Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
No, the question is is it lawful to prorogue Parliament for several weeks? If it is, then the reasons for it become irrelevant.
So far, I have seen nothing (and that includes the judgement of the Court of Sesssions) to make me think it isn't. I've seen plenty to indicate it *shouldn't* be lawful, but that is a matter for politicians to sort out and not judges. When you get judges trying to make laws you get troubling disasters like the privacy rulings of David Eady.
My understanding of the Court of Session judgment is a little different. It had to answer two questions. Are there any legal limits on the government's rights to prorogate? If so, were those limits breached in this case? Having decided yes to the first question, it was easy to answer the second question because the government didn't put up any plausible justification for its prorogation.
The implication I think is that if Cummings and Johnson hadn't been so incompetent, they could have got the prorogation through, even with legal limits, and if so minded they could do so again in the future.
Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
No, the question is is it lawful to prorogue Parliament for several weeks? If it is, then the reasons for it become irrelevant.
So far, I have seen nothing (and that includes the judgement of the Court of Sesssions) to make me think it isn't. I've seen plenty to indicate it *shouldn't* be lawful, but that is a matter for politicians to sort out and not judges. When you get judges trying to make laws you get troubling disasters like the privacy rulings of David Eady.
My understanding of the Court of Session judgment is a little different. It had to answer two questions. Are there any legal limits on the government's rights to prorogate? If so, were those limits breached in this case? Having decided yes to the first question, it was easy to answer the second question because the government didn't put up any plausible justification for its prorogation.
The implication I think is that if Cummings and Johnson hadn't been so incompetent, they could have got the prorogation through, even with legal limits, and if so minded they could do so again in the future.
They decided 'yes' to the first question. I have to say I found their reasoning at best convoluted. Stripped of the verbiage it was roughly, 'we don't like it therefore it's unlawful.'
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
It’s an excellent article but I disagree with the question regarding justiciable .
The court can act so as to say the matter is justiciable but in this case prorogation was lawful.
That means any future government knows that limits could be placed.
Clearly it could decide that in principle, but I think what she's saying is that in this particular case it's unlikely - "given the tight reasoning of the Scottish judgment, it would be hard to decide the case differently."
I'm not sure how much sense that makes, though. I wouldn't have thought the question of justiciability was just a "yes/no" decision. I suppose that if it is justiciable, there is also the question of what criteria the court has to apply.
The justiciable has to be yes or no . Otherwise you end up in a legal mess . They are acutely aware that to say it isn’t means you give Carte Blanche for any future PM to effectively shut down parliament whenever they like.
I would be shocked if they don’t say it’s justiciable however in terms of the current case , hard to say in terms of lawful.
One thing we mustn’t forget this isn’t a criminal case , so they don’t need anything like beyond reasonable doubt and as well as this regardless of the arguments made by the different QCs they will pay a lot of attention to the written arguments .
What I'm getting at is that justiciable could be a "no," but if it's a "yes" then it has to be decided on what basis. It could be that the court decides it's justiciable, but that the criteria applied by the Court of Session weren't appropriate. In that case their reasoning could be "tight" but misguided.
I get your point . In terms of yes the court can simply say the case highlights the need for the court if need be to provide a suitable check and balance on the power of the executive .
However in this case the prorogation failed to convince the court that the PM acted unlawfully .
I can’t see the court making a judgement that would allow a future PM to act without any restrictions .
It was easier for the lower court to rule it not justiciable , because they were aware that that judgement wasn’t the final say .
The SC judges are well aware that what they rule will effectively be the law of the land , the final decision .
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Dominic Cummings actually comes across as more of a nihilist, if I'm honest.
I see some of those who were having a sanctimonious prolapse a few days ago over a bloke with a sick child being attacked are attacking a bloke with a sick child. Life comes at you fast in gammonworld.
It’s the relentless hyperbole which gets me. Destroying the NHS? Give me a break.
In the Labour years I could call my GP and be given an appointment on the same day. I could also choose to have an appointment on a Saturday. Now I will be given an appointment 3-4 weeks hence if I am lucky. Weekdays only. And they will tell me how busy they are and couldn't I just see a nurse instead.
Destruction may be too strong a word but the service is significantly worse, and continuing to deteriorate.
Maybe that's something to do with the population having increased from 57 million to 67 million over that time, whereas in the 1980s and early/mid 1990s it hardly increased at all by comparison.
Boris is opening up his right flank on immigration, in my opinion.
I see some of those who were having a sanctimonious prolapse a few days ago over a bloke with a sick child being attacked are attacking a bloke with a sick child. Life comes at you fast in gammonworld.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Yes, pretty much.
They are some ideological libertarians (like Redwood) and some are basically Brexit Party MPs with a Tory whip (Francois).
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Dominic Cummings actually comes across as more of a nihilist, if I'm honest.
Him and Gove have the air of people who, as children, who were heavily bullied and are now bent of fucking things up in some kind of generalised revenge. America has school shootings, we have high-latency political psychodrama.
Today’s court proceedings were a case of chalk and cheese .
In the morning we saw a good methodical attempt to defend the government in stark contrast to the flamboyant more aggressive attack on the government during the afternoon .
Not sure the manner of QC O’Neill would have been to the liking of some of the judges but they’re quite used to this and have been around for long enough to not let that effect their judgement .
I should say O’Neills arguments lacked much reference to case law but we don’t have much precedent to go on .
His father of lies comment likely would have seen the judges balk but the case is in effect a verdict on the character of Johnson .
The bear bones of the matter is do you trust Johnson or is he a liar .
