Or one could argue that if the school provides financial and other help to other schools (eg by establishing them, paying for them) and pupils elsewhere (who would not
One final point: while the law and morality are not one and the same, the fact that a society has over a very long period of time determined that something is lawful may well be an indication that society considers it something worthwhile and moral in a more general sense. There are some obvious exceptions but what is lawful is an indication - not the only one, of course - but an important one of what a society values.
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
Have you considered the possibility that the charity “subsidy” does not benefit those paying the huge fees but those who don’t? That if they stopped doing the various charitable activities that they do, then it might make no difference to the large fee payers?
Oh I am 100% certain it would make no noticable difference to the £42k Eton fee payers. But I still feel charitable status should be removed because it just plain wrong imo.
Because you don’t think the charitable works they do are a good thing? Or because you don’t believe those works are charitable?
You also contradict yourself, I think, because either they are using charitable status to benefits the £42k pupils or they aren’t. If they are, then it is a contradiction to say that it will make no noticeable difference to them, no?
Anyway, appreciate it was a rant, so maybe not 100% coherent!
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).
Heavily advertised? Not worth it? Are we talking about Ad Astra or Brexit?
The initial reviews for Ad Astra gave it five or four stars. "A great film". "A masterpiece". The initial Guardian review was five stars, then four stars, then Kermode's three stars as the public comments came in. It will end up on two or one star. How did that happen? What were the reviewers thinking?
Illustrates my point. I suspect herding from reviewers. Following the first few five star reviews, reviewers didn't want to step too much out of line. The audiences have no such qualms.
Ad Astra takes a visually thrilling journey through the vast reaches of space while charting an ambitious course for the heart of the bond between parent and child
Hahahaha. That is an hilariously overwrought description of the 'plot', and I use that term loosly. And visually stunning would be more apt than visually thrilling - the latter makes it sound like the movie itself is exciting, when even if one loved the film it is clearly meant to be slow paced and contemplative rather than thrilling.
We're told Corbyn is a consensus kind of chap, and he finds himself in the odd position of still be secure with the membership compared to any contender, while out of step with the membership on this issue (even though it is not as absurd as it seems at first glance), so presumably he will bow to the will of the members on this, and this is settled, and we see if that tempts LDs back.
*indeed when I was starting out, I was on several occasions appointed over better qualified applicants.
Nor am I. I was just noting that the position for women is not hunky dory either - and can often get worse as they get older. It was much much tougher working when my children were older than when they were young babies, a point I make when talking to womens' groups. People often assume - wrongly - that it is the other way around.
You need to fight hard against the "older women becoming invisible" rule which can be all too common in life.
Quotas are a very crude way of dealing with a very real problem.
I think Medicine has pretty much sorted equal ops now, and genuinely is a level playing field in the UK, not least because training and careers are in effect single provider, and that provider has genuine commitment to equality.
I am not so convinced the same is true in areas where careers are much more exposed to patronage, networking, and club-ability. This is where discrimination happens now. Ironically, media, culture, politics and law seem particularly open to these.
How many consultant surgeons are women with children? How many senior consultants generally? How many are part-time / full-time?
Equal opportunity tends to hit the reality of working full-time while raising a family. It can be done but it's tough. And it's tough not just because of discrimination but because of the choices you have to make. For instance, for a period I made a decision never to attend any works do that was outside normal office hours simply because that time was for my family. And given the amount of networking that goes on that does keep you out of the loop a bit. Also, I avoided jobs which involved travel as a matter of routine, for the same family-related reasons.
That made matters difficult when one of the factors for promotion was willingness to work in different offices round the globe and experience of doing so. It tends to discriminate, indirectly, against women (though not just them).
But you make your choices in life and find other ways to make yourself a person worth keeping.
Whoever it was who said the movie Ad Astra was not worth anyone's time was very on the money. One of the most bizarrely and unintentionally surreal movie experiences I have encountered in a long time. Without major spoilers, any movie where I am left saying 'what on earth was the point of the space baboon attack?' is an odd one (and not as exciting as that sounds).
