I was going to say that, but I could not believe that anyone prepared to call other posters "economically illiterate" would fail to realise it. Has he posted the wrong graph, or does he have less graph-fu than the average 8 year old?
It was almost flat at the beginning and big upturn coincided with EU, methinks it is you and cyclefree in your pomposity that are the illiterate idiots. Neither are quite as smart as you think you are , by a long way.
If Izzy and cyclefree insist on being patronising they should at least leave a space or two between their posts. As another 'economic illiterate' I read it the same way as Malcolm.
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.
They were not better than the ones at the state school I worked in in Gloucester. Admittedly the overall location was pleasanter (those woodlands).
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 ...
It will be brutal for sure. If you are poor, sick, disabled and vulnerable, watch out, you are going to be SCREWED by a repressive and mean Conservative Government.
And let's not even go into what looks a very hard Brexit. Calamity hardly does justice to what will happen to this country!!
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.
I guess there's a chance that voting for the first time and seeing some actual and dramatic (if still in progress) change as a consequence might have some sort of reinforcing effect on voting again?
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!
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.
What's he on then? He can't possibly come up with this while in his right mind, surely?
I imagine we could have a chat about the way the Right does similar things to the NHS.
However, I am getting very angry again and I am off before I explode.
"Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Was ever there a more crassly inept politician than Jeremy Corbyn, whose every impulse is to make the wrong call on everything?"
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 ...
It will be brutal for sure. If you are poor, sick, disabled and vulnerable, watch out, you are going to be SCREWED by a repressive and mean Conservative Government.
And let's not even go into what looks a very hard Brexit. Calamity hardly does justice to what will happen to this country!!
Do you actually believe what you write
Because I brought children with disabilities up in the Labour years and let me tell you things were not great as regards state provision.
David Herdson: Ow. 74% of Con voters (48% of all, remember) will 'definitely' back them. Only 51% of Lab's already paltry 24% say the same. #GE2017
Low certainty to vote isn't a big problem with a media savvy transfer friendly candidate, Macron has firmed up on that number a bit recently as the election approaches.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
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 ...
I look at the choices available, lets be honest they are the only choice and what on earth do you think she will do to the UK?
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!
It could never happen here. We lack the climate for growing bananas.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
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 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.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.
They were not better than the ones at the state school I worked in in Gloucester. Admittedly the overall location was pleasanter (those woodlands).
Compared to the secondaries in the vicinity and Coventry (where most of its pupils come from) Princethorpe is a paradise. Academically, though, it's a bit iffy. My kids did much better in their state schools than their mates at Princethorpe did (though, to be fair) on a like for like basis that is usual - state schools do outperform private schools.
The idea of a right wing press or left wing press is a CiF construct.
We get the press that people want. Or are you of the "I can see it is all right wing manipulation but no one else has the acuity to see the same thing."?
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 ...
It will be brutal for sure. If you are poor, sick, disabled and vulnerable, watch out, you are going to be SCREWED by a repressive and mean Conservative Government.
And let's not even go into what looks a very hard Brexit. Calamity hardly does justice to what will happen to this country!!
Do you actually believe what you write
Because I brought children with disabilities up in the Labour years and let me tell you things were not great as regards state provision.
I am sorry to hear that. But do you really believe that the Tories will improve matter?. Let's be honest they don't really care about folk like you and me.
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?
Me too. In the current climate Soubry deserves to be re-elected, assuming the LibDems can't topple her.
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!
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 ...
I look at the choices available, lets be honest they are the only choice and what on earth do you think she will do to the UK?
Corbyn is not a "choice" and the LibDems have no chance but they are probably where my vote will go. I think Mrs May has validated Indyref2 and as a result we will have years of political turmoil which will be a distraction the UK could do without as we sever the EU ties. The hit from the EU has not really happened yet although the much profiled EMA and Banking stuff is probably the start of the wedge (I noticed the FT this morning reporting on the UK being shut out of upcoming EU contracts)
I fear that 10 years of political turmoil will not help the country grow financially / export-wise. Whilst we are tearing ourselves apart, foreigners will be reluctant to invest.
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.
Not just confined to London.
I don't need to look in other areas, I know what the principal officers make a year in my own Service! 70k is still life fantasy pay for most of the population.
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.
