Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour’s general election plan on Brexit- it looks as though t

135

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661

    alex. said:

    Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
    When Foreign Secretary, Dr Owen would be tapped up by MI6 to provide health assessments of foreign leaders he'd met (he was a consultant neurologist, iirc). If Corbyn is stepping down this suddenly, and cannot do a full day, then we need pb's medical cadre to hold their stethoscopes to the television coverage and tell us what is wrong. House could do it.
    Jezza looks fit to me, mentally and physically. He arrived at the climate strike by bike for example.

    Underneath, who knows? But that is true for us all.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).

    And then you have the ECHR.

    So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
    Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    Many thanks for your response. I firmly believe their charitable status is a sham but I'm not really trying to prove it. I think Labour could find a way to force the rules to be tightened and yes, there will probably be some unfortunate unintended consequences.

    My real point though, is that private schools' current charitable status is unlikely to be a barrier to Labour's plans.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983

    TGOHF said:

    I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.

    Lucky you still got to choose your course - under Jezza the state will assign you to an education camp.
    But at least I wouldn’t be paying fees!
    You should have moved to God's country
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.

    Lucky you still got to choose your course - under Jezza the state will assign you to an education camp.
    But at least I wouldn’t be paying fees!
    You should have moved to God's country
    Yorkshire?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983

    In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.

    What comes after is PR.

    What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.

    That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.

    Not a chance of any of them happening , perfidious Lib Dems would never go for PR if they were to get power
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    blueblue said:

    In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.

    What comes after is PR.

    What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.

    That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.

    What comes after is ~350 Lib Dem MPs thinking they really rather like their jobs, their salaries, their public profile, and their power...
    Those 350 LD MPs know full well they would be out next time, never to return, if they reneged on PR.

    On the other hand if they push PR through, as a central party they will likely share power for many years to come. Plus, in so doing they'll have killed Brexit forever.

    It's a slam dunk... in the extremely unlikely event of a LD majority.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    malcolmg said:

    In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.

    What comes after is PR.

    What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.

    That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.

    Not a chance of any of them happening , perfidious Lib Dems would never go for PR if they were to get power
    See my answer to @blueblue
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    edited September 2019

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    Many thanks for your response. I firmly believe their charitable status is a sham but I'm not really trying to prove it. I think Labour could find a way to force the rules to be tightened and yes, there will probably be some unfortunate unintended consequences.

    My real point though, is that private schools' current charitable status is unlikely to be a barrier to Labour's plans.
    I don't mean to sound rude. But a belief is not a fact, however firm that belief is. Under current law schools are classified as charities. The law could be changed of course to mean that they are no longer so classified. And that will have some consequences for those schools - and those who work in them and attend them.

    But unless Labour is proposing to withdraw from the ECHR it does not entitle them to expropriate assets or ban the existence of non-state schools. And any law which Labour proposes has to, under the Human Rights Act, be declared to be compatible with that Act and the ECHR. If people think it isn't they won't hesitate to take the government to court. So Labour should not think that this is something which can easily be done.

    Personally, I think of all the issues facing the country this is nowhere near my top 10 or even top 25.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983
    Chris said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Chris said:

    Comment seen on Lib Dem Voice:
    "What concerns me is that if we win a majority and we must assume we might, apart from revoking Article 50, what comes next."

    Firstly, I think the Lib Dems are kidding themselves if they think they are heading for 300+ seats.

    Secondly, they don't actually have a policy shortage - they have loads of very dull policy papers and whoever is in office when this nightmare is eventually over also has a huge in-tray of "stuff everyone knows needs doing but which has been left to fester for three years". So the Government of whatever shade will be kept very busy.

    I do think Lib Dems will struggle to articulate what their central theme is after Brexit happens or is stopped, because it's become so defining as an issue. But that doesn't mean they'd have trouble writing a Queen's Speech in the unlikely event they were called upon to do it - that is, they have policies but don't necessarily have a narrative.
    I think we're all so used to the LibDems massively underperforming expectations, that we assume it's going to happen again. (Disclaimer: it will probably happen again.)

