Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.
Then the penny might drop.
That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
I was, of course, aware that I was banned. And, being banned, I stopped visiting the site. Therefore, how would I ever know that the ban was lifted? Unless the site owner had the courtesy to inform me, by email for example. Which they didn’t. I found out in 2012/13 because James told me.
I have been banned on PB at least four times. Only on the very first occasion did I get the courtesy of an email explaining why. Ironically, the given reason was that I had supplied an incorrect email address. Which begs the question: how did I receive the email informing me of the ban? Indeed, it is still that identical email address I am using for logging in right now.
I was absent from PB for about five years until recently. I only discovered the ban was lifted by accident. Again.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
Justin is right. The problem the LDs face is that in the strongly Remain Labour seats there is always a strongly Remain Labour MP. Zeichner's majority will fall, but he has over 50 per cent of the vote to start with. He won't lose Cambridge.
You can tell the Labour seats that are likely to fall because the MPs are stepping down (Mann, Farrelly, de Piero).
Labour will lose Leaver seats in the Midlands (and perhaps also some in the North & Wales).
Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.
Young women were particularly hard hit by the Coalition and in 2015 are the most anti-Tory/pro-Labour demographic.
Whether it is more loyalty to Labour, or anti-Coalition I'm not sure, but the strength of Labour support relative to the Lib Dems among women doesn't surprise me.
From anecdotal experience (my mother) I suspect the hostility is more likely to come from older women. There appears to be something of an irrational hostility to young-ish female politicians. Note that most people will barely know anything of her at all, so it unlikely to represent a personal problem.
Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.
polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).
I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
James says you did.
For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back
Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.
Then the penny might drop.
That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
I was, of course, aware that I was banned. And, being banned, I stopped visiting the site. Therefore, how would I ever know that the ban was lifted? Unless the site owner had the courtesy to inform me, by email for example. Which they didn’t. I found out in 2012/13 because James told me.
I have been banned on PB at least four times. Only on the very first occasion did I get the courtesy of an email explaining why. Ironically, the given reason was that I had supplied an incorrect email address. Which begs the question: how did I receive the email informing me of the ban? Indeed, it is still that identical email address I am using for logging in right now.
I was absent from PB for about five years until recently. I only discovered the ban was lifted by accident. Again.
Does that make sense now?
Someone explained to me the difference between amalgamations and sub samples. I was getting the wrong end of the stick.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
Absolutely - I grew up on a council estate and was lucky enough to go to Grammar School - another chance that some want to deny kids nowadays.
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.
If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolccur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely ifth the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
M
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.
I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
I'm intrigued. How do you subsidise them?
Because I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax not paid by Eton College
Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.
Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.
There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.
If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
One nation includes encouraging ambition and success but looking after those less fortunate
Parental wealth will always open doors but confiscating it only leads to one destination, Venezeula
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.
If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
Even in the state system parental wealth may have a part to play.
Catchment areas anyone?
What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.
Remainers are being trolled with these rumours of how to get around the Brexit bill.
Hope their stockpiles of froth and splutter are ready for weeks of this.
I particularly enjoy the hypocrisy of supporting remainer MPs in parliament taking liberties with centuries of convention because it suits there desired outcome.
But then having a meltdown when leavers play them at their own game.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself
I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.
The rule book has been torn up
First term incumbency is pretty well established - indeed we saw clear evidence of if as far back as the 1964 election when the Tories managed to hang on to quite a few of the seats gained in 1959 despite a national pro-Labour swing of 3.5%. More recently its influence was very evident at the 2015 and 2017 elections. Seats gained by the Tories - against the tiny pro-Labour national swing - in 2015 such as Telford and Morley & Outwood were not recaptured by Labour in 2017 despite the 2% swing to Labour.
I repeat - the rule book has been torn up
Agreed. With the disgust at MPs incumbency is likely to be a drawback
Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.
Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.
There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
You can't reclaim tax where you are getting a benefit. School fees cannot therefore be gift aided.
Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.
TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Your success in life being dependent on your parents' wealth is the opposite of ambition. You can't aspire to be born rich.
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
Absolutely - I grew up on a council estate and was lucky enough to go to Grammar School - another chance that some want to deny kids nowadays.
Grammar schools are a useful compromise within the State Sector.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.
If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
Even in the state system parental wealth may have a part to play.
Catchment areas anyone?
What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.
I prefer to aspire for myself and my kids thanks.
I'm sure your kids will thank you for trapping them in an underclass by cheerleading for wealth to be ever more concentrated in a tiny elite. But hey, at least you aspired, right?
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
So you've taken the HYUFD route of allowing your politics to be entirely defined by the people you hate?
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the EU.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Your success in life being dependent on your parents' wealth is the opposite of ambition. You can't aspire to be born rich.
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.
Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.
There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
You can't reclaim tax where you are getting a benefit. School fees cannot therefore be gift aided.
Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.
TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
It's the School that gets the refund, because it has charitable status and is tax exempt. It thus claims back the tax 'carried' by the Deed.
What happens on the donor/payer side is more complex and depends on the the tax position of the individual.