There are five significant private schools in this area plus one very small one which probably wouldn't be affected - Chase Grammar in Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Abbots Bromley, Lichfield Cathedral and Denstone in Uttoxeter. The effect of this policy would in my judgement be to shut the first three overnight, and place severe pressure on Lichfield. Denstone has a different model and would probably be unaffected. That's a cool 1500 extra school places needed in the state system here in just one term. The state system is already at breaking point. This policy with its concomitant vast rise in costs would smash it entirely. 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)?
Hear Hear , Labour are just crap. Much as I hate the Tories , how could anyone vote for these labour dullards.
I wish I could vote SNP down here in London! The only progressive party with any credibility at the moment.
You clearly have paid more attention to their rhetoric than their record...
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
All this proves once again how powerful a leading indicator leadership approval ratings are. If Labour had been paying attention two years ago to Corbyn's approvals, they would have known they'd bought a one way ticket to dockside hooker territory.
Any pretence that there's anything that can be done to dissuade the electorate from meting out the bully ramming the electorate think they deserve is delusional.
All Labour can do is bend over, take it, and learn from the soreness.
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?
Me too. In the current climate Soubry deserves to be re-elected, assuming the LibDems can't topple her.
The East Mids seems to be a bastion of Tory Remainers. Soubry, Clarke, Duncan, Morgan. They may wellbe a more effective brake on May than anything else.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
And you think the Mirror and the Guardian give UKIP and the tories an easy ride? The only difference is the numbers of people reading them.
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
Q: [From ITV’s Libby Wiener] Your poll ratings suggest people do not believe you. And you attack the elite. But aren’t you just part of an Islington elite.
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
Really? I take it you don't watch or listen to the BBC, then.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
And you think the Mirror and the Guardian give UKIP and the tories an easy ride? The only difference is the numbers of people reading them.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
Corbyn's anti-elite rant would work better if the Conservatives were still led by Cameron and Osborne. It's pretty hard to portray Theresa May as on the side of the gilded elite.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
And you think the Mirror and the Guardian give UKIP and the tories an easy ride? The only difference is the numbers of people reading them.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
You obviously missed their coverage of phone hacking.
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
Really? I take it you don't watch or listen to the BBC, then.
Since we both criticise the BBC I assume it’s doing a reasonable job, as far as impartiality goes. Gets it wrong sometimes, some programmes seem biased one way or another, of course.
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.
30ks still above national average, of course.
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
And you think the Mirror and the Guardian give UKIP and the tories an easy ride? The only difference is the numbers of people reading them.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
You obviously missed their coverage of phone hacking.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
Nowhere the same. And anyway, it was true, wasn’t it?
All you are demonstrating is that you approve of the Guardian's prejudices but not the Mail's. The style is different, of course, but they are mirror images of each other.
Having said that, under the new editor the Guardian has much improved. Most of the commentators are still motivated primarily by anti-Tory prejudice, but the news coverage is now very good. The live blogs are superb.
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.
30ks still above national average, of course.
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
All the figures I can find say approximately 5% of the population earn 70k or over, and it's less than 3% for women. As I will keep saying, 70k is fantasy wages for the vast majority of us.
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!
lol - you must be barking.
One’s got to have sympathy with Mr M. There IS am inbalance in the Press coverage.
THere just might be a reason for that right now don't you think?
'Right now’ is atypical. Even in less abnormal circumstances the Centre and Centre-Left have a hard time getting sympathetic coverage of their policies.
And you think the Mirror and the Guardian give UKIP and the tories an easy ride? The only difference is the numbers of people reading them.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
You obviously missed their coverage of phone hacking.
Sorry, not with you.
The Guardian focussed on News International hacking - closing down the NoW on the basis of a lie inaccurate reporting but spent much less time covering the greater hacking by Mirror Group.
Chuka Umunna and Yvette Cooper look set to stand for the Labour leadership if Jeremy Corbyn crashes to defeat, party insiders said today.
Mr Umunna, the Streatham MP, was said to have been approached by colleagues pressing him to stand, while Ms Cooper, the former shadow home secretary, was described as “working the Tea Rooms hard” to drum up support before Parliament is dissolved.
Labour MPs say there is a growing view that an experienced figure, such as one of the pair of former frontbenchers, will be needed rather than a political newcomer if there is a challenge to Mr Corbyn after the election.
