is meaningless in terms of income tax.
If you want a wealth tax fine, then argue for that.
Remember the top 1% of earners already pay a quarter of income tax charged by the government.
Labour MPs fear a general election bloodbath after a top pollster told them a quarter of the Parliamentary party could lose their seats in June.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
Wow, if it transpires as some predict they are facing a real bloodbath.
Something still makes me think May increases her majority substantially but by not as much as many will predict. Nothing to really base that off though, polls are all pointing to a massacre so more of a gut feeling than anything really.
The fact that there's a website full of crap that supposedly helps Corbyn yet actually points out why he's the worst option for PM ever put forward by a major party is amazing.
People will see the website and obviously vote for him.
The problem with 'soaking the rich' is that there simply isn't enough of them to actually raise any meaningful money. It always seeps down to middle and average earners paying more.
You might want to have a look at the wealth distribution in the UK?
I think richest ten% have about half.
I think the richest 10 per cent have much more than half.
The problem is that it requires very significant effort and resources to go after the very rich. Middle and average earners normally end up paying because they are easier prey.
It is hard to soak the very rich, because they can buy all the umbrellas they need.
Still can't get over that ludicrous poll last night. Labour on 24%? Who could believe that?
and thats when all the Con voters are supposedly on hols skiing or sunning themselves
Surely they are back by now?
I mentioned to my wife that it looks like I would be spending time up in Blairgowrie again this election as it is a target Tory seat. She suggested I pop into the High School and teach some maths whilst I was there. The High School in John Swinney's seat (Minister for Education) wrote to parents asking if they could help as the exams approached as they didn't have enough maths teachers. Not sure about Salmond but the SNP's obsession with constitutional matters, as opposed to, you know, running the country, just might bite them this time.
we.re still on hols in the Midlands
Ive a bet with malc and JPJ2 re Salmond. More on the "brave" end of the spectrum but should provide 7 weeks of crack as I try to get malc to cough up early :-)
Pity TGOHF was not as good at putting his money where his mouth is, he ran away when asked to back his position.
malc - if you could stop being an utter cockwomble for 5 minutes you would see I replied in the original thread.
If you want to frame something around over/under 50 SNPs MPs post the GE then would be delighted to have a sporting wager.
So you are back peddling then , you were talking about 10 or more SNP losses, now down to half that. However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
Would be a waste of time arguing what the SNP starting point is 56 or 53 ... But your terms are agreeable - if you want we can add that if exactly 50 then both donate to charity - or not.
Harry I would rather impoverish you, lets just say 49 or more to SNP I win , less than 49 and you can have money and/or choose where it goes. I will give my winnings to my local hospice in any case.
We need May to lose to setup one of the greatest events in history.
Trump's state visit to Pm Corbyn.
Let's make it happen.
Whilst that would be a sight to behold.
Your man couldn't run a chip shop let alone a party - what the feck do you think he and his merry band of trots will do the country?
I imagine a lot of people will be doing all they can to keep him well away - this coalition of tory haters isn't going to help either as it just shows a possible route to power for the left wing rabble rousers and their anti semitic and hamas supporting fellow travelers.
targetting the rich is fair game but that 70k figure should be 100k. 100k is a good figure to run with...
It's arbitrary, but it just feels like a good cut off if we try to define rich - I'd double and then some my wages if I was on 70k, I'd consider it very well off, but possibly not rich, but I odn't know that anyone could claim to be merely well off if on 6 figures.
£70k in London is far from rich, I can assure you of that.
Most of the UK does not live in London, I can assure you of that
Indeed, but a large minority do live here, or in the Home Counties, where salaries and cost of living are pegged to the London economy.
Rather them than me, although some of the countryside around there is lovely.
I chatted to a checkout lady at my local supermarket yesterday, and asked her if she was excited by the upcoming election. To my surprise, she said she was. She also said that the referendum was the first time she had ever voted, and was definitely going to vote this time.
(I didn't ask who for).
She was (being charitable) in her fifties, yet it was the first time she had voted. Perhaps a referendum effect might increase turnout on what would otherwise be a low-turnout affair?
It is very strange. People do seem to want to vote on a GE, which normally means they want to kick the government in the nuts, but the polling suggests totally the opposite.
That's a very good point. The referendum might have more than one effect on UK politics.
The problem with 'soaking the rich' is that there simply isn't enough of them to actually raise any meaningful money. It always seeps down to middle and average earners paying more.
You might want to have a look at the wealth distribution in the UK?
I think richest ten% have about half.
Yes but they don't all pay the taxes, it is the bottom half of that layer , the ones that are not rich that pay most of the taxes.
So you are running with a policy that is a fail on every level, ignoring the reality of the situation, overlooking the fundamental illogicality of the proposal, because you believe Corbyn should go after private education (or rather, a mythical construct of private education that bears little resemblance to the reality) even though the result will be to massively increase pressure on the state system at a time when it is already at breaking point. And then you say you have no objection to it in principle? I have to say I find that unconvincing.