    But the next election is probably their best shot in a Century for getting a majority. The governing Conservative Party is fighting with BXP who can be more for "diamond Brexit". The Labour Party is run by uninspiring anti-semite, with no policy on the issue de jour, and otherwise unworkable policies.

    Now, will this all come together and result in a LibDem majority? Probably not. But I think that @Byronic is probably right: Jo Swinson does seem disturbingly nice and normal, and she's preaching to a third of the population who've been abandoned by Labour and the Conservatives.
    SNIPt they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.

    I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.

    Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.
    Some people have been talking on PB for so long that the unicorn has entered their souls.
    This place is a madhouse nowadays, people deranged thinking Lib Dems will do anything much other than lie through their teeth.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 18,982
    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
  • nunuonenunuone Posts: 1,138

    I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.

    Ooh, who are you going to be studying with? Good luck.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    Details of the YouGov last week have the Tories ahead with 25 -49 year olds on 26% to 25% each for Labour and the LDs, reversing the 2017 situation where the Tories only led with over 47 year olds and returning to the situation in 2015 where the Tories led with over 35s.

    Labour meanwhile are fourth with 50 to 64s on just 18% to 31% for the Tories and 21% for the LDs and 19% for the Brexit Party and with over 65s Labour have collapsed to just 8% with the Tories on a hefty 49% and the LDs on 19% (though Labour do lead with 18 to 24s still).

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dcvjryxlw9/TheTimes_190918_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

    That is not Yougov's most recent poll though - which has Labour back in second place with the Tory lead down to 7%.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    If this is the policy it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of charity law. When a charity is wound up any remaining assets are usually distributed back to the donors. They are not simply there to be used at will by someone taking them. Any new rule would affect all sorts of other charities and it is very difficult to draft a law which only affects those charities which support a public school without catching other - presumably unintended - targets (eg a charity providing education for the disabled).

    And then you have the ECHR.

    So the whole matter is considerably more complex than some of the idiotic Labour groupies would have you believe.
    Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    Many thanks for your response. I firmly believe their charitable status is a sham but I'm not really trying to prove it. I think Labour could find a way to force the rules to be tightened and yes, there will probably be some unfortunate unintended consequences.

    My real point though, is that private schools' current charitable status is unlikely to be a barrier to Labour's plans.
    Hopefully the morons never get a chance to try it, their plans will bankrupt the country, deluded cretinous halfwits.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    malcolmg said:

    In the extremely unlikely event of the LDs winning a majority, Brexit gets cancelled.

    What comes after is PR.

    What comes after that is sensible consensus politics.

    That sounds like plenty enough for me given where we are right now.

    Not a chance of any of them happening , perfidious Lib Dems would never go for PR if they were to get power
    We would., though would have a parliamentary term before an election under the system.

    Not that I think we will have more than 50 seats.
  • There is no economic argument in favour of abolishing private education. The taxpayer saves many times over the cost of not providing state system places for those pupils. Whilst their parents continue to subsidise the state system through their taxes regardless...

    Of course everyone understands this, including the Marxists who now control the Labour Party (many of them public schoolboys/girls themselves)
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:


    Interesting points @Cyclefree. Given private schools' charitable staus is a complete sham, what happens to a 'charity' that no longer meets the charity criteria?
    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    SNIP
    I don't mean to sound rude. But a belief is not a fact, however firm that belief is. Under current law schools are classified as charities. The law could be changed of course to mean that they are no longer so classified. And that will have some consequences for those schools - and those who work in them and attend them.

    But unless Labour is proposing to withdraw from the ECHR it does not entitle them to expropriate assets or ban the existence of non-state schools. And any law which Labour proposes has to, under the Human Rights Act, be declared to be compatible with that Act and the ECHR. If people think it isn't they won't hesitate to take the government to court. So Labour should not think that this is something which can easily be done.