It wasn't me, but I did chime in with the opinion that anything that's heavily advertised it probably not going to be worthwhile. Haven't seen it (yet).
Heavily advertised? Not worth it? Are we talking about Ad Astra or Brexit?
The initial reviews for Ad Astra gave it five or four stars. "A great film". "A masterpiece". The initial Guardian review was five stars, then four stars, then Kermode's three stars as the public comments came in. It will end up on two or one star. How did that happen? What were the reviewers thinking?
Illustrates my point. I suspect herding from reviewers. Following the first few five star reviews, reviewers didn't want to step too much out of line. The audiences have no such qualms.
Hmmm.... The Last Jedi got an "official" 91% but an audience 44%...
Well, the audience are not always right! (especially when butthurt fanboys have an organised campaign )
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
Have you considered the possibility that the charity “subsidy” does not benefit those paying the huge fees but those who don’t? That if they stopped doing the various charitable activities that they do, then it might make no difference to the large fee payers?
Oh I am 100% certain it would make no noticable difference to the £42k Eton fee payers. But I still feel charitable status should be removed because it just plain wrong imo.
Because you don’t think the charitable works they do are a good thing? Or because you don’t believe those works are charitable?
You also contradict yourself, I think, because either they are using charitable status to benefits the £42k pupils or they aren’t. If they are, then it is a contradiction to say that it will make no noticeable difference to them, no?
Anyway, appreciate it was a rant, so maybe not 100% coherent!
Yes well, it was a rant and not even a wine-fuelled one, sadly.
My point though was that removing charitable status (and even adding VAT) is unlikely to make a noticable difference ot the fee payers, meaning they will still find a way to pay the fees.
University quotas for private school pupils would be my preferred way of curbing this privilege perpetuator.
Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .
The problem is all the key figures in Labour had a terrible education. Corbyn Milne, Starmer...they were all privately educated and promoted waaaaay beyond their very limited abilities as a result.
I'd dearly love to know why @Charles's mum thinks Starmer is not fit for public office.
I'm still trying to understand what a 'chair of chairs' is?
I wonder if she is a very senior magistrate but you get no hits on chair of chairs
*indeed when I was starting out, I was on several occasions appointed over better qualified applicants.
Nor am I. I was just noting that the position for women is not hunky dory either - and can often get worse as they get older. It was much much tougher working when my children were older than when they were young babies, a point I make when talking to womens' groups. People often assume - wrongly - that it is the other way around.
You need to fight hard against the "older women becoming invisible" rule which can be all too common in life.
Quotas are a very crude way of dealing with a very real problem.
I think
How many consultant surgeons are women with children? How many senior consultants generally? How many are part-time / full-time?
Equal opportunity tends to hit the reality of working full-time while raising a family. It can be done but it's tough. And it's tough not just because of discrimination but because of the choices you have to make. For instance, for a period I made a decision never to attend any works do that was outside normal office hours simply because that time was for my family. And given the amount of networking that goes on that does keep you out of the loop a bit. Also, I avoided jobs which involved travel as a matter of routine, for the same family-related reasons.
That made matters difficult when one of the factors for promotion was willingness to work in different offices round the globe and experience of doing so. It tends to discriminate, indirectly, against women (though not just them).
But you make your choices in life and find other ways to make yourself a person worth keeping.
Obviously there is a lag (a consultant aged 60 would have been appointed 20-25 years ago) but in newer appointments are pretty gender balanced.
In my dept it is 50% male and female, and also balanced between UK, EU and Non EU trained, and ethnically. All the women are full time and have children, bar the youngest aged 33. Indeed the only part time is a white male with no kids (winding down to retirement).
I think Medicine genuinely has got its house in order. There are variations between specialities, but it is not obviously relating to discrimination or in social hours. Obstetrics and acute paediatrics have the hardest rotas and are very female. Orthopeadics less so, for example.
We're told Corbyn is a consensus kind of chap, and he finds himself in the odd position of still be secure with the membership compared to any contender, while out of step with the membership on this issue (even though it is not as absurd as it seems at first glance), so presumably he will bow to the will of the members on this, and this is settled, and we see if that tempts LDs back.