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
She will do a question time debate with an audience as per the last election with David Cameron.
The campaign is only 5 weeks so little time to arrange debates as various participants argue and even some threaten litigation.
The public interviewing Theresa May in the question time format will satisfy the public
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.
There are five significant private schools in this area plus one very small one which probably wouldn't be affected - Chase Grammar in Cannock, Stafford Grammar, Abbots Bromley, Lichfield Cathedral and Denstone in Uttoxeter. The effect of this policy would in my judgement be to shut the first three overnight, and place severe pressure on Lichfield. Denstone has a different model and would probably be unaffected. That's a cool 1500 extra school places needed in the state system here in just one term. The state system is already at breaking point. This policy with its concomitant vast rise in costs would smash it entirely. 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)?
Hear Hear , Labour are just crap. Much as I hate the Tories , how could anyone vote for these labour dullards.
I wish I could vote SNP down here in London! The only progressive party with any credibility at the moment.
You clearly have paid more attention to their rhetoric than their record...
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
She will do a question time debate with an audience as per the last election with David Cameron.
The campaign is only 5 weeks so little time to arrange debates as various participants argue and even some threaten litigation.
The public interviewing Theresa May in the question time format will satisfy the public
Nonsense. There is plenty of time. Call it for what it is - it's cowardice from her knowing she's not very good in such a situation.
Helen Goodman being honest about the election here.
How many of the 170 plus MPs opposed to Corbyn are going to come on TV interviews when they will be utterly compromised in their lack of support for him. Are we going to get a campaign only fronted by Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, and Thornberry
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
All Labour can do is bend over, take it, and learn from the soreness.
But they won't. Labour is about to reap what it has sowed. Unfortunately the sane learning to take from it is that a party needs an electable leader. Labour is not sane. Their last three leaders have been a marxist tramp with terrorist buddies, the wrong trousers, and Mrs Rochester. And a grinning narcissist who is probably the most hated man in the UK before that. An irritating welsh windbag before that. A marxist tramp with principles before that. I spot a trend. This time around all GE indications are that it'll be a total reaming - and there's no guarantee Corbyn will resign and even less that who comes next if he does will be any better. The Labour party leader is chosen by its members. Members who think Corbyn is just fucking fine and dandy. I think SDP2 beckons.
Interesting, I am just putting a model together which (I suspect) shows a similar thing. There are maybe 6 to 8 Labour seats that might (theoretically) fall to the LibDems if all went exceptionally well.
Getting more than 2 or 3 from the Conservatives will be extremely difficulty for the LibDems, simply because the Conservative vote share is up so much. There needs to be a special set of circumstances, in particular a high Remain vote share and/or a big Labour vote to squeeze. (I think we will see some tactical voting return, albeit not to 1997 to 2010 levels.)
The easiest gains for the LDs will likely be in Scotland. Unionist tactical voting is going to be as prevalent as anti-Tory voting used to be. The biggest benificiaries of this are the LDs. Still, there are no more than 2 likely gains, and another 2 possibles.
Put them altogether, and you struggle to get above about 16 or 17 seats under most circumstances. The one caveat being the possibility (and it is a genuine possibility), that this year sees Labour collapse into the low 20s, at the expense of the LibDems. (Say LibDems 23 to Labour on 20.) It's not a likely scenario. But remember, there are millions of voters who have not yet seen Jeremy Corbyn. That ignorance is one of the main reason's Labour's vote share has held up.
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
Sure. I earned £100K last year myself. But lots of us in that category are willing to pay a reasonable contribuiton to the society around us that made it possible for us to be successful - and which still places too many hurdles in the way of people who could potentially be just as successful. If that's part of creating a costed Labour programme that will help people in difficulty, what's not to like?
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
She will do a question time debate with an audience as per the last election with David Cameron.
The campaign is only 5 weeks so little time to arrange debates as various participants argue and even some threaten litigation.
The public interviewing Theresa May in the question time format will satisfy the public
Nonsense. There is plenty of time. Call it for what it is - it's cowardice from her knowing she's not very good in such a situation.
Thats your view but not mine. She is likely to win this big time and has no need to do more than a couple of high profile TV events on her own
However, as a general point, the unique circumstances of this election make predictions and assertions based on precedent (and UNS) even less convincing than usual ISTM.