    Personally, I think of all the issues facing the country this is nowhere near my top 10 or even top 25.
    However you are an intelligent thinking person , not a deluded halfwitted left wing nutter. Fit them better if they went and did a hard days work. YOU can be sure their will still be private schools fot the party elite if it was ever to happen.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come




    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Details of the YouGov last week have the Tories ahead with 25 -49 year olds on 26% to 25% each for Labour and the LDs, reversing the 2017 situation where the Tories only led with over 47 year olds and returning to the situation in 2015 where the Tories led with over 35s.

    Labour meanwhile are fourth with 50 to 64s on just 18% to 31% for the Tories and 21% for the LDs and 19% for the Brexit Party and with over 65s Labour have collapsed to just 8% with the Tories on a hefty 49% and the LDs on 19% (though Labour do lead with 18 to 24s still).

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dcvjryxlw9/TheTimes_190918_VI_Trackers_w.pdf

    That is not Yougov's most recent poll though - which has Labour back in second place with the Tory lead down to 7%.
    These are the latest published figures though and Labour was only 1% ahead of the LDs and 7% behind the Tories in today's poll so I doubt the poll details are much different from last week's
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the law was looked at then and is constantly being looked at, both by the trustees of the charity and the directors of a school since they cannot afford to get it wrong. And there is also the Charity Commission.

    There are various powers available to close down "sham" charities. But you are assuming what you are trying to prove. The legal status of public schools and their charitable endowments is considerably more complicated than the phrase "complete sham" would suggest.

    I suspect that the schools have done a great deal to ensure that they are within the existing law. Whether charity law should be changed is another matter. One thing to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    SNIP
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
    You really are deluded, if you go down that road how is it morally correct to take someone else's money rather than get yourself a job.
    Why would you accept help from a charity and on and on.
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    I would expect a reasonable number of trustees will be contacting homebuilders with a view to closing down the school and selling off the school site for new homes.



  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.

    Lucky you still got to choose your course - under Jezza the state will assign you to an education camp.
    But at least I wouldn’t be paying fees!
    You should have moved to God's country
    Yorkshire?
    LOL, where men are men and the sheep are beautiful
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    Who are the “donors” to a charity when donations have been made and accumulated over several hundred years?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    Surely, most of the donors would be historic in most cases, so not around for a refund? As long as the Trustees dispose of the assets in line with objectives, then they have fulfilled their responsibilities. So for example they may wish to sell assets to support other educational activities, for example.

    DOI I am a Trustee of a charity with assets in 7 figures.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Cyclefree said:

    I start my university course tomorrow. I’m very excited. Been swotting up all week as well as watching the Jonathan Sumption Reith Lectures on iPlayer (thanks @Cyclefree) so hopefully I’m well prepared.

    Best of luck! At its best the law is a wonderful thing. I still love it, because it provides both intellectual interest and is also a fantastically practical skill to help resolve people's problems.

    People love to hate lawyers but try living in a country without law and you'll understand why law matters.

    Anyway, when I qualified as a barrister, my then boyfriend sent me a drawing with on it this quote from Goethe (allegedly): "A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilisation in decline." But, hey, what did he know? :)

    (PS the boyfriend did not last.)
    Q. Why did the lawyer cross the road?

    A. I can't tell you for legal reasons!
    Bleak House springs to mind....
    Hope, Joy, Youth, Peace, Rest, Life, Dust, Ashes, Waste, Want, Ruin, Despair, Madness, Death, Cunning, Folly, Words, Wigs, Rags, Sheepskin, Plunder, Precedent, Jargon, Gammon, and Spinach ...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387

    Winning a majority would mean winning seats where the Lib Dems are, as of now, practically non-existent (or maybe active in one Council ward). Is that possible on a national air-war and a freepost?, when at least one other party in those areas has a decent list of supporters, an MP, a bit of a presence?

    I know they've advanced since 2017, but they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.

    I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.

    Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.