The only way Corbyn gets all the Remainers back now is by committing to revoke, which would see scores of Labour Leave seats go Tory or Brexit Party
We're told Corbyn is a consensus kind of chap, and he finds himself in the odd position of still be secure with the membership compared to any contender, while out of step with the membership on this issue (even though it is not as absurd as it seems at first glance), so presumably he will bow to the will of the members on this, and this is settled, and we see if that tempts LDs back.
The only way Corbyn gets all the Remainers back now is by committing to revoke, which would see scores of Labour Leave seats go Tory or Brexit Party
Not sure Labour going after private schools is a good move .
Removing charitable status should really be the only thing they should do . Looks like another own goal .
The more stupid policy is abolishing Ofsted.
He will lose so many young parents votes with that policy.
I dunno. Our local primary was failed by Ofsted recently. Most of the parents have rowed in behind the school. This surprises me because, as far as I can tell, Ofsted was actually right.
(FWIW, I think it is a stupid policy, but largely because - as per usual with Corbyn - he's offering 1970s solutions when the last couple of years have seen some interesting developments which could potentially make Ofsted obsolete in any case.)
How many consultant surgeons are women with children? How many senior consultants generally? How many are part-time / full-time?
Equal opportunity tends to hit the reality of working full-time while raising a family. It can be done but it's tough. And it's tough not just because of discrimination but because of the choices you have to make. For instance, for a period I made a decision never to attend any works do that was outside normal office hours simply because that time was for my family. And given the amount of networking that goes on that does keep you out of the loop a bit. Also, I avoided jobs which involved travel as a matter of routine, for the same family-related reasons.
That made matters difficult when one of the factors for promotion was willingness to work in different offices round the globe and experience of doing so. It tends to discriminate, indirectly, against women (though not just them).
But you make your choices in life and find other ways to make yourself a person worth keeping.
Obviously there is a lag (a consultant aged 60 would have been appointed 20-25 years ago) but in newer appointments are pretty gender balanced.
In my dept it is 50% male and female, and also balanced between UK, EU and Non EU trained, and ethnically. All the women are full time and have children, bar the youngest aged 33. Indeed the only part time is a white male with no kids (winding down to retirement).
I think Medicine genuinely has got its house in order. There are variations between specialities, but it is not obviously relating to discrimination or in social hours. Obstetrics and acute paediatrics have the hardest rotas and are very female. Orthopeadics less so, for example.
Interesting, thank you.
What is medicine doing right that others could learn from? Perhaps a header from you one day ......
We're told Corbyn is a consensus kind of chap, and he finds himself in the odd position of still be secure with the membership compared to any contender, while out of step with the membership on this issue (even though it is not as absurd as it seems at first glance), so presumably he will bow to the will of the members on this, and this is settled, and we see if that tempts LDs back.
The only way Corbyn gets all the Remainers back now is by committing to revoke, which would see scores of Labour Leave seats go Tory or Brexit Party
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.
1606: James becomes simultaneously King of England, King of Scotland, and King of Ireland. But England (including Wales), Scotland and Ireland were separate with their own parliaments.
1707-1800: England (including Wales) and Scotland were united into the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", with Anne becoming the first Queen of Great Britain (she was also Queen of Ireland). The Scottish Parliament closed, and the Westminster Parliament became the UK Parliament. Ireland was separate with its own parliament
1801-1920's: Great Britain was united with Ireland, creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", with George becoming the first King of the now-unified Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Ireland Parliament closed, and the Westminster Parliament remained the UK Parliament.
1920's-1973: Ireland split into two parts, Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remained in the UK, creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", , with George becoming the first King of the now-renamed Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ireland became a Dominion but that did not last long and eventually became a non-aligned republic outside the Commonwealth. Ireland opened up a new Parliament in Dublin, Northern Ireland sent MPs to Westminster but also opened up its own Parliament that passed some NI-only legislation.
1973-date. The old NI parliament closed (prorogued) andNI-specific powers were transferred to Westminster. Since then they have ricocheted between the Westminister NI Ministry, various devolved bodies, and the new Assembly ever since.