Helen Goodman being honest about the election here.
How many of the 170 plus MPs opposed to Corbyn are going to come on TV interviews when they will be utterly compromised in their lack of support for him. Are we going to get a campaign only fronted by Corbyn, McDonnell, Abbott, and Thornberry
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
Chuka Umunna and Yvette Cooper look set to stand for the Labour leadership if Jeremy Corbyn crashes to defeat, party insiders said today.
Mr Umunna, the Streatham MP, was said to have been approached by colleagues pressing him to stand, while Ms Cooper, the former shadow home secretary, was described as “working the Tea Rooms hard” to drum up support before Parliament is dissolved.
Labour MPs say there is a growing view that an experienced figure, such as one of the pair of former frontbenchers, will be needed rather than a political newcomer if there is a challenge to Mr Corbyn after the election.
Two cowardly donkeys who would change nothing regarding making Labour electable. One totally useless and the other a snake oil salesman who is useless.
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
She will do a question time debate with an audience as per the last election with David Cameron.
The campaign is only 5 weeks so little time to arrange debates as various participants argue and even some threaten litigation.
The public interviewing Theresa May in the question time format will satisfy the public
Nonsense. There is plenty of time. Call it for what it is - it's cowardice from her knowing she's not very good in such a situation.
Thats your view but not mine. She is likely to win this big time and has no need to do more than a couple of high profile TV events on her own
Still a craven coward G. Not a pretty sight at all.
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
Which particular aspects of brexit negotiations do you expect to resemble a tv debate with jeremy corbyn? This calling for debates is a stale and boring convention, down to the oh-so-amusing twats in the yellow chicken suits. And that is especially so in an election where one contender is jeremy corbyn, and the other is not, because not being jeremy corbyn trumps all other considerations.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
Nowhere the same. And anyway, it was true, wasn’t it?
What the Mail wrote about Miliband's father was also based in fact wasn't it? Or did they invent those diary entries?
Loosely but of course Dacre the editor of the paper that has supported Fascism for over 80 years hid himself away and of course especially when his own father's war record came under scrutiny .
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?
I don't think I'd be a credible candidate at age 67 in a seat that I've never lived in. I agree with Anna Soubry on many issues, especially social issues and our support for Remain. But the problem with her is precisely the same thing that she used against me in 2010 - when push came to shove, I nearly always voted with the Government. I now feel that excessive loyalty wasn't in the interests of party, government or country.
Does Parliament need a critic who always backs down, or intelligent MPs on both sides who are willing to oppose their parties if necessary?
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 e first three overnight, and place severe pressure on Lichfield. Denstone has a different model and would probably be unaffected. That's a cool 1500 extra school places needed in the state system here in just one term. The state system is already at breaking point. This policy with its concomitant vast rise in costs would smash it entirely. 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)?
Hear Hear , Labour are just crap. Much as I hate the Tories , how could anyone vote for these labour dullards.
I wish I could vote SNP down here in London! The only progressive party with any credibility at the moment.
You clearly have paid more attention to their rhetoric than their record...
He looked at the reality not your CCHQ flyers
The reality of subsidising middle class uni students at the expense of poor ones. The SNP record speaks for itself.....
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
Sure. I earned £100K last year myself. But lots of us in that category are willing to pay a reasonable contribuiton to the society around us that made it possible for us to be successful - and which still places too many hurdles in the way of people who could potentially be just as successful. If that's part of creating a costed Labour programme that will help people in difficulty, what's not to like?
Experience.
Labour threw money at education and health during their time in power, and much of it was wasted or ineffective. Having a costed Labour programme is just the first step; the implementation is a heck of a lot harder.
Many people, even evil high-earners, don't mind paying more in tax as long as they think it's spent responsibly Although 'responsibly' is very much in the eye of the beholder; witness yesterday's discussion about foreign aid.
Good luck with your potential forthcoming opportunities, wherever they might be.
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
Sure. I earned £100K last year myself. But lots of us in that category are willing to pay a reasonable contribuiton to the society around us that made it possible for us to be successful - and which still places too many hurdles in the way of people who could potentially be just as successful. If that's part of creating a costed Labour programme that will help people in difficulty, what's not to like?