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the UK.
Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.
Wish you would rejoin the UK - the thin air on Planet Remainer is addling your faculties.
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the UK.
Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.
Wish you would rejoin the UK - the thin air on Planet Remainer is addling your faculties.
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.
The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.
The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No.
Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good
Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.
I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
With respect - grow up
If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.
If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
Even in the state system parental wealth may have a part to play.
Catchment areas anyone?
What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.
I prefer to aspire for myself and my kids thanks.
I'm sure your kids will thank you for trapping them in an underclass by cheerleading for wealth to be ever more concentrated in a tiny elite. But hey, at least you aspired, right?
You trap them in an underclass by making every school rubbish
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.
The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.
The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
Let the country decide in a GE
Come off it, the idea that the government has been doing anything to establish a deal with the EU has been comprehensively exposed as false.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
If the euros translated to a GE, the Tories would be reduced to zero seats
'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month. Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'
Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
The abolition is pure marxism
Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolccur to some extent at present
There is not one advantage by abolishing them
Surely ifth the same cost to the public purse
How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools
Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.
M
Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
Driving rich pushy parents taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
I'm intrigued. How do you subsidise them?
Because I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax not paid by Eton College
Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.
Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.
There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
Assisted places and charitable status helps private schools both offer more scholarships and bursaries and share facilities with state schools
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.
The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.
The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
The opposition have "stopped all discussions with the EU"?
My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.
It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.
At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...
It depends what you're looking for.
There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.
I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, indeed on a side note when I was at school I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew, how are we going to continue our international reputation for elite education if we close down our top schools and attack our elite universities?
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
None of those seats will be won by the LDs at a GE.
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, indeed on a side note when I was at school I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew, how are we going to continue our reputation for elite education if we close down our top schools and attack our elite universities?
Won't the next monarch be more of a Green than a Conservative?
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, indeed on a side note when I was at school I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew, how are we going to continue our reputation for elite education if we close down our top schools and attack our elite universities?
Won't the next monarch be more of a Green than a Conservative?
He will be an organic Green One Nation Conservative, a cross between Disraeli and Zac Goldsmith
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.
The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.
The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
Let the country decide in a GE
Come off it, the idea that the government has been doing anything to establish a deal with the EU has been comprehensively exposed as false.
I agree but the HOC finished off any chance of an acceptable deal in a premature strike
They could have done this following the EU Council meeting when we had answers either way, after all they did it in a day and there are 12 days to the 31st from the council meeting
My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.
It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.
At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...
It depends what you're looking for.
There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.
I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
I have a friend who was a lawyer in London and now works as a lawyer in New York, that is what London is competing with jobs wise and is why it is so expensive to live there (certainly in central London).
However if you want to be a little less ambitious and are happy being a solicitor in Hull I suspect you could buy a nice detached house in the city or in rural Yorkshire by your mid 40s
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
If the euros translated to a GE, the Tories would be reduced to zero seats
They may well have been had May stayed put and extended again, with Farage sweeping the board in Tory Leave seats and the LDs picking up the Tory Remain seats as the Brexit Party also took most of the Tory Leave vote
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
Ironically, I am becoming fond of the FTPA 2011. However, I would prefer preset days like, say, the first Thursday of May. It should not be an instrument of political advantage for a government. Other countries have fixed terms - so why can't the UK. In fact, in the UK, Mayors , Councils etc. also have fixed terms. If a government loses the confidence, Parliament has to find another government, including a minority government.
“If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."
--- John Bercow
Using the Civil Contingencies Act isn't going against precedent. It is going against the law. That is a totally different matter.
but we wouldn't know that unless it was challenged - many of the excuses written into the Act are very widely drawn ('disruption of a communcations network for example) - if Dr Nicholl is right and no-deal threatens people's lives and all the claims for armageddon are to be believed (including from the EU) it seems arguable and not at all clear that it is prima facie illegal - stupid, awful etc etc but that's the CCA all over.
I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey. Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD. I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads. Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up.. If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.
I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
Justin.
I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats
Labour are in a very grim place at present
No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
Zeichner has been a crap MP for the city.
Huppert was far better - wonder if he will stand again.
Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.
Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.
There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
You can't reclaim tax where you are getting a benefit. School fees cannot therefore be gift aided.
Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.
TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
It's the School that gets the refund, because it has charitable status and is tax exempt. It thus claims back the tax 'carried' by the Deed.
What happens on the donor/payer side is more complex and depends on the the tax position of the individual.
I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.
Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?
Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.
Well if we have a general election on 14th/15th October there would be no need for any of this bullshit and we'd have a chance of sorting this out properly.
I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.
Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?
Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.
Well if we have a general election on 14th/15th October there would be no need for any of this bullshit and we'd have a chance of sorting this out properly.
Unlikely, we could have another hung Parliament, and what happens if a majority of the votes are for No Deal parties but the anti No Deal Parties win a majority of the seats, or the opposite could happen.
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.
The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.
The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
Let the country decide in a GE
Come off it, the idea that the government has been doing anything to establish a deal with the EU has been comprehensively exposed as false.