We're told Corbyn is a consensus kind of chap, and he finds himself in the odd position of still be secure with the membership compared to any contender, while out of step with the membership on this issue (even though it is not as absurd as it seems at first glance), so presumably he will bow to the will of the members on this, and this is settled, and we see if that tempts LDs back.
The only way Corbyn gets all the Remainers back now is by committing to revoke, which would see scores of Labour Leave seats go Tory or Brexit Party
No it wouldn’t.
Oh it most certainly would
It wouldn’t because nobody would believe him you are looking at this from the wrong side of the argument.
Your second paragraph summarises my views pretty well to be fair.
I do not believe private schools should have charitable status.
I do not believe school fees should be VAT exempt.
I do not believe the private schools sector serves this country positively, perpetuating as it does undeserved privilege down through the generations within the same families.
I do not believe the private schools system helps the country make the most of its talent, since it enhances the chances of less able individuals whose families happen to be wealthy acheiving roles of great influence.
I do believe we should do all we can to reduce this malign influence going forwards.
There, rant over. I feel much better now.
.
Oh I am 100% certain it would make no noticable difference to the £42k Eton fee payers. But I still feel charitable status should be removed because it just plain wrong imo.
Because you don’t think the charitable works they do are a good thing? Or because you don’t believe those works are charitable?
You also contradict yourself, I think, because either they are using charitable status to benefits the £42k pupils or they aren’t. If they are, then it is a contradiction to say that it will make no noticeable difference to them, no?
Anyway, appreciate it was a rant, so maybe not 100% coherent!
Yes well, it was a rant and not even a wine-fuelled one, sadly.
My point though was that removing charitable status (and even adding VAT) is unlikely to make a noticable difference ot the fee payers, meaning they will still find a way to pay the fees.
University quotas for private school pupils would be my preferred way of curbing this privilege perpetuator.
You are deluded if you think 20% VAT won’t make any difference to fee payers. Such a policy would squeeze the budgets of most private schools, as they would be patently unable to pass on all the cost. And quite a few would fail.
Class based quotas for university admissions would be the best way I can think of to destroy the standing of Britain’s top universities.
This is the politics of spite and would simply lead to a wealth/brain drain.
I'd like to think that somewhere in WC2 the trainee solicitor responsible for the appalling bundles in the Supreme Court hearing has been put on wholly needless all-night weekend photocopying for the abortive Thomas Cook refi.
How many consultant surgeons are women with children? How many senior consultants generally? How many are part-time / full-time?
Equal opportunity tends to hit the reality of working full-time while raising a family. It can be done but it's tough. And it's tough not just because of discrimination but because of the choices you have to make. For instance, for a period I made a decision never to attend any works do that was outside normal office hours simply because that time was for my family. And given the amount of networking that goes on that does keep you out of the loop a bit. Also, I avoided jobs which involved travel as a matter of routine, for the same family-related reasons.
That made matters difficult when one of the factors for promotion was willingness to work in different offices round the globe and experience of doing so. It tends to discriminate, indirectly, against women (though not just them).
But you make your choices in life and find other ways to make yourself a person worth keeping.
Obviously there is a lag (a consultant aged 60 would have been appointed 20-25 years ago) but in newer appointments are pretty gender balanced.
In my dept it is 50% male and female, and also balanced between UK, EU and Non EU trained, and ethnically. All the women are full time and have children, bar the youngest aged 33. Indeed the only part time is a white male with no kids (winding down to retirement).
I think Medicine genuinely has got its house in order. There are variations between specialities, but it is not obviously relating to discrimination or in social hours. Obstetrics and acute paediatrics have the hardest rotas and are very female. Orthopeadics less so, for example.
Interesting, thank you.
What is medicine doing right that others could learn from? Perhaps a header from you one day ......
How many consultant surgeons are women with children? How many senior consultants generally? How many are part-time / full-time?