No, the question is is it lawful to prorogue Parliament for several weeks? If it is, then the reasons for it become irrelevant.
So far, I have seen nothing (and that includes the judgement of the Court of Sesssions) to make me think it isn't. I've seen plenty to indicate it *shouldn't* be lawful, but that is a matter for politicians to sort out and not judges. When you get judges trying to make laws you get troubling disasters like the privacy rulings of David Eady.
My understanding of the Court of Session judgment is a little different. It had to answer two questions. Are there any legal limits on the government's rights to prorogate? If so, were those limits breached in this case? Having decided yes to the first question, it was easy to answer the second question because the government didn't put up any plausible justification for its prorogation.
The implication I think is that if Cummings and Johnson hadn't been so incompetent, they could have got the prorogation through, even with legal limits, and if so minded they could do so again in the future.
They decided 'yes' to the first question. I have to say I found their reasoning at best convoluted. Stripped of the verbiage it was roughly, 'we don't like it therefore it's unlawful.'
But then, I'm not a lawyer.
I am not a lawyer either. We're in the same boat in that respect. Their reasoning as I understand it, makes sense to me on the principle. Which is that no government's right to act is ever unlimited. It has to act within constitutional limits that are set by law. So the prorogation is in principle justiciable if those limits are breached. This is potentially tricky because the purposes that prorogation can and cannot be used for aren't codified. In this case the issue didn't come up because the government had no justification for prorogation, beyond its absolute right to do it.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
I am not a lawyer either. We're in the same boat in that respect. Their reasoning as I understand it, makes sense to me on the principle. Which is that no government's right to act is ever unlimited. It has to act within constitutional limits that are set by law. So the prorogation is in principle justiciable if those limits are breached. This is potentially tricky because the purposes that prorogation can and cannot be used for aren't codified. In this case the issue didn't come up because the government had no justification for prorogation, beyond its absolute right to do it.
Isn't the governments justification the need for a Queens Speech?
This government has not had a Queens Speech yet.
And the prior session of Parliament is the longest since the Civil War so one is long overdue.
Whether you believe that or not is another matter. But to say there's no justification is odd.
I feel like this flirts with corbynism, but I think push come to shove those whove turned from labour in recent months will return.
I doubt it. He screwed up royally in the spring. He failed to provide opposition at a key moment and revived the LD corpse. It’s not going away. Sadly for Corbyn the left vote unhappy with him has somewhere else to go. His previous strategy is dead.
I cannot see them switching to the 'Tories Little Helpers' when reminded of their past misdeeds.
Wishful thinking. It will have rsome esonance with those that would vote for Corbyn anyway, but as Mike's analysis points out, Swinson has a higher approval rating than Corbyn amongst 2017 Labour voters already.
I also think that for many remainers and Blairite Labour voters the Brexit issue and Corbyn's leadership of the party will weigh more heavily than the LDs record in coalition. Politics moves on quite quickly.
If the Lib Dems want to grow they need to re educate voters not to vote tactically. Short term pain of diluting the seat count on left for the long term gain of usurping Labour as the major left /Centre left party.
By tactical voting the lib Dems gain a little from Labour but Labour gain a lot from them. Labour gain more seats, and the momentum to maintain the position of main left party. The only way libdems can rise above labour is by actively weakening them.
Problem is in weakening labour it leads to a tory government. That conundrum is the only route to libdem gaining long term advantage over labour. If they continue to promote tactical voting they are helping Labour and condemning themselves to permanent small third party status.
I am not a lawyer either. We're in the same boat in that respect. Their reasoning as I understand it, makes sense to me on the principle. Which is that no government's right to act is ever unlimited. It has to act within constitutional limits that are set by law. So the prorogation is in principle justiciable if those limits are breached. This is potentially tricky because the purposes that prorogation can and cannot be used for aren't codified. In this case the issue didn't come up because the government had no justification for prorogation, beyond its absolute right to do it.
But that's my point. If it has the right to do it, it doesn't need a justification. That's where the CoS judgement doesn't make sense to me, especially since the statutes they cited only noted Parliament had to be summoned annually.
There is a very valid argument that the government should not have the right to prorogue for long periods at will. But that isn't a matter for the courts to decide.
It's also slightly worrying that Corbyn has said he would never prorogue Parliament, effectively saying he would abolish general elections. I don't suppose he meant it that way, but again we have a politician incapable of rational thought.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
As a Libertarian I think that one is quite easy to answer. Both Libertarians and Nativists oppose supra national organisations but for very different reasons. Nativists have no objection per se to authoritarian statism as long as it is their own 'tribe' that is in charge. Libertarians oppose statism in almost all its forms even when it is being promulgated or practiced by their own 'tribe'.
Any alliance between the two groups is at best superficial and bound to end in disagreement.
I am not a lawyer either. We're in the same boat in that respect. Their reasoning as I understand it, makes sense to me on the principle. Which is that no government's right to act is ever unlimited. It has to act within constitutional limits that are set by law. So the prorogation is in principle justiciable if those limits are breached. This is potentially tricky because the purposes that prorogation can and cannot be used for aren't codified. In this case the issue didn't come up because the government had no justification for prorogation, beyond its absolute right to do it.
Isn't the governments justification the need for a Queens Speech?
This government has not had a Queens Speech yet.
And the prior session of Parliament is the longest since the Civil War so one is long overdue.
Whether you believe that or not is another matter. But to say there's no justification is odd.
Not in court, because they don't want anyone to be cross-examined as to whether the Queens Speech was the reason for the prorogation. The case in court depends solely on the government having an absolute right to prorogate, no questions asked.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
I'm a libertarian.