However it is extremely instructive to see how even moderate Labour types care about the policy and not about the evidence behind it or the outcome. No wonder you've ended up with a half-witted drunken Fascist as leader.
I dont think Corbyn drinks...
That is Populism for you (here the left wing version), it is not about sensible rationality. It is about blaming others for the problems of the country.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
We already know that. Insofar as it transferring greater richer to lower earners is never going to happen in a million years. Was always a bizarre working class fantasy.
This 70k thing does show the great inequality in the country. You London boys probably do believe 70k a year ain't no great shakes, but that's more than double my annual pay. As I've said, I've lived ok with the choices I've made and don't begrudge higher earners a penny, but Londoners ain't going to get any sympathy from the rest of the country if they can't make ends meet on 70 grand a year. Brexit didn't create the faultiness in Britain, it just made them visible.
Agreed.
Of course the sad thing is many will be forced to support the Conservatives in the coming election, despite their ideology in large part contributing to these disparities. We need a proper opposition in this country that isn't run on the delusions of the middle class.
Phil Cowley: Note that 4% is lower than the percentage of Brits who think the moon landings were fake
I'm no brass eyed conspiracy nut but the chance of a Labour majority must be considerably lower than Elvis being found riding Shergar on the dark side of the moon.
Barry Gardiner now having a right go at billy bunter on sky about being biased to the tories. I wonder if this is going to be labours tactic?
Yup, when you watch the 83, 87 and 92 election coverage the default position of Labour is to blame reporting of their product rather than admit that the product was crap and nobody was interested in buying it.
But we don't have a free and fair press. The press as well as the establishment is Tory. If this was happening in a third world country everyone would be crying 'banana republic' and the like!
And remember if even half of them can't, the school shuts.
Oh dear. How sad. Never mind,
Yes, never mind. I mean it's not as though the local state schools can't pick up all those extra pupils. They're not short of money or anything. They've got lots of teachers and ample classrooms.
Labour's members - shitting all over one of the groups that should be rock-solid for them after Gove and Morgan to try and leave their lives of privilege behind them.
(By the way, your punctuation is a bit off.)
Nothing of value will be lost if a few third rate Dotheboys have to be shuttered.
Listen, you dogmatic idiot, it's not private schools I'm worried about it's the state sector having to pick up the pieces. If you genuinely believe we can absorb the impact of this policy at this moment you are as stupid as Angela Rayner. And it wouldn't be a few it would be lot.
Why was I ever so naive as to think the party of Aneurin Bevan and Emmanuel Shinwell cared about poor people? They only hate the rich and are out to get them. Who cares about the mind-bending damage they inflict on the poor along the way? Only me it would seem.
Theresa May was wrong. Labour are the nasty party. Proven brutally on this thread. And as a Plaid Cymru friend of mine said after trying to get something vaguely coherent out of Alun Michael, utterly thick to boot.
I'd imagine most of the rise would be made up with cost cutting. But the price elasticity of a whole class of education will not be as high as to put two thirds of schools out of business.
The average cost of sending a kid to a private school is up 550% over past 25 years. This is not a sector afraid of raising prices.
It's over £15k/year for day school. They're not paying the teachers loads more. A lot of it is going into a (taxpayer subsidised) school facilities arms race. New sports facilities, theatres, lovely grounds, state of the art computer labs etc...
The idea is not to smash the sector. It is to make sure that it is fairly taxed as a business.... Which it clearly is!
By contrast i do disagree strongly with those who oppose private schools in principle. Parents have the right to pay for tutors, private schools etc. for their children if they want.
Rubbish from start to finish. In London the average cost is just over 15,000, countrywide it's about 13,000 and is heavily skewed by London where a very large number of private schools are (in the north it's under 10,000). Looking at the figures, the increases have been below inflation.
These facilities - have you ever actually been to a private school? I was surprised at Redland and Princethorpe (where I had an interview) to find out how many classrooms were in portacabins. Technology in the state sector is miles better too - largely thanks to Brown splurging money at it (he had his good points). The arms race is largely a myth based on the top few schools. Indeed, in my experience state schools often have far better facilities. The only cost to cut would therefore be staff salaries - and they are on average lower in the independent sector anyway although as class sizes are smaller they tend to have less work (20 books to mark instead of 37 sounds rather nice). So again, your idea of cutting costs is completely wrong.
Since around half of private schools are businesses not charities anyway and therefore not entitled to claim tax relief - three of those five I mentioned are, with one a subsidiary of the Church of England and therefore only Stafford Grammar acting as an official charity - your point is again wrong (and since Corbyn has also vowed to directly strip tax relief from schools run as charities, how you link it to this policy I am not sure).