Equal opportunity tends to hit the reality of working full-time while raising a family. It can be done but it's tough. And it's tough not just because of discrimination but because of the choices you have to make. For instance, for a period I made a decision never to attend any works do that was outside normal office hours simply because that time was for my family. And given the amount of networking that goes on that does keep you out of the loop a bit. Also, I avoided jobs which involved travel as a matter of routine, for the same family-related reasons.
That made matters difficult when one of the factors for promotion was willingness to work in different offices round the globe and experience of doing so. It tends to discriminate, indirectly, against women (though not just them).
But you make your choices in life and find other ways to make yourself a person worth keeping.
Obviously there is a lag (a consultant aged 60 would have been appointed 20-25 years ago) but in newer appointments are pretty gender balanced.
In my dept it is 50% male and female, and also balanced between UK, EU and Non EU trained, and ethnically. All the women are full time and have children, bar the youngest aged 33. Indeed the only part time is a white male with no kids (winding down to retirement).
I think Medicine genuinely has got its house in order. There are variations between specialities, but it is not obviously relating to discrimination or in social hours. Obstetrics and acute paediatrics have the hardest rotas and are very female. Orthopeadics less so, for example.
Interesting, thank you.
What is medicine doing right that others could learn from? Perhaps a header from you one day ......
There is a lot wrong with medical careers, but perhaps the biggest change was national selection panels for training posts based on objective criteria. This has effectively killed patronage.
We're told Corbyn is a consensus kind of chap, and he finds himself in the odd position of still be secure with the membership compared to any contender, while out of step with the membership on this issue (even though it is not as absurd as it seems at first glance), so presumably he will bow to the will of the members on this, and this is settled, and we see if that tempts LDs back.
The only way Corbyn gets all the Remainers back now is by committing to revoke, which would see scores of Labour Leave seats go Tory or Brexit Party
No it wouldn’t.
Oh it most certainly would
It wouldn’t because nobody would believe him you are looking at this from the wrong side of the argument.
In which case he will keep leaking Remainers to the LDs
Very sad . Yet another stalwart of the high street bites the dust.
Why is it sad? This is a normal part of our economic system. Disrupters found a way to make travel cheaper and more transparent, to the significant benefit of the consumer. So the laggards shut up shop. It’s sad for those that lose their jobs but that’s it.
Plenty of aviation Twitter types saying TC has popped. CAA has wet-leased replacement aircraft and crew as of sometime tonight, so anyone overseas tonight will be flying back in the public sector
This Thomas Cook business is interesting. Boris and co have an excuse to piss all over the Labour conference and monopolise the news. If Boris also gets some good mood music from the EU meetings in the UN, you’d think he’ll consolidate his position in the polls.
On the other hand if the repatriation is a cock up, the EU leaders tell Boris to piss off, and he loses the court case, you’d think even Corbyn will find the words to give him a kicking.
Very sad . Yet another stalwart of the high street bites the dust.
Why is it sad? This is a normal part of our economic system. Disrupters found a way to make travel cheaper and more transparent, to the significant benefit of the consumer. So the laggards shut up shop. It’s sad for those that lose their jobs but that’s it.
It would have been nice if Thomas Cook had found a way to change with the times and reinvent themselves, keeping a link with history in the process. Otherwise I do agree with you. It's an idea examined in science fiction that death is necessary to allow for life, otherwise there is not room for anything new.
Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
Where are you seeing that?
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.
Agreed.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
218, surely?
416?
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.
No Stuart is right. It was the United Kingdom from 1707. Well, according to wiki anyway!
Wiki is wrong and Sunil is right. It was 'Great Britain' from 1707, although the name was used informally from 1603 to 1649, and the 'United Kingdom' when the Kingdom of Ireland was integrated into it.
‘Twas James I (James the more of Scotland) who first promoted calling ourselves British. At the time the Scots were keen and the English not.
Very sad . Yet another stalwart of the high street bites the dust.
Why is it sad? This is a normal part of our economic system. Disrupters found a way to make travel cheaper and more transparent, to the significant benefit of the consumer. So the laggards shut up shop. It’s sad for those that lose their jobs but that’s it.