I'm going to say this now to get it out of the way. It's nothing to do with you personally. As much as I despise nativists, I think libertarians get the most special place in hell. There is no ideology more absurdly self defeating than libertarianism. I have never -- not once -- had a conversation with a libertarian about their ideology where it didn't descend into utter incoherence on their part before a quarter of an hour has passed. Part of me actually thinks that libertarianism is some kind of epic performance art, as though a circus somewhere burst open, and the inhabitants are now tumbling around the world performing routines of intellectual slapstick that could make even the most dedicated satirist snap their pencil in two and retire.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
As opposed to socialists who hate the rich of course
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
I'm a libertarian.
I'm going to say this now to get it out of the way. It's nothing to do with you personally. As much as I despise nativists, I think libertarians get the most special place in hell. There is no ideology more absurdly self defeating than libertarianism. I have never -- not once -- had a conversation with a libertarian about their ideology where it didn't descend into utter incoherence on their part before a quarter of an hour has passed. Part of me actually thinks that libertarianism is some kind of epic performance art, as though a circus somewhere burst open, and the inhabitants are now tumbling around the world performing routines of intellectual slapstick that could make even the most dedicated satirist snap their pencil in two and retire.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
As opposed to socialists who hate the rich of course
That's unfair.
Many socialists hate other socialists far more than they hate rich people.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
Socialists are also primarily driven by a dislike of other people. They hate success and are driven by class envy and resentment. They want to control the choices everyone else makes because they were bullied at school by people more successful and attractive than them, but, regardless of how it turns out, want to ensure that they ultimately remain in charge, being sociopaths at heart.
Corbyn with a net negative rating from both 2017 Labour voters and Remain voters then while Boris has a net positive rating from 2017 Tory and Leave voters and Swinson has a net positive rating from 2017 LD and Remain voters
I see some of those who were having a sanctimonious prolapse a few days ago over a bloke with a sick child being attacked are attacking a bloke with a sick child. Life comes at you fast in gammonworld.
The guy didn't impress me, not because he was an emtional parent, nor because he was some left-wing activist. It was simply that I think he is wrong about the NHS. It is not falling apart.
Whipps Cross was my local hospital for many years and I was treated there several times in the past few years. It has a good reputation locally and I have every reason to be grateful for the care it provided me, and also for my family over decades.
The debate over the NHS is not best conducted by megaphone.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
I'm a libertarian.
I'm going to say this now to get it out of the way. It's nothing to do with you personally. As much as I despise nativists, I think libertarians get the most special place in hell. There is no ideology more absurdly self defeating than libertarianism. I have never -- not once -- had a conversation with a libertarian about their ideology where it didn't descend into utter incoherence on their part before a quarter of an hour has passed. Part of me actually thinks that libertarianism is some kind of epic performance art, as though a circus somewhere burst open, and the inhabitants are now tumbling around the world performing routines of intellectual slapstick that could make even the most dedicated satirist snap their pencil in two and retire.
Alternatively you just don't know what a libertarian is and are just tilting at windmills.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
I'm a libertarian.
I'm going to say this now to get it out of the way. It's nothing to do with you personally. As much as I despise nativists, I think libertarians get the most special place in hell. There is no ideology more absurdly self defeating than libertarianism. I have never -- not once -- had a conversation with a libertarian about their ideology where it didn't descend into utter incoherence on their part before a quarter of an hour has passed. Part of me actually thinks that libertarianism is some kind of epic performance art, as though a circus somewhere burst open, and the inhabitants are now tumbling around the world performing routines of intellectual slapstick that could make even the most dedicated satirist snap their pencil in two and retire.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
While being free to smoke pot and sleep with who you want
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
Like I said clearly you don't have the first clue. That description is about as accurate as saying socialists want to make wealth illegal.
I am not a lawyer either. We're in the same boat in that respect. Their reasoning as I understand it, makes sense to me on the principle. Which is that no government's right to act is ever unlimited. It has to act within constitutional limits that are set by law. So the prorogation is in principle justiciable if those limits are breached. This is potentially tricky because the purposes that prorogation can and cannot be used for aren't codified. In this case the issue didn't come up because the government had no justification for prorogation, beyond its absolute right to do it.
Isn't the governments justification the need for a Queens Speech?
This government has not had a Queens Speech yet.
And the prior session of Parliament is the longest since the Civil War so one is long overdue.
Whether you believe that or not is another matter. But to say there's no justification is odd.
Why would they need to prorogue parliament in early September so that they could have a Queen's Speech in mid-October?
I am not a lawyer either. We're in the same boat in that respect. Their reasoning as I understand it, makes sense to me on the principle. Which is that no government's right to act is ever unlimited. It has to act within constitutional limits that are set by law. So the prorogation is in principle justiciable if those limits are breached. This is potentially tricky because the purposes that prorogation can and cannot be used for aren't codified. In this case the issue didn't come up because the government had no justification for prorogation, beyond its absolute right to do it.
But that's my point. If it has the right to do it, it doesn't need a justification. That's where the CoS judgement doesn't make sense to me, especially since the statutes they cited only noted Parliament had to be summoned annually.
There is a very valid argument that the government should not have the right to prorogue for long periods at will. But that isn't a matter for the courts to decide.
It's also slightly worrying that Corbyn has said he would never prorogue Parliament, effectively saying he would abolish general elections. I don't suppose he meant it that way, but again we have a politician incapable of rational thought.