Princethorpe I know very well. I was married in the Church there. The facilities at the school are far grander than anything the state sector offers - especially with regards to sport.
So you are running with a policy that is a fail on every level, ignoring the reality of the situation, overlooking the fundamental illogicality of the proposal, because you believe Corbyn should go after private education (or rather, a mythical construct of private education that bears little resemblance to the reality) even though the result will be to massively increase pressure on the state system at a time when it is already at breaking point. And then you say you have no objection to it in principle? I have to say I find that unconvincing.
However it is extremely instructive to see how even moderate Labour types care about the policy and not about the evidence behind it or the outcome. No wonder you've ended up with a half-witted drunken Fascist as leader.
I dont think Corbyn drinks...
That is Populism for you (here the left wing version), it is not about sensible rationality. It is about blaming others for the problems of the country.
Perhaps he should start , he may see a bit of reality in his cups.
It isn't the figure of what is rich, it is the rhetotic that is totally anti-aspiarational and the real fear is that it won't be long until everybody gets whacked. You can point at lots of historical incidents of this.
They came for the £70k earners but I did not speak up for them because I only earned £50k. Then they came for the £60k earners but I did not speak up for them...
When they come for us sub 30kers, then we know Brexit really has failed!
We already know that. Insofar as it transferring greater richer to lower earners is never going to happen in a million years. Was always a bizarre working class fantasy.
This 70k thing does show the great inequality in the country. You London boys probably do believe 70k a year ain't no great shakes, but that's more than double my annual pay. As I've said, I've lived ok with the choices I've made and don't begrudge higher earners a penny, but Londoners ain't going to get any sympathy from the rest of the country if they can't make ends meet on 70 grand a year. Brexit didn't create the faultiness in Britain, it just made them visible.
Take a look at what council officials in various areas earn - Sunderland being a prime example if I recall.
We need May to lose to setup one of the greatest events in history.
Trump's state visit to Pm Corbyn.
Let's make it happen.
Whilst that would be a sight to behold.
Your man couldn't run a chip shop let alone a party - what the feck do you think he and his merry band of trots will do the country?
I imagine a lot of people will be doing all they can to keep him well away - this coalition of tory haters isn't going to help either as it just shows a possible route to power for the left wing rabble rousers and their anti semitic and hamas supporting fellow travelers.
I agree Corbyn could not run a country (except into the ground) but there is no chance of that happening. I worry more about what Mrs May will do to the UK ...
Comments
It appears corbyn job wants not only to label us all Tories now, but all rich Tories.
The journey from landslide to disaster for both parties was 13-14 years so we can assume 2032 will be the next big Conservative disaster.
I'm not convinced - I think it will happen before that.
I suspect here in East Ham Stephen Timms probably doesn't see his 35,000 majority as being under serious threat. I think he would be an interesting Labour leader but I'm in a minority of one on that I expect.
Last time he got 77% of the vote on a 60% turnout. I've not heard much talk about turnout - will some Conservatives bother if it appears a one-horse race ? Here I'm wondering if we'll get above 50% turnout. On that basis, Timms would be back with a 15,000 majority I'd imagine.
We so need a "Like" button on PB
1-5 Manchester Mayoralty
1-2 Leigh maybe.
https://twitter.com/thejeremyvine/status/854982830467813378
https://tinyurl.com/mo8xlnt
Labour to come 3rd or 4th there maybe
But the price elasticity of a whole class of education will not be as high as to put two thirds of schools out of business.
The average cost of sending a kid to a private school is up 550% over past 25 years.
This is not a sector afraid of raising prices.
It's over £15k/year for day school. They're not paying the teachers loads more. A lot of it is going into a (taxpayer subsidised) school facilities arms race. New sports facilities, theatres, lovely grounds, state of the art computer labs etc...
The idea is not to smash the sector. It is to make sure that it is fairly taxed as a business.... Which it clearly is!
By contrast i do disagree strongly with those who oppose private schools in principle. Parents have the right to pay for tutors, private schools etc. for their children if they want.
The GE hasn't changed any of that.
Labour's members - shitting all over one of the groups that should be rock-solid for them after Gove and Morgan to try and leave their lives of privilege behind them.
(By the way, your punctuation is a bit off.)
However I am happy to bet £20 that SNP will have 49 or more as a split the difference option.
Barry Gardiner is actually better than looking like a poundshop trump.
oh boy - that could have been fun
100-149 seats (Labour) - 3/1 (with BetFred)
150-199 seats (Labour) - 11/8
For combined odds of just under 1/2. I'd be very surprised if Labour went under the 100 mark and not much less surprised at present if they got 200 or more.
First Indy referendum called after SNP got 45% of vote.
EU referendum called after Tories got 37% of the vote.
Of course if you're saying Tessy needs 50%+ for her as yet undefined Brexitier than a Brexity thing Brexit, I salute your consistency.