It would have been nice if Thomas Cook had found a way to change with the times and reinvent themselves, keeping a link with history in the process. Otherwise I do agree with you. It's an idea examined in science fiction that death is necessary to allow for life, otherwise there is not room for anything new.
Everybody realise the old must die to make way for the new. Everybody is a fan of creative destruction. Everybody wants to go to Heaven...
Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
Where are you seeing that?
I'm keeping an eye on things for a friend who has a booking and I haven't seen any cancellations yet.
Brexit killed Thomas Cook , right ?
Skyscanner and Booking.com. They're in a dying market.
Agreed.
Brexit certainly contributed, but Thomas Cook is a defunct business model.
Online has killed tens of thousands of old brands. And many, many more will fall. Including perhaps a 312 year golden oldie: the United Kingdom.
218, surely?
416?
The "United Kingdom" only came about after GB united with Ireland in 1801.
No Stuart is right. It was the United Kingdom from 1707. Well, according to wiki anyway!
Wiki is wrong and Sunil is right. It was 'Great Britain' from 1707, although the name was used informally from 1603 to 1649, and the 'United Kingdom' when the Kingdom of Ireland was integrated into it.
‘Twas James I (James the more of Scotland) who first promoted calling ourselves British. At the time the Scots were keen and the English not.
The Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland were still in existence in 1707. Then it was the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707 to 1801.
Very sad . Yet another stalwart of the high street bites the dust.
Why is it sad? This is a normal part of our economic system. Disrupters found a way to make travel cheaper and more transparent, to the significant benefit of the consumer. So the laggards shut up shop. It’s sad for those that lose their jobs but that’s it.
It would have been nice if Thomas Cook had found a way to change with the times and reinvent themselves, keeping a link with history in the process. Otherwise I do agree with you. It's an idea examined in science fiction that death is necessary to allow for life, otherwise there is not room for anything new.
Everybody realise the old must die to make way for the new. Everybody is a fan of creative destruction. Everybody wants to go to Heaven...
...yet nobody wants to die...
No need to anthropomorphize a limited company. It’s our political system’s recent extreme aversion to creative destruction that is causing such extreme stress in our economic system (and by consequence society).
Labours dementia tax if this ends up being in a manifesto .
It’s a self indulgent policy and reeks of class war and will go down badly with the more middle class Labour voters .
This is Labour talking to themself and you’d think in the run up to an election you’d think of policies that make people more likely to vote for you not less likely .
Very sad . Yet another stalwart of the high street bites the dust.
Why is it sad? This is a normal part of our economic system. Disrupters found a way to make travel cheaper and more transparent, to the significant benefit of the consumer. So the laggards shut up shop. It’s sad for those that lose their jobs but that’s it.
It would have been nice if Thomas Cook had found a way to change with the times and reinvent themselves, keeping a link with history in the process. Otherwise I do agree with you. It's an idea examined in science fiction that death is necessary to allow for life, otherwise there is not room for anything new.
Everybody realise the old must die to make way for the new. Everybody is a fan of creative destruction. Everybody wants to go to Heaven...
...yet nobody wants to die...
That's not quite true. Dignitas hasn't gone out of business.
My Grandad was very accepting that his end was nigh for more than his last decade of life.
Surely the point about Labour abolishing private schools is that the people directly affected (ie private schools parents) are adversely affected whereas the people who (supposedly) benefit (all other parents) only benefit indirectly.
So whilst 7% is only a small number directly affected there will be a chunk of votes lost in that pool whereas it's hard to gain votes from people who only benefit indirectly.
The effect is also greater than maybe thought given that Labour now has a good amount of support amongst ABC1s. Even if only 20% of private school parents vote Labour that's 1.4% of total electorate who have been given a pretty big push to leave Labour.
Home Counties AB Tory Remainers that have been flirting with the Lib Dem’s are going to have serious pause for thought when they read this. Charitable status revoked and VAT charged on fees in Labour’s first budget!
Think Labour conference has just guaranteed the likes of Guildford staying blue rather than flipping yellow.