If you decide the rights to act are legally constrained, you need to know the purpose of that action to decide whether the action is within the constraints.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
While being free to smoke pot and sleep with who you want
Well I certainly approve of that part of their policy
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
It's not class envy, it's pure self interest. If you or your kids don't go to these schools you'd self evidently be better off if they didn't exist, since their function is to provide advantage to those who attend them relative to everyone else. I wouldn't abolish them, because I believe in freedom, but I would certainly not go out of my way to make life easy for them, and I would look to ways to nullify their ability to provide advantage at the expense of others.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
While being free to smoke pot and sleep with who you want
Alternatively you just don't know what a libertarian is and are just tilting at windmills.
I've had libertarians try to explain it to me. I was quite interested to hear about it when I first heard about it a few years ago. I'm a liberal, and I naively thought the name is similar, perhaps this is something I can get behind. It didn't quite work out that way! My experience of reading about it has left the same impression on me. It's just a gale of naivety and self-contradiction.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
Like I said clearly you don't have the first clue. That description is about as accurate as saying socialists want to make wealth illegal.
They always seemed to be talking their book, in my experience.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
The evidence of the last few years strongly suggests our top private schools are far from being the best in the world.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
It's not class envy, it's pure self interest. If you or your kids don't go to these schools you'd self evidently be better off if they didn't exist, since their function is to provide advantage to those who attend them relative to everyone else. I wouldn't abolish them, because I believe in freedom, but I would certainly not go out of my way to make life easy for them, and I would look to ways to nullify their ability to provide advantage at the expense of others.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would e step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
LOL. What a load of bollocks. I guess you have never actually had any contact with or read anything of Libertarians at all.
Quite the opposite - I have met way too many Libertarians and listened to way too much of their self serving bullshit over the years. It always comes down to wanting to pay less taxes and dismantle the welfare state.
While being free to smoke pot and sleep with who you want
You can support that while being a socialist!
But not low taxes and lower spending which is why they are libertarians not socialists (plus of course some socialists can be quite socially conservative even if economically left given their love of State control rather than individual choice).
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
The common thread is 'simplism'. Libertarians reject the complexity that is managed by multilateral institutions and constitutional checks and balances, and nativists reject the idea of any kind of formal level playing field with foreigners.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
It's not class envy, it's pure self interest. If you or your kids don't go to these schools you'd self evidently be better off if they didn't exist, since their function is to provide advantage to those who attend them relative to everyone else. I wouldn't abolish them, because I believe in freedom, but I would certainly not go out of my way to make life easy for them, and I would look to ways to nullify their ability to provide advantage at the expense of others.
Not true, your kids could get a scholarship to them for example if their IQ is high enough or they have strong sporting or musical ability
The problem is "it's a bit more complicated than that".
There are a fair number of BXP voters who would not countenance supporting the Tories, and would have Labour as a second choice, and abstaining as third.
And there are also Conservative voters who dislike Farage, and who want a Deal. They might be pushed into abstention (or worse) if Johnson and Farage jumped into bed together.
Ultimately, though, Mr Goodwin gets the psychology wrong. Current Brexit Party voters, by and large, don't want a deal with the EU. It's not simply a case of disliking the backstop, it's the fact that they want us completely apart from the EU, and to not be domestically constrained by international agreements.
Conservative voters, on the other hand, fall into one of two groups. (1) either believe that (done right) international cooperation avoids spirals of competitive devaluations and subsidies. Or (2), they believe it is better to move step-by-step, and that outcomes achieved over a period are more like to persist than big revolutionary changes.
Being a Conservative I believe in (2), because I’m a Conservative.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you are quite clear that they are not conservatives at all. Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
Libertarians and nativists are both driven primarily by a dislike of other people. Libertarians dislike the poor, nativists dislike foreigners. They unite in their dislike of poor foreigners and of the liberal left, who they perceive to favour both foreigners and the poor.
As opposed to socialists who hate the rich of course
That's unfair.
Many socialists hate other socialists far more than they hate rich people.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
The evidence of the last few years strongly suggests our top private schools are far from being the best in the world.
What evidence? UK private schools are filled with pupils from the Far East for example for a reason
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
And is more amusing as both Corbyn and Milne were educated at private schools.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
It's not class envy, it's pure self interest. If you or your kids don't go to these schools you'd self evidently be better off if they didn't exist, since their function is to provide advantage to those who attend them relative to everyone else. I wouldn't abolish them, because I believe in freedom, but I would certainly not go out of my way to make life easy for them, and I would look to ways to nullify their ability to provide advantage at the expense of others.
Not true, your kids could get a scholarship to them for example if their IQ is high enough or they have strong sporting or musical ability
Why should they need to get a scholarship? The local comp should be as good as any private school. Anyway the whole education system is being privatized in full view and nobody does anything about it.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
The evidence of the last few years strongly suggests our top private schools are far from being the best in the world.
What evidence? UK private schools are filled with pupils from the Far East for example for a reason
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
Taxpayers don't subsidise private schools.
Many private schools have charitable status and thus enjoy the benefits that brings - so you can view that as a subsidy
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
The evidence of the last few years strongly suggests our top private schools are far from being the best in the world.
What evidence? UK private schools are filled with pupils from the Far East for example for a reason
David Cameron. Boris Johnson. Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Dominic Cummings, Jeremy Corbyn, Seumas Milne, Ed Balls, Tony Blair...
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
It's not class envy, it's pure self interest. If you or your kids don't go to these schools you'd self evidently be better off if they didn't exist, since their function is to provide advantage to those who attend them relative to everyone else. I wouldn't abolish them, because I believe in freedom, but I would certainly not go out of my way to make life easy for them, and I would look to ways to nullify their ability to provide advantage at the expense of others.