Probably not much point.
I chatted to a checkout lady at my local supermarket yesterday, and asked her if she was excited by the upcoming election. To my surprise, she said she was. She also said that the referendum was the first time she had ever voted, and was definitely going to vote this time.
(I didn't ask who for).
She was (being charitable) in her fifties, yet it was the first time she had voted. Perhaps a referendum effect might increase turnout on what would otherwise be a low-turnout affair?
That's why i think 70k is actually better (politically) than 150k say. Catches some influential people who don't know they are rich and it becomes more of a story.
The Tories shouldn't bang on about it, but let it seep in that to John McDonnell £70k is rich. The message is clear enough without over-egging it, the merely "well off" can figure out what it means.
Labour backbenchers were left ashen-faced after a private meeting with a polling guru who warned all Labour MPs with majorities of 5,000 votes or less are at serious risk....
....And some MPs fear the result on June 8 could be even worse given the current polling.
One Labour MP, with a normally-healthy majority of 8,000, said they saw their seat as a ‘tight marginal’.
Another said: “I’ve spoken to MPs with 7,000 or 8,000 majorities who are convinced they are going to lose. That could mean we lose 70 seats or more – a total disaster.”
And a Shadow Cabinet source admitted: “I think anyone under 10,000 is on the front line, to be honest.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-fear-election-bloodbath-quarter-10260139
There may well be a red bus with a £350 million per week slogan available somewhere...
That seat only goes Tory if I'm the candidate, though I hoping to get the Tatton nomination.
I think richest ten% have about half.
I wonder if your undoubted talents might be best deployed elsewhere?
Who is going to win Belfast East ?
@PickardJE: Ian Lavery, Labour elections coordinator, just said breakfast instead of Brexit then ad libbed "sausage bacon eggs...working class food."
These facilities - have you ever actually been to a private school? I was surprised at Redland and Princethorpe (where I had an interview) to find out how many classrooms were in portacabins. Technology in the state sector is miles better too - largely thanks to Brown splurging money at it (he had his good points). The arms race is largely a myth based on the top few schools. Indeed, in my experience state schools often have far better facilities. The only cost to cut would therefore be staff salaries - and they are on average lower in the independent sector anyway although as class sizes are smaller they tend to have less work (20 books to mark instead of 37 sounds rather nice). So again, your idea of cutting costs is completely wrong.
Since around half of private schools are businesses not charities anyway and therefore not entitled to claim tax relief - three of those five I mentioned are, with one a subsidiary of the Church of England and therefore only Stafford Grammar acting as an official charity - your point is again wrong (and since Corbyn has also vowed to directly strip tax relief from schools run as charities, how you link it to this policy I am not sure).
However it is extremely instructive to see how even moderate Labour types care about the policy and not about the evidence behind it or the outcome. No wonder you've ended up with a half-witted drunken Fascist as leader.
Apols if you've already answered this.
Are you organizing a GE drinks do/Piss up in the Finborough Arms this year?
If you want a wealth tax fine, then argue for that.
Remember the top 1% of earners already pay a quarter of income tax charged by the government.
Something still makes me think May increases her majority substantially but by not as much as many will predict. Nothing to really base that off though, polls are all pointing to a massacre so more of a gut feeling than anything really.
The problem is that it requires very significant effort and resources to go after the very rich. Middle and average earners normally end up paying because they are easier prey.
It is hard to soak the very rich, because they can buy all the umbrellas they need.
I will give my winnings to my local hospice in any case.
Your man couldn't run a chip shop let alone a party - what the feck do you think he and his merry band of trots will do the country?
I imagine a lot of people will be doing all they can to keep him well away - this coalition of tory haters isn't going to help either as it just shows a possible route to power for the left wing rabble rousers and their anti semitic and hamas supporting fellow travelers.
Yes, as a remainer I would say May will only have a mandate for hard Brexit if 50%+ vote for parties supporting it.
Unfortunately that is almost certain to happen.
Phil Cowley: Note that 4% is lower than the percentage of Brits who think the moon landings were fake
That is Populism for you (here the left wing version), it is not about sensible rationality. It is about blaming others for the problems of the country.
Of course the sad thing is many will be forced to support the Conservatives in the coming election, despite their ideology in large part contributing to these disparities. We need a proper opposition in this country that isn't run on the delusions of the middle class.
Why was I ever so naive as to think the party of Aneurin Bevan and Emmanuel Shinwell cared about poor people? They only hate the rich and are out to get them. Who cares about the mind-bending damage they inflict on the poor along the way? Only me it would seem.
Theresa May was wrong. Labour are the nasty party. Proven brutally on this thread. And as a Plaid Cymru friend of mine said after trying to get something vaguely coherent out of Alun Michael, utterly thick to boot.
Not just confined to London.