Quite obviously so.
No proposals for "alternative arrangements" have been received by the EU. There are no discussions.
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
Didn't take too long.
When the commies start openly planning their bans and confiscations, conservatives sprint to the polling-booths
I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.
Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?
Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.
Well if we have a general election on 14th/15th October there would be no need for any of this bullshit and we'd have a chance of sorting this out properly.
Unlikely, we could have another hung Parliament, and what happens if a majority of the votes are for No Deal parties but the anti No Deal Parties win a majority of the seats, or the opposite could happen.
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.
It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.
At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...
It depends what you're looking for.
There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.
I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
I have a friend who was a lawyer in London and now works as a lawyer in New York, that is what London is competing with jobs wise and is why it is so expensive to live there (certainly in central London).
However if you want to be a little less ambitious and are happy being a solicitor in Hull I suspect you could buy a nice detached house in the city or in rural Yorkshire by your mid 40s
Not every lawyer in London is some international high-flyer, many will be involved in housing transactions, will writing, divorce cases and such like just as they are elsewhere.
And when you say 'mid 40s' do you mean get a mortgage by mid 40s or own outright by mid 40s ?
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.
However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status
You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising
Public sector good
Private sector bad (no very bad)
No.
Social justice and equality of opportunity good
Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad
Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism
I can never tell what you think is the essence of British conservatism, because you seem pretty happy to toss it all out of the window in pursuit of single objectives decided by the leader of the moment.
But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
Comments
I have been banned on PB at least four times. Only on the very first occasion did I get the courtesy of an email explaining why. Ironically, the given reason was that I had supplied an incorrect email address. Which begs the question: how did I receive the email informing me of the ban? Indeed, it is still that identical email address I am using for logging in right now.
I was absent from PB for about five years until recently. I only discovered the ban was lifted by accident. Again.
Does that make sense now?
Probably not a lot to do with the tories in my experience but more bureaucracy, indifference and in our case some horrible people.
WE live in Essex and my son attended school in Suffolk.
Forgive the phrase, but across county lines is not insurmountable.
We had a long old journey getting my son to that school and back daily (more than 10 miles) but by god it was worth it.
I dont know where you are but please consider speaking to Fiona in the attached link
http://www.advocacyandmediation.co.uk/what-we-do-who-we-are/
She does great work tirelessly for children who need extra help and are struggling to get it (she is a parent of a child with special needs too).
I could not recommend her heartily enough.
You can tell the Labour seats that are likely to fall because the MPs are stepping down (Mann, Farrelly, de Piero).
Labour will lose Leaver seats in the Midlands (and perhaps also some in the North & Wales).
Is this triplethink?
Boris will just ignore it
Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets
If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
One for the anoraks on here - Stephen Timms polled 47,124 votes in 2017. John Major polled 48,662 in 1992 in Huntingdon.
Has anyone polled a larger individual vote in any constituency in any election?
Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.
There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
Parental wealth will always open doors but confiscating it only leads to one destination, Venezeula
Hope their stockpiles of froth and splutter are ready for weeks of this.
Catchment areas anyone?
What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.
I prefer to aspire for myself and my kids thanks.
But then having a meltdown when leavers play them at their own game.
It allowed me to attend the finest university in the world then a wonderful career.
If I had my way I’d abolish the Department for Education and give parents the money as vouchers.
Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.
TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.
What laws were broken?
I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites.
What happens on the donor/payer side is more complex and depends on the the tax position of the individual.
Wish you would rejoin the UK - the thin air on Planet Remainer is addling your faculties.
Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?
Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.
The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.
The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
Let the country decide in a GE
It was not illegal, despite some people still claiming it was.
You're deranged.
There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.
I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/65049/australia-vs-west-indies-final-prudential-world-cup-1975
I wonder how many current batsman could bat that patiently to save a Test.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/07/dissolution-not-threat-democracy-weapon-protect-rights-voters/
They could have done this following the EU Council meeting when we had answers either way, after all they did it in a day and there are 12 days to the 31st from the council meeting
However if you want to be a little less ambitious and are happy being a solicitor in Hull I suspect you could buy a nice detached house in the city or in rural Yorkshire by your mid 40s
You cannot gerrymander GE to suit your political view
If Corbyn won he becomes PM and so be it
If a government loses the confidence, Parliament has to find another government, including a minority government.
It would be a bloody mess.
No proposals for "alternative arrangements" have been received by the EU. There are no discussions.
Now I know that's they way the voting system works but that doesn't make it great.
I can imaging how the hard leavers will scream blue murder if Corbyn wins a majority on 35% and opts for a BINO.
In fairness the DUP have been uncharacteristically keeping their heads down for quite some time.
Benn Bill passed? Another FTPA election vote?
When does the prorogation kick in?
And when you say 'mid 40s' do you mean get a mortgage by mid 40s or own outright by mid 40s ?
If we had PR the GE would be a foregone conclusion, Jo Swinson would have the balance of power which would mean no Brexit and no Corbyn