Not true, your kids could get a scholarship to them for example if their IQ is high enough or they have strong sporting or musical ability
Why should they need to get a scholarship? The local comp should be as good as any private school. Anyway the whole education system is being privatized in full view and nobody does anything about it.
Cut class sizes from 30 to 15 and it almost certainly would be.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
Taxpayers don't subsidise private schools.
Many private schools have charitable status and thus enjoy the benefits that brings - so you can view that as a subsidy
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
The evidence of the last few years strongly suggests our top private schools are far from being the best in the world.
What evidence? UK private schools are filled with pupils from the Far East for example for a reason
David Cameron. Boris Johnson. Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Dominic Cummings, Jeremy Corbyn, Seumas Milne, Ed Balls, Tony Blair...
Exactly. Incompetence all round, regardless of what School.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
Taxpayers don't subsidise private schools.
Many private schools have charitable status and thus enjoy the benefits that brings - so you can view that as a subsidy
How?
If they were run as businesses, they would be paying taxes that being charities they don't have to pay.
Alternatively you just don't know what a libertarian is and are just tilting at windmills.
I've had libertarians try to explain it to me. I was quite interested to hear about it when I first heard about it a few years ago. I'm a liberal, and I naively thought the name is similar, perhaps this is something I can get behind. It didn't quite work out that way! My experience of reading about it has left the same impression on me. It's just a gale of naivety and self-contradiction.
Utter codswallop.
There is nothing self-contradictory about libertarianism, which is just a modern name for liberalism since liberal has been hijacked by people who can often be illiberal.
Libertarians are liberals - economically and socially. People who believe that individuals can best run their own lives without massive interference from a large state.
That doesn't mean that there should never be state interference or that the state never has to get involved. We're not anarchists.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
Taxpayers don't subsidise private schools.
Many private schools have charitable status and thus enjoy the benefits that brings - so you can view that as a subsidy
How?
If they were run as businesses, they would be paying taxes that being charities they don't have to pay.
They would also be running a profit that is going to shareholders, something charities don't do.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
It is a policy driven by class envy despite the fact our too private schools are amongst the best schools in the world, provide many scholarships and bursaries and tend to share facilities now with the local community and attract pupils from across the world
It's not class envy, it's pure self interest. If you or your kids don't go to these schools you'd self evidently be better off if they didn't exist, since their function is to provide advantage to those who attend them relative to everyone else. I wouldn't abolish them, because I believe in freedom, but I would certainly not go out of my way to make life easy for them, and I would look to ways to nullify their ability to provide advantage at the expense of others.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Alternatively you just don't know what a libertarian is and are just tilting at windmills.
I've had libertarians try to explain it to me. I was quite interested to hear about it when I first heard about it a few years ago. I'm a liberal, and I naively thought the name is similar, perhaps this is something I can get behind. It didn't quite work out that way! My experience of reading about it has left the same impression on me. It's just a gale of naivety and self-contradiction.
Utter codswallop.
There is nothing self-contradictory about libertarianism, which is just a modern name for liberalism since liberal has been hijacked by people who can often be illiberal.
Libertarians are liberals - economically and socially. People who believe that individuals can best run their own lives without massive interference from a large state.
That doesn't mean that there should never be state interference or that the state never has to get involved. We're not anarchists.
Go on then. Give us an example of how a Liberal is illiberal and a Libertarian is not?
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
If my kid doesn't get the university place they wanted because a naturally less gifted but more expensively schooled kid gets the place instead, then they have lost out. Private schools are an expensive form of queue jumping. They also produce a narrow and self serving elite, as I think has been amply demonstrated in recent years.
If all the sharp elbowed and wealthy parents who pay for private education were using the state sector, I have no doubt that it would be better resourced on a per pupil basis than it is now. I would love to pay more tax and have better schools. Parents who send their kids to private schools don't seem to say the same thing.
I would never criticise people for the individual choices they make to do what they see as the best for their kids. But in order that you don't accuse me of hypocrisy, I would note that I personally went to a comprehensive and so are my kids, a conscious choice as we could afford to send them private if we wanted to.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
Taxpayers don't subsidise private schools.
Many private schools have charitable status and thus enjoy the benefits that brings - so you can view that as a subsidy
How?
If they were run as businesses, they would be paying taxes that being charities they don't have to pay.
But that's not a subsidy. A subsidy is giving money to somebody to help them do something. A tax break is not taking the money off them. Which is very different. Am I getting a subsidy because I keep my money in an ISA?
I have no quarrel with saying private schools arguably should be businesses - indeed I suggest it upthread, although charitable schools are somewhat less numerous than people realise. But let's stick to facts and not the addled sound bites of an ex-private schoolboy like Jeremy Corbyn.
If all the sharp elbowed and wealthy parents who pay for private education were using the state sector, I have no doubt that it would be better resourced on a per pupil basis than it is now.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
That's a rather blinkered and self-centred view of the public. Especially considering the proportion of adults who never have children are higher than the proportion of adults who send their children to private school. Are they having no direct incentive either? Should we punish people who don't have children? Maybe make them have children so that they have to support the state sector?
On Johnson's hospital visit, politicians seem to think they can turn up in hospitals, get some captive patient to say how wonderful the hospital is so the politician can make a political out of it. I imagine these people feel manipulated. Kudos therefore to the man who answered back to Johnson today.