    An excellent response :smile:

    But I think you need to set FPTP aside for a second. Why? Because, this is really a bet on whether the LibDems get more votes than the Conservatives. At which, point, of course, FPTP breaks down. As in, in 2017 they were 38 points behind the Conservatives, and in 2019, they might (in some universe) be 3 points ahead.

    So what we're really asking is, what is the chance that the LDs will beat the Conservatives in vote share?

    And in the vast majority of circumstances they don't. But there are some where they do. Is the Leave vote split between a group who wants a Deal and a group who doesn't? Or have we left, and things haven't gone swimmingly? Or has Labour totally imploded?

    All these are small probability outcomes. But I'd point out that a lot of traditional ruling parties have found themselves out of power around the world in the last few years. The lazy consensus of two parties handing the reigns of government between them has fallen in almost every European country except (so far) the UK.

    So, is 50-1 a good bet? Well, worth remembering that stepping back fifty elections in the UK takes you back all the way to... well, a long way back. But it might happen. I think rather than a 2% chance it's probably a 3-3.5% one.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
    Looking at the salaries of the board and only 10% of donations reaching good causes - how on earth is Oxfam a charity - morally...
  • Best prices - No Deal Brexit?

    No (WA ratified, A50 extended or A50 revoked) 1/4

    Yes (UK leaves EU in 2019 without WA ratified) 7/2
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387

    alex. said:

    Corbyn actually being displaced would change the game massively and would scare the Tories shitless. Especially if actually replaced by someone sensible who could genuinely command the support of the Parliamentary party.
    When Foreign Secretary, Dr Owen would be tapped up by MI6 to provide health assessments of foreign leaders he'd met (he was a consultant neurologist, iirc). If Corbyn is stepping down this suddenly, and cannot do a full day, then we need pb's medical cadre to hold their stethoscopes to the television coverage and tell us what is wrong. House could do it.
    I think he topped out as a Registrar.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    PaulM said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    I would expect a reasonable number of trustees will be contacting homebuilders with a view to closing down the school and selling off the school site for new homes.



    If it is an educational charity they may not be permitted to do so. Sell the property and give the proceeds to a related educational purpose, perhaps.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    rcs1000 said:

    Winning a majority would mean winning seats where the Lib Dems are, as of now, practically non-existent (or maybe active in one Council ward). Is that possible on a national air-war and a freepost?, when at least one other party in those areas has a decent list of supporters, an MP, a bit of a presence?

    I know they've advanced since 2017, but they lost their deposit in a sizable majority of seats (375) in 2017.

    I don't think saying they should be looking at a few dozen seats is predicting "massive underperformance" - I think it's realistic and indeed quite ambitious.

    Is it possible Swinson is the revelation of the campaign while Johnson and Corbyn stumble from disaster to disaster? In theory, yes. But the 15-1 on most seats and 50-1 on a majority don't strike me as generous by any means at all. They just start from such a low base and with too few areas where they have a competitive ground game.

    An excellent response :smile:

    But I think you need to set FPTP aside for a second. Why? Because, this is really a bet on whether the LibDems get more votes than the Conservatives. At which, point, of course, FPTP breaks down. As in, in 2017 they were 38 points behind the Conservatives, and in 2019, they might (in some universe) be 3 points ahead.

    So what we're really asking is, what is the chance that the LDs will beat the Conservatives in vote share?

    And in the vast majority of circumstances they don't. But there are some where they do. Is the Leave vote split between a group who wants a Deal and a group who doesn't? Or have we left, and things haven't gone swimmingly? Or has Labour totally imploded?

    All these are small probability outcomes. But I'd point out that a lot of traditional ruling parties have found themselves out of power around the world in the last few years. The lazy consensus of two parties handing the reigns of government between them has fallen in almost every European country except (so far) the UK.

    So, is 50-1 a good bet? Well, worth remembering that stepping back fifty elections in the UK takes you back all the way to... well, a long way back. But it might happen. I think rather than a 2% chance it's probably a 3-3.5% one.
    Although in most cases the two party duopoly has been broken by insurgent parties, not establishment ones.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:


    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
    What are the moral metrics you are using?