Surely the point about Labour abolishing private schools is that the people directly affected (ie private schools parents) are adversely affected whereas the people who (supposedly) benefit (all other parents) only benefit indirectly.
So whilst 7% is only a small number directly affected there will be a chunk of votes lost in that pool whereas it's hard to gain votes from people who only benefit indirectly.
The effect is also greater than maybe thought given that Labour now has a good amount of support amongst ABC1s. Even if only 20% of private school parents vote Labour that's 1.4% of total electorate who have been given a pretty big push to leave Labour.
It will never happen, but I don't think there would be much benefit, direct or indirect. The very rich would send (or keep) their children abroad, benefitting the economies of other countries. The merely well-off would send their kids to schools in good areas (placing the chief burden of educating their children back on the taxpayer), and spend some money on private tuition (assuming this isn't also banned). Cretinous garbage.
Home Counties AB Tory Remainers that have been flirting with the Lib Dem’s are going to have serious pause for thought when they read this. Charitable status revoked and VAT charged on fees in Labour’s first budget!
Think Labour conference has just guaranteed the likes of Guildford staying blue rather than flipping yellow.
Worth noting what McDonnell is reported as saying in that article.
One interesting detail about Thomas Cook is that they've paid out £1.2bn in interest on their debt over recent years. That suggests that, despite the challenge from the internet, there is a market there for other companies not weighed down by a debt burden.
One interesting detail about Thomas Cook is that they've paid out £1.2bn in interest on their debt over recent years. That suggests that, despite the challenge from the internet, there is a market there for other companies not weighed down by a debt burden.
It's apparently over the last ten years, whereas their last half-year loss was £1.5bn.
Home Counties AB Tory Remainers that have been flirting with the Lib Dem’s are going to have serious pause for thought when they read this. Charitable status revoked and VAT charged on fees in Labour’s first budget!
Think Labour conference has just guaranteed the likes of Guildford staying blue rather than flipping yellow.
You know the LibDems and Labour are different parties, right?
Home Counties AB Tory Remainers that have been flirting with the Lib Dem’s are going to have serious pause for thought when they read this. Charitable status revoked and VAT charged on fees in Labour’s first budget!
Think Labour conference has just guaranteed the likes of Guildford staying blue rather than flipping yellow.
You know the LibDems and Labour are different parties, right?
The thing about this website is it gives insight unavailable anywhere else!
Yes I am aware. But the Tory pitch in these seats will be simple. Johnson vs Corbyn aka a vote for anyone but Johnson is a vote for a Corbyn government. I suspect it will be effective in the face of these sorts of policies.
Home Counties AB Tory Remainers that have been flirting with the Lib Dem’s are going to have serious pause for thought when they read this. Charitable status revoked and VAT charged on fees in Labour’s first budget!
Think Labour conference has just guaranteed the likes of Guildford staying blue rather than flipping yellow.
Worth noting what McDonnell is reported as saying in that article.
It is. It’s also a reason why Remain is an odd preference for the Momentum lot.
Comments
You also contradict yourself, I think, because either they are using charitable status to benefits the £42k pupils or they aren’t. If they are, then it is a contradiction to say that it will make no noticeable difference to them, no?
Anyway, appreciate it was a rant, so maybe not 100% coherent!
Hahahaha. That is an hilariously overwrought description of the 'plot', and I use that term loosly. And visually stunning would be more apt than visually thrilling - the latter makes it sound like the movie itself is exciting, when even if one loved the film it is clearly meant to be slow paced and contemplative rather than thrilling.
Equal opportunity tends to hit the reality of working full-time while raising a family. It can be done but it's tough. And it's tough not just because of discrimination but because of the choices you have to make. For instance, for a period I made a decision never to attend any works do that was outside normal office hours simply because that time was for my family. And given the amount of networking that goes on that does keep you out of the loop a bit. Also, I avoided jobs which involved travel as a matter of routine, for the same family-related reasons.
That made matters difficult when one of the factors for promotion was willingness to work in different offices round the globe and experience of doing so. It tends to discriminate, indirectly, against women (though not just them).
But you make your choices in life and find other ways to make yourself a person worth keeping.