The specific Johnson comment is that he doesn't seem to cope well with situations. A more competent politician would have said something bland and moved on.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
A classic example. Libertarians think that in a ‘free market’ consumers will pick cars with good emissions if they want. Ignoring that EVERYONE is affected by air pollution and global warming. The free market will just give everyone lung cancer.
I’m not sure I like the Labour ‘abolish public schools’ policy.
I’m not sure how abolishing them will make any difference to anything. It certainly wont help the working class.
Maybe remove their tax exemption status unless they provide more paid scholarships and work in conjunction with the state sector to help raise standards all around?
Agreed. If some parents want to piss away their money on a private school, then that's their business - but the taxpayer shouldn't subsidise them, as they do currently.
Taxpayers don't subsidise private schools.
Many private schools have charitable status and thus enjoy the benefits that brings - so you can view that as a subsidy
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
We could check Diane Abbott's voting record and find out.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
Actually although it may no longer be the case the school areas in the US that had large percentages of privately educated children had the worst state schools because they elected cost cutting school boards to help them keep their taxes down to help pay for their school fees.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
I think it's self-evident.
Their children aren't in the state sector, so they have no direct incentive to support more funding for the state sector.
Inasmuch as their taxes go towards funding the state sector, they have an incentive to support cutting that funding.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
Actually although it may no longer be the case the school areas in the US that had large percentages of privately educated children had the worst state schools because they elected cost cutting school boards to help them keep their taxes down to help pay for their school fees.
I am subsidising state schools thro my personal taxes
What does that even mean?
Are you also ‘subsidising’ the military?
Well, yes, as taxpayers we do subsidise the military.
But taxpayers do not 'subsidise' private schools. It is dishonest to say they do - the worst form of Campbellite spin. And ironically, by diverting attention away from the real issues private education raises and discrediting the people who use it, it weakens their argument for change.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
I think it's self-evident.
Their children aren't in the state sector, so they have no direct incentive to support more funding for the state sector.
Inasmuch as their taxes go towards funding the state sector, they have an incentive to support cutting that funding.
Speculation is not evidence. And no, it is not 'self-evident.' That is just another way of saying you have no proof for something you passionately believe.
You have been asked to prove a statement you've made. If you can't prove it, just say 'no' and move on. Honestly, are you a Principal Examiner for AQA?
Alternatively you just don't know what a libertarian is and are just tilting at windmills.
I've had libertarians try to explain it to me. I was quite interested to hear about it when I first heard about it a few years ago. I'm a liberal, and I naively thought the name is similar, perhaps this is something I can get behind. It didn't quite work out that way! My experience of reading about it has left the same impression on me. It's just a gale of naivety and self-contradiction.
Utter codswallop.
There is nothing self-contradictory about libertarianism, which is just a modern name for liberalism since liberal has been hijacked by people who can often be illiberal.
Libertarians are liberals - economically and socially. People who believe that individuals can best run their own lives without massive interference from a large state.
That doesn't mean that there should never be state interference or that the state never has to get involved. We're not anarchists.
Go on then. Give us an example of how a Liberal is illiberal and a Libertarian is not?
Freedom to oppress?
It depends how you define Liberal. Especially with a capital-L, not I never capitalised the L in my post. Interestingly the word is used very differently in the modern era in different nations, largely on a party political nature.
In the United States the term Liberal has been adopted to essentially mean Democrat and is used as a misguided insult by supporters of the GOP. In the United Kingdom it is more associated with the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors, regardless of whether their policies are liberal or not. In Australia the term Liberal is interestingly used by their equivalent of the Conservative Party.
Many so-called Liberals are not economic liberals and oppose laissez-faire which is a tenant of economic liberalism.
I am subsidising state schools thro my personal taxes
What does that even mean?
Are you also ‘subsidising’ the military?
Well, yes, as taxpayers we do subsidise the military.
But taxpayers do not 'subsidise' private schools. It is dishonest to say they do - the worst form of Campbellite spin. And ironically, by diverting attention away from the real issues private education raises and discrediting the people who use it, it weakens their argument for change.
I agree that it is a waste of energy. However ‘subsidise’ is not the right word. The whole point of taxation is that it is more efficient for us, as a society, to fund things that benefit society as a whole, with those with greater means contributing more. This is not subsidy, this is just taxation. Otherwise you get into the realms of people who don’t drive whinging about subsidising roads despite buying goods that are delivered by road. Those who whinge about subsiding healthcare despite relying on people who would be dead without the NHS.
The list goes on.
You can talk about the ‘politics of envy’ but that goes both ways. The ‘politics of resentment’ is just as bad.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
That's a rather blinkered and self-centred view of the public. Especially considering the proportion of adults who never have children are higher than the proportion of adults who send their children to private school. Are they having no direct incentive either? Should we punish people who don't have children? Maybe make them have children so that they have to support the state sector?
No - of course people without children don't have a direct incentive to support higher state education funding. They have the same indirect incentive as everyone else who benefits from the population at large being educated.
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
I think it's self-evident.
Their children aren't in the state sector, so they have no direct incentive to support more funding for the state sector.
Inasmuch as their taxes go towards funding the state sector, they have an incentive to support cutting that funding.
Speculation is not evidence. And no, it is not 'self-evident.' That is just another way of saying you have no proof for something you passionately believe.
You have been asked to prove a statement you've made. If you can't prove it, just say 'no' and move on. Honestly, are you a Principal Examiner for AQA?
Simple question, if you had no choice but to send your children to the local equivalent of ‘Grange Hill’ would you actually want the state to do something about their education system?
A classic example. Libertarians think that in a ‘free market’ consumers will pick cars with good emissions if they want. Ignoring that EVERYONE is affected by air pollution and global warming. The free market will just give everyone lung cancer.