    For instance, one could argue that a school which charges whatever Eton charges to rich parents couldn't possibly be a charity because those parents and their children are not the sort of people deserving of financial help, however indirect, as a result of the tax breaks the school receives.

    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 otherwise benefit from this sort of education) and the financial worth of that help is greater than the financial worth of the tax breaks received, then society as a whole (and people who do deserve help) have received a benefit.

    The former is a value metric based on who should receive charity. The latter is more a financial calculation mixed in with a value judgment about the recipients. There are other ways, of course, of calculating or determining what is or may be moral.

    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.
  • Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    TGOHF said:

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
    Looking at the salaries of the board and only 10% of donations reaching good causes - how on earth is Oxfam a charity - morally...
    You don't even need to look at the Board's salaries. Oxfam's behaviour in relation sexual abuse by their employees is hardly moral.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    Who are the “donors” to a charity when donations have been made and accumulated over several hundred years?
    That's why it's complicated and will depend on the terms of the trust etc.

    The general rule is a starting point not the end of the matter.

    Anyway I should go and eat something. I can't be giving impromptu seminars on trust law for free AND on an empty stomach.
  • Looks like Thomas Cook flights are startling to be cancelled....

    You wait a few years for a crisis and then twenty come along at once.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Ethical behavior would be not seeking to fuck up the education of many because some class war makes you feel better. Forgive me on not taking lectures on ethics from Labour supporters.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    Cyclefree said:

    TGOHF said:

    Cyclefree said:

    alex. said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    The mass confiscation of the assets of education charities is going to provide some lawyers with great income streams for years to come


    Charity law was updated in 2011 and the question of whether schools are in fact charities in accordance with the to remember though is that any change affecting education will catch a whole load of groups beyond the obvious public schools and may fall within my favourite law of all: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

    The effectiveness of the Charity Commission, which is the regulator in this area, is quite another issue. They have been quite concerned with other matters: chuggers, for instance, and some charities being used to fund terror groups etc.
    I think Labour members think that the Charity status of schools is written into legislation itself, as opposed to deriving from the general definition of charities under charity law. Which is what I think you’re saying. Some are probably not even charities.

    And therefore think all that is necessary is to remove the current aforementioned (but nonexistent) legislation
    Yes, that's probably true. Charity law dates back to the time of Elizabeth 1st. I remember charity/trusts law being one of the hardest topics to study.

    At some point it will dawn on Labour, one hopes. They ought to do the hard thinking and preparing before coming into government - otherwise they will find themselves enmeshed in legal action and lobbying by plenty of others who will be affected. And not just on this but on a range of other proposed policies.

    But that is to be unbelievably naive. As we see with our current government those who believe most fervently in a policy are those who do the least thinking about the reality and about how to implement it effectively.

    There should be a name for such a law. Perhaps we could have a PB Competition to name it.

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.
    Looking at the salaries of the board and only 10% of donations reaching good causes - how on earth is Oxfam a charity - morally...
    You don't even need to look at the Board's salaries. Oxfam's behaviour in relation sexual abuse by their employees is hardly moral.
    As a Trustee, it is the safeguarding issues that trouble me most.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387

    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.

    Because it is a not for profit instution (i.e. there are no shareholders that get a dividend cheque) which is carrying out the intentions of its founders (for improving the education of English people or somesuch).

    There are private schools, a good number in fact, who are private, for profit, institutions with shareholders. They aim to educate, earn a return, and distribute it to their owners.

    There are charities who carry out all kinds of purposes. If you wish to change the definition of charity to restrict the kinds of things they can do, then go ahead. But - to quote @Cyclefree - beware unintended consequences.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    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.

    That rather presupposes there is a frictionless flow from society's general moral beliefs to legislation. But everybody knows that's far from the case. Sometimes, the law is an ass, because standing between the people and the laws modification are people who are served well by it being an ass.