My point though was that removing charitable status (and even adding VAT) is unlikely to make a noticable difference ot the fee payers, meaning they will still find a way to pay the fees.
University quotas for private school pupils would be my preferred way of curbing this privilege perpetuator.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1175874883265486854
In my dept it is 50% male and female, and also balanced between UK, EU and Non EU trained, and ethnically. All the women are full time and have children, bar the youngest aged 33. Indeed the only part time is a white male with no kids (winding down to retirement).
I think Medicine genuinely has got its house in order. There are variations between specialities, but it is not obviously relating to discrimination or in social hours. Obstetrics and acute paediatrics have the hardest rotas and are very female. Orthopeadics less so, for example.
He will lose so many young parents votes with that policy.
(FWIW, I think it is a stupid policy, but largely because - as per usual with Corbyn - he's offering 1970s solutions when the last couple of years have seen some interesting developments which could potentially make Ofsted obsolete in any case.)
What is medicine doing right that others could learn from? Perhaps a header from you one day ......
Presumably he doesn't want an FTA then.
1707-1800: England (including Wales) and Scotland were united into the "United Kingdom of Great Britain", with Anne becoming the first Queen of Great Britain (she was also Queen of Ireland). The Scottish Parliament closed, and the Westminster Parliament became the UK Parliament. Ireland was separate with its own parliament
1801-1920's: Great Britain was united with Ireland, creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", with George becoming the first King of the now-unified Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Ireland Parliament closed, and the Westminster Parliament remained the UK Parliament.
1920's-1973: Ireland split into two parts, Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remained in the UK, creating the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", , with George becoming the first King of the now-renamed Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ireland became a Dominion but that did not last long and eventually became a non-aligned republic outside the Commonwealth. Ireland opened up a new Parliament in Dublin, Northern Ireland sent MPs to Westminster but also opened up its own Parliament that passed some NI-only legislation.
1973-date. The old NI parliament closed (prorogued) andNI-specific powers were transferred to Westminster. Since then they have ricocheted between the Westminister NI Ministry, various devolved bodies, and the new Assembly ever since.
Class based quotas for university admissions would be the best way I can think of to destroy the standing of Britain’s top universities.
This is the politics of spite and would simply lead to a wealth/brain drain.
No just some more donations to his pension fund party
Sadly I don't think the same firm is involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA3_ejAsT2w
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7492141/Muslim-Year-nominee-probed-police-saying-jihad-solution.html
On the other hand if the repatriation is a cock up, the EU leaders tell Boris to piss off, and he loses the court case, you’d think even Corbyn will find the words to give him a kicking.
Interesting week.
Next up - Universities...
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1175873527947436033?s=21
Everybody is a fan of creative destruction.
Everybody wants to go to Heaven...
...yet nobody wants to die...
The United Kingdom of England, Wales (for the time being), Scotland (ditto) and Parts of Nothern Ireland.
It’s a self indulgent policy and reeks of class war and will go down badly with the more middle class Labour voters .
This is Labour talking to themself and you’d think in the run up to an election you’d think of policies that make people more likely to vote for you not less likely .
Another huge own goal .
My Grandad was very accepting that his end was nigh for more than his last decade of life.
So whilst 7% is only a small number directly affected there will be a chunk of votes lost in that pool whereas it's hard to gain votes from people who only benefit indirectly.
The effect is also greater than maybe thought given that Labour now has a good amount of support amongst ABC1s. Even if only 20% of private school parents vote Labour that's 1.4% of total electorate who have been given a pretty big push to leave Labour.
Yes !
Home Counties AB Tory Remainers that have been flirting with the Lib Dem’s are going to have serious pause for thought when they read this. Charitable status revoked and VAT charged on fees in Labour’s first budget!
Think Labour conference has just guaranteed the likes of Guildford staying blue rather than flipping yellow.
Yes I am aware. But the Tory pitch in these seats will be simple. Johnson vs Corbyn aka a vote for anyone but Johnson is a vote for a Corbyn government. I suspect it will be effective in the face of these sorts of policies.