Me too, but there can be the same lack of insight in person. The number of times I have seen Consultant colleagues complain about their pay in front of clerical and admin staff earning 80% or more less. Talk about lack of insight.
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
Sure. I earned £100K last year myself. But lots of us in that category are willing to pay a reasonable contribuiton to the society around us that made it possible for us to be successful - and which still places too many hurdles in the way of people who could potentially be just as successful. If that's part of creating a costed Labour programme that will help people in difficulty, what's not to like?
It’s notable that average household income in the UK is around £28k (stand to be corrected, of course) and that would suggest that the starting salariy/wage of many, many people is well below £70k
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.
30ks still above national average, of course.
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
All the figures I can find say approximately 5% of the population earn 70k or over, and it's less than 3% for women. As I will keep saying, 70k is fantasy wages for the vast majority of us.
Research shows that people tend to think they are in the middle of income distribution even when they're not. Rich people hang out with rich people and so don't feel rich.
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?
I don't think I'd be a credible candidate at age 67 in a seat that I've never lived in. I agree with Anna Soubry on many issues, especially social issues and our support for Remain. But the problem with her is precisely the same thing that she used against me in 2010 - when push came to shove, I nearly always voted with the Government. I now feel that excessive loyalty wasn't in the interests of party, government or country.
Does Parliament need a critic who always backs down, or intelligent MPs on both sides who are willing to oppose their parties if necessary?
That's a refreshingly honest self-critique there Nick. Well done.
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.
I don't think it's that hard. I think it hasn't been tried hard enough. Properly resourcing HMRC would be a good start.
The Guardian, some columnists apart, doesn’t give the Tories the hard ride that, for example the Mail gives Labour and/or the LibDems. Can you imangine the Guardian doing the sort of hatchet job on Ed Millands father that the Mail did? As an example.
TV debates: Mrs May continues to avoid them. She seems obviously uncomfortable in the hurly burley of such a scene, perhasps too rough and ready for her, preferring where it is structured such as PMQ's. I feel the pressure should be maintained, it is no good having a Prime Minister who seems scared of open unstructured debate, we need to know what sort of person is conducting our negotiations.
She will do a question time debate with an audience as per the last election with David Cameron.
The campaign is only 5 weeks so little time to arrange debates as various participants argue and even some threaten litigation.
The public interviewing Theresa May in the question time format will satisfy the public
Nonsense. There is plenty of time. Call it for what it is - it's cowardice from her knowing she's not very good in such a situation.
Thats your view but not mine. She is likely to win this big time and has no need to do more than a couple of high profile TV events on her own
Still a craven coward G. Not a pretty sight at all.
Morning Malc - the opposition would be failing if they didn't use this narrative but her popularity is unlikely to be prejeudiced by her decision as the spotlight intensifies on Corbyn and his utter uselessness and Lynton Crosby plays the 'coalition of chaos' card. Lots of interesting times ahead
Comments
I do still expect Labours vote share to 25-30% still though on the day, but the brand is being tested to destruction.
And let's not even go into what looks a very hard Brexit. Calamity hardly does justice to what will happen to this country!!
I think that Corbyn's apology for offering insufficient support to people who had murdered an MP a few weeks earlier will get some attention.
I imagine we could have a chat about the way the Right does similar things to the NHS.
However, I am getting very angry again and I am off before I explode.
Have a good morning everyone.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/general-election-labour-annihilation-jeremy-corbyn
Though who could disagree with her opening para:
"Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Was ever there a more crassly inept politician than Jeremy Corbyn, whose every impulse is to make the wrong call on everything?"
Because I brought children with disabilities up in the Labour years and let me tell you things were not great as regards state provision.
Ian Bell is an ex-pupil, I think.
My father-in-law was a lab technician there for many years when it was a boarding school.
Shouldn't be an issue for Corbyn :innocent face:
The land the school is on must be worth an absolute mint.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/12/11/betting-on-labour-polling-under-20-at-the-next-general-election/
20% sub 20
50% 20-25
25% 25-30%
5% 30%+
Oh come on.
Press = what people pay to consume.
The idea of a right wing press or left wing press is a CiF construct.
We get the press that people want. Or are you of the "I can see it is all right wing manipulation but no one else has the acuity to see the same thing."?