    It would be better to say "something is lawful may well be an indication that those in society with power and influence consider it something worthwhile and moral"
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Legislation is not based on morality. Nor is politics about ethics. Politics is about making a space in which people can disagree and find a way to resolve those disagreements without violence. There is an ethical component.

    But the idea that morality = politics = law is one which suited an earlier age and which can be found now in the sort of countries in which most of us would hate to live.

    And now: dinner!
  • Nobody likes them, everybody hates them, they’re going to go eat worms.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/22/sick-explaining-real-brexit-story-ill-informed-foreigners/amp/
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 18,541
    TGOHF said:
    Perhaps Their Lordships deliberations will continue until 15th October? :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 42,387
    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    So, what you're saying is that now is a good time to become a donor to any school/charity that has a lot of undervalued physical assets.

    Eton... Would you like a cheque?
  • PaulMPaulM Posts: 613
    Foxy said:

    PaulM said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    I would expect a reasonable number of trustees will be contacting homebuilders with a view to closing down the school and selling off the school site for new homes.



    If it is an educational charity they may not be permitted to do so. Sell the property and give the proceeds to a related educational purpose, perhaps.
    True. Had in mind a convent school where the land and buildings are owned by the nuns.

    I really hope it doesn't come to this Foxy. I just spent a week over the summer on a sponsored 500 mile bike ride to raise scholarship funds so kids from less affluent backgrounds could attend. The thought of these monies just being seized by the council is very depressing.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,028

    Noo said:

    kle4 said:

    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?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/ad-astra-review-brad-pitt-james-gray#comment-133401304



  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Just as a matter of interest. Are Labour in favour of abolishing Boarding Schools?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    matt said:

    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Ethical behavior would be not seeking to fuck up the education of many because some class war makes you feel better. Forgive me on not taking lectures on ethics from Labour supporters.
    I am not, and have never been a Labour supporter.
    But Labour is making an attempt to address an issue that is pretty important. You might not like what they're doing. I don't like the way things are. I think that there could be a good way forward somewhere in between.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Labour seems to be in the middle of a remake of "The Producers" or "Brewsters Millions" where you have to lose in order to win.
  • TabmanTabman Posts: 1,026
    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    From the Dianne Abbott school of misunderstanding figures.

    For starters 14% of A-Level pupils are at independent schools. Then, when you have a University (I can think of at least two) that only admits pupils achieveing A*A*A, the proportion of those pupils at independent schools rises to c40%. Even allowing for some turd-glittering, you're still looking at roughly a 1/3 to 2/3 split independent to state which, funnily enough, is the target such Universities achieve.

    And I speak from having gone to a state comprehensive school.
  • The motion calls for funds and properties held by private schools to be "redistributed democratically and fairly" to other schools.

    The Marxists are now in control of the labour party.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited September 2019
    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited September 2019
    CatMan said:
    That would be a swing from Con to Lab of 0.25% and would imply 1 Labour gain from the Tories offset by losses to SNP and to LDs giving Labour circa 250 seats or so. The Tories would also lose 21 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to leave a total of circa 285 seats.
  • CatMan said:
    Con+Lab sub 60% = UNS screwed

    (copyright Antifrank)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited September 2019
    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Would that include foreign students?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758



    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.

    1/3 of the pupils are on merit and needs based scholarships or bursaries (there is a proud tradition of boys who win King’s Scholarships but don’t need the money renouncing them for Oppidan Scholarships (which have no money attached) instead

    They have paired with 4 inner city schools in North London to provide significant support (both financial and academic)

    They share their facilities with the local community and, where appropriate, with national squads as well (eg the Dorney Lake)

    Eton actually scores pretty highly on most measures of charitable activity - as a Royal Foundation they are fairly constrained in what they can do
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Chris said:

    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
    Given the policy is that the proportion admitted to university should match the distribution in the general population, that must be what they are saying.

    I think it might see a big boost for the Private University sector...
  • alex. said:

    Chris said:

    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
    Given the policy is that the proportion admitted to university should match the distribution in the general population, that must be what they are saying.