You just pull that from your own backside?
Trump is not a libertarian FWIW. Secondly there are libertarian ways to deal with negative externalities like pollution. Again libertarianism isn't anarchy.
Alternatively you just don't know what a libertarian is and are just tilting at windmills.
I've had libertarians try to explain it to me. I was quite interested to hear about it when I first heard about it a few years ago. I'm a liberal, and I naively thought the name is similar, perhaps this is something I can get behind. It didn't quite work out that way! My experience of reading about it has left the same impression on me. It's just a gale of naivety and self-contradiction.
Utter codswallop.
There is nothing self-contradictory about libertarianism, which is just a modern name for liberalism since liberal has been hijacked by people who can often be illiberal.
Libertarians are liberals - economically and socially. People who believe that individuals can best run their own lives without massive interference from a large state.
That doesn't mean that there should never be state interference or that the state never has to get involved. We're not anarchists.
Go on then. Give us an example of how a Liberal is illiberal and a Libertarian is not?
Freedom to oppress?
It depends how you define Liberal. Especially with a capital-L, not I never capitalised the L in my post. Interestingly the word is used very differently in the modern era in different nations, largely on a party political nature.
In the United States the term Liberal has been adopted to essentially mean Democrat and is used as a misguided insult by supporters of the GOP. In the United Kingdom it is more associated with the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors, regardless of whether their policies are liberal or not. In Australia the term Liberal is interestingly used by their equivalent of the Conservative Party.
Many so-called Liberals are not economic liberals and oppose laissez-faire which is a tenant of economic liberalism.
Are you basically saying that liberals should oppose regulation of the markets? Because if so, I would disagree entirely. Personal freedom does not come with the freedom to oppress.
We’ve had this argument before anyway so I know where this is going.
That one's going straight to the Supreme Court as California's exemption came via statute, not an Executive Order.
I find that sort of wrinkle in the US system fascinating. Where two heavily populated states border, and have very different regulations on something in demand, there must be rampant opportunities to get rich.
I am subsidising state schools thro my personal taxes
What does that even mean?
Are you also ‘subsidising’ the military?
Well, yes, as taxpayers we do subsidise the military.
But taxpayers do not 'subsidise' private schools. It is dishonest to say they do - the worst form of Campbellite spin. And ironically, by diverting attention away from the real issues private education raises and discrediting the people who use it, it weakens their argument for change.
I agree that it is a waste of energy. However ‘subsidise’ is not the right word. The whole point of taxation is that it is more efficient for us, as a society, to fund things that benefit society as a whole, with those with greater means contributing more. This is not subsidy, this is just taxation. Otherwise you get into the realms of people who don’t drive whinging about subsidising roads despite buying goods that are delivered by road. Those who whinge about subsiding healthcare despite relying on people who would be dead without the NHS.
The list goes on.
You can talk about the ‘politics of envy’ but that goes both ways. The ‘politics of resentment’ is just as bad.
Perhaps we should all start a list of things that our taxes DO actually go on that people resent paying for.
I wonder how high up the list @Sunil_Prasannan's one man crusade to travel every yard of railway line in the UK would feature?
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
I think it's self-evident.
Their children aren't in the state sector, so they have no direct incentive to support more funding for the state sector.
Inasmuch as their taxes go towards funding the state sector, they have an incentive to support cutting that funding.
Speculation is not evidence. And no, it is not 'self-evident.' That is just another way of saying you have no proof for something you passionately believe.
You have been asked to prove a statement you've made. If you can't prove it, just say 'no' and move on. Honestly, are you a Principal Examiner for AQA?
But it isn't at the expense of others. It is at the expense of the parents who are paying to provide an education privately that would otherwise be paid for by the state (and thus all tax payers)
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
Obviously the problem with that argument is that parents who are having their children educated privately have no direct incentive to support funding of the state sector. Indeed, they have an incentive to support cutting the function of the state sector.
Have you any evidence to back up that? Or is it just conjecture?
I think it's self-evident.
Their children aren't in the state sector, so they have no direct incentive to support more funding for the state sector.
Inasmuch as their taxes go towards funding the state sector, they have an incentive to support cutting that funding.
Speculation is not evidence. And no, it is not 'self-evident.' That is just another way of saying you have no proof for something you passionately believe.
You have been asked to prove a statement you've made. If you can't prove it, just say 'no' and move on. Honestly, are you a Principal Examiner for AQA?
Simple question, if you had no choice but to send your children to the local equivalent of ‘Grange Hill’ would you actually want the state to do something about their education system?
I am a teacher, a union rep and a school governor.
And you think I don't want the government to do something about the shambles in education?
Comments
The implication I think is that if Cummings and Johnson hadn't been so incompetent, they could have got the prorogation through, even with legal limits, and if so minded they could do so again in the future.
But then, I'm not a lawyer.
Which makes me wonder if the Spartan wing of the ERG are really Conservatives.
However in this case the prorogation failed to convince the court that the PM acted unlawfully .
I can’t see the court making a judgement that would allow a future PM to act without any restrictions .
It was easier for the lower court to rule it not justiciable , because they were aware that that judgement wasn’t the final say .
The SC judges are well aware that what they rule will effectively be the law of the land , the final decision .
Nor are they liberals. They are a mix of libertarians and nativists. And I haven't quite understood how libertarians and nativists have gotten into bed with each other, but it's a phenomenon seen across the world.
They are some ideological libertarians (like Redwood) and some are basically Brexit Party MPs with a Tory whip (Francois).