I fear that 10 years of political turmoil will not help the country grow financially / export-wise. Whilst we are tearing ourselves apart, foreigners will be reluctant to invest.
Any pretence that there's anything that can be done to dissuade the electorate from meting out the bully ramming the electorate think they deserve is delusional.
All Labour can do is bend over, take it, and learn from the soreness.
As long as the Lib Dems get 10-39 seats I'm ahead (by a tiny margin).
Q: [From ITV’s Libby Wiener] Your poll ratings suggest people do not believe you. And you attack the elite. But aren’t you just part of an Islington elite.
Labour activists boo this question.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/apr/20/general-election-2017-corbyn-speech-greens-launch-politics-live
Good question for John McDonnell
There are a lot of people earning 70k everywhere ... many of them Public Sector buoyed up by nationally influenced payscales. Primary school headteachers, senior staff at secondary schools, Doctors, Nurse Consultants, managers in public services, LA senior staff - even Police Inspectors if you start looking at package values not basic salaries. Plus the usual private sector types.
It is not very unusual.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/29/how-do-we-know-david-cameron-has-slave-owning-ancestor
Hope that helps...
Helen Goodman being honest about the election here.
https://twitter.com/robertoroblesf/status/854987004622360577
Having said that, under the new editor the Guardian has much improved. Most of the commentators are still motivated primarily by anti-Tory prejudice, but the news coverage is now very good. The live blogs are superb.
Mr Umunna, the Streatham MP, was said to have been approached by colleagues pressing him to stand, while Ms Cooper, the former shadow home secretary, was described as “working the Tea Rooms hard” to drum up support before Parliament is dissolved.
Labour MPs say there is a growing view that an experienced figure, such as one of the pair of former frontbenchers, will be needed rather than a political newcomer if there is a challenge to Mr Corbyn after the election.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/yvette-cooper-and-chuka-umunna-set-to-make-leadership-bids-if-labour-loses-election-a3518981.html
The campaign is only 5 weeks so little time to arrange debates as various participants argue and even some threaten litigation.
The public interviewing Theresa May in the question time format will satisfy the public
http://opinium.co.uk/tory-landslide-mission-impossible/
This time around all GE indications are that it'll be a total reaming - and there's no guarantee Corbyn will resign and even less that who comes next if he does will be any better. The Labour party leader is chosen by its members. Members who think Corbyn is just fucking fine and dandy.
I think SDP2 beckons.
Getting more than 2 or 3 from the Conservatives will be extremely difficulty for the LibDems, simply because the Conservative vote share is up so much. There needs to be a special set of circumstances, in particular a high Remain vote share and/or a big Labour vote to squeeze. (I think we will see some tactical voting return, albeit not to 1997 to 2010 levels.)
The easiest gains for the LDs will likely be in Scotland. Unionist tactical voting is going to be as prevalent as anti-Tory voting used to be. The biggest benificiaries of this are the LDs. Still, there are no more than 2 likely gains, and another 2 possibles.
Put them altogether, and you struggle to get above about 16 or 17 seats under most circumstances. The one caveat being the possibility (and it is a genuine possibility), that this year sees Labour collapse into the low 20s, at the expense of the LibDems. (Say LibDems 23 to Labour on 20.) It's not a likely scenario. But remember, there are millions of voters who have not yet seen Jeremy Corbyn. That ignorance is one of the main reason's Labour's vote share has held up.
Born in 1953, first elected in 1997.
Also Jim Dowd (Lewisham West and Peng). Born in 1951, first elected in 1992
Does Parliament need a critic who always backs down, or intelligent MPs on both sides who are willing to oppose their parties if necessary?
Labour threw money at education and health during their time in power, and much of it was wasted or ineffective. Having a costed Labour programme is just the first step; the implementation is a heck of a lot harder.
Many people, even evil high-earners, don't mind paying more in tax as long as they think it's spent responsibly Although 'responsibly' is very much in the eye of the beholder; witness yesterday's discussion about foreign aid.
Good luck with your potential forthcoming opportunities, wherever they might be.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-criticism-general-election-2017-dont-support-him-you-are-a-tory-conservatives-a7692431.html
Properly resourcing HMRC would be a good start.
The odds have shifted up, and if anyone backed the 30-39 band at 8 then the under 29.5 seats at 1.83 could be a nice hedge.