America has school shootings, we have high-latency political psychodrama.
This government has not had a Queens Speech yet.
And the prior session of Parliament is the longest since the Civil War so one is long overdue.
Whether you believe that or not is another matter. But to say there's no justification is odd.
By tactical voting the lib Dems gain a little from Labour but Labour gain a lot from them. Labour gain more seats, and the momentum to maintain the position of main left party. The only way libdems can rise above labour is by actively weakening them.
Problem is in weakening labour it leads to a tory government. That conundrum is the only route to libdem gaining long term advantage over labour. If they continue to promote tactical voting they are helping Labour and condemning themselves to permanent small third party status.
There is a very valid argument that the government should not have the right to prorogue for long periods at will. But that isn't a matter for the courts to decide.
It's also slightly worrying that Corbyn has said he would never prorogue Parliament, effectively saying he would abolish general elections. I don't suppose he meant it that way, but again we have a politician incapable of rational thought.
Any alliance between the two groups is at best superficial and bound to end in disagreement.
As much as I despise nativists, I think libertarians get the most special place in hell. There is no ideology more absurdly self defeating than libertarianism.
I have never -- not once -- had a conversation with a libertarian about their ideology where it didn't descend into utter incoherence on their part before a quarter of an hour has passed.
Part of me actually thinks that libertarianism is some kind of epic performance art, as though a circus somewhere burst open, and the inhabitants are now tumbling around the world performing routines of intellectual slapstick that could make even the most dedicated satirist snap their pencil in two and retire.
https://twitter.com/holbornlolz/status/1174363698401566720?s=21
Many socialists hate other socialists far more than they hate rich people.
You see? Two can play at that game.
Whipps Cross was my local hospital for many years and I was treated there several times in the past few years. It has a good reputation locally and I have every reason to be grateful for the care it provided me, and also for my family over decades.
The debate over the NHS is not best conducted by megaphone.
My experience of reading about it has left the same impression on me. It's just a gale of naivety and self-contradiction.
So those parents who do pay for private education are paying to educate their own children and also paying taxation that goes towards paying to educate all those children in state schools.
Put all students who are currently in private schools into the state sector and you have to find significant extra funding and capacity to cope with the new students
Surely it is better to focus on improving the standard of education in the state sector so that the achievement gap is narrowed.
The politics of envy is driving this policy plus a huge amount of hypocrisy. Parents are always going to want the best for their children. If they want to pay to have their children privately educated - that is their right.
Too many on the left who were privately educated - or who have had their own children privately educated - seem to want to pull up the ladder. They have enjoyed the benefits that they are now seeking to deny others.
That is just wrong.
There is nothing self-contradictory about libertarianism, which is just a modern name for liberalism since liberal has been hijacked by people who can often be illiberal.
Libertarians are liberals - economically and socially. People who believe that individuals can best run their own lives without massive interference from a large state.
That doesn't mean that there should never be state interference or that the state never has to get involved. We're not anarchists.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1174342163141812224?s=21
Freedom to oppress?
If all the sharp elbowed and wealthy parents who pay for private education were using the state sector, I have no doubt that it would be better resourced on a per pupil basis than it is now. I would love to pay more tax and have better schools. Parents who send their kids to private schools don't seem to say the same thing.
I would never criticise people for the individual choices they make to do what they see as the best for their kids. But in order that you don't accuse me of hypocrisy, I would note that I personally went to a comprehensive and so are my kids, a conscious choice as we could afford to send them private if we wanted to.
I have no quarrel with saying private schools arguably should be businesses - indeed I suggest it upthread, although charitable schools are somewhat less numerous than people realise. But let's stick to facts and not the addled sound bites of an ex-private schoolboy like Jeremy Corbyn.
"We have fought for three years to give you the final say on Brexit."
The specific Johnson comment is that he doesn't seem to cope well with situations. A more competent politician would have said something bland and moved on.
Are you also ‘subsidising’ the military?
Their children aren't in the state sector, so they have no direct incentive to support more funding for the state sector.
Inasmuch as their taxes go towards funding the state sector, they have an incentive to support cutting that funding.
But taxpayers do not 'subsidise' private schools. It is dishonest to say they do - the worst form of Campbellite spin. And ironically, by diverting attention away from the real issues private education raises and discrediting the people who use it, it weakens their argument for change.
You have been asked to prove a statement you've made. If you can't prove it, just say 'no' and move on. Honestly, are you a Principal Examiner for AQA?
In the United States the term Liberal has been adopted to essentially mean Democrat and is used as a misguided insult by supporters of the GOP.
In the United Kingdom it is more associated with the Liberal Democrats and their predecessors, regardless of whether their policies are liberal or not.
In Australia the term Liberal is interestingly used by their equivalent of the Conservative Party.
Many so-called Liberals are not economic liberals and oppose laissez-faire which is a tenant of economic liberalism.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7478565/EU-tells-Boris-Johnson-12-DAYS-Brexit-plan-OVER.html
But the drain in question was Henry VI's decision to massively expand it in 1447 so that probably isn't relevant to this debate.
The list goes on.
You can talk about the ‘politics of envy’ but that goes both ways. The ‘politics of resentment’ is just as bad.
[Really silly bits ignored.]
Trump is not a libertarian FWIW. Secondly there are libertarian ways to deal with negative externalities like pollution. Again libertarianism isn't anarchy.
We’ve had this argument before anyway so I know where this is going.
I wonder how high up the list @Sunil_Prasannan's one man crusade to travel every yard of railway line in the UK would feature?
And you think I don't want the government to do something about the shambles in education?