    I think it might see a big boost for the Private University sector...
    And foreign unis.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661
    PaulM said:

    Foxy said:

    PaulM said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Foxy said:

    @Cyclefree

    If a charity is wound up for whatever reason, surely the Trustees have a say in the disposal of the assets, provided it is in line with the objectives of the charity?

    Yes. They do. In fact they have an obligation to do so. The general rule is that the assets go back to the donors, subject to any other applicable rules/expressed wishes/the terms of the charitable trust etc.

    If Labour looked like winning I expect that all educational charities would be looking very carefully at their structure to try and mitigate whatever proposals Labour might seek to bring in. A lot of Labour policies seem to assume that others won't act in advance to avoid the consequences of their policies. A bit of dynamic modelling wouldn't go amiss, I feel.
    I would expect a reasonable number of trustees will be contacting homebuilders with a view to closing down the school and selling off the school site for new homes.



    If it is an educational charity they may not be permitted to do so. Sell the property and give the proceeds to a related educational purpose, perhaps.
    True. Had in mind a convent school where the land and buildings are owned by the nuns.

    I really hope it doesn't come to this Foxy. I just spent a week over the summer on a sponsored 500 mile bike ride to raise scholarship funds so kids from less affluent backgrounds could attend. The thought of these monies just being seized by the council is very depressing.
    A convent school could vary in the nature of its objects. If these were broadly to look after the children of the area then housing may be reasonable, but if the object was the promotion of the faith then disposal may mean a very different distribution.
  • Barnesian said:

    Noo said:

    kle4 said:

    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?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/ad-astra-review-brad-pitt-james-gray#comment-133401304



    83% on Rotten Tomatoes
  • justin124 said:

    CatMan said:
    That would be a swing from Con to Lab of 0.25% and would imply 1 Labour gain from the Tories offset by losses to SNP and to LDs giving Labour circa 250 seats or so. The Tories would also lose 21 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to leave a total of circa 275 seats.
    Has May’s Magic Money Tree any fruit left? That’s going to be one sorry looking bush by the time The Clown has stripped it bare for bribes.
  • The motion calls for funds and properties held by private schools to be "redistributed democratically and fairly" to other schools.

    The Marxists are now in control of the labour party.

    Private schools produced such charlatans as TSE Cameron and Johnson.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Legislation is not based on morality. Nor is politics about ethics. Politics is about making a space in which people can disagree and find a way to resolve those disagreements without violence. There is an ethical component.

    But the idea that morality = politics = law is one which suited an earlier age and which can be found now in the sort of countries in which most of us would hate to live.

    And now: dinner!
    There's a sophistic turn in your second paragraph which misrepresents what I said. I did not say equals.
    And of course legislation is based on morality. All law is ultimately "this is wrong and must be stopped" or "this is right and should be protected". I do not, of course, intend to flatten the academic richness and the intricate layers that years of wisdom have built in modern legal systems. But the source of all of it is that one concern: what are the rules we should have in common?
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,044
    And what do Labour propose to do about Public schools like Christs Hospital which actually are charities?
  • eekeek Posts: 17,262
    nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    1+1 doesn't make 2. It's equally possible they are trying to work what remedies are possible.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    Charles said:



    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.

    1/3 of the pupils are on merit and needs based scholarships or bursaries (there is a proud tradition of boys who win King’s Scholarships but don’t need the money renouncing them for Oppidan Scholarships (which have no money attached) instead

    They have paired with 4 inner city schools in North London to provide significant support (both financial and academic)

    They share their facilities with the local community and, where appropriate, with national squads as well (eg the Dorney Lake)

    Eton actually scores pretty highly on most measures of charitable activity - as a Royal Foundation they are fairly constrained in what they can do
    How is their academic achievement ? Top of the league table ? That's why kids go to school.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    eek said:

    nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    1+1 doesn't make 2. It's equally possible they are trying to work what remedies are possible.
    I’m not disagreeing . This delay is bad news for the government .
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661

    CatMan said:
    Con+Lab sub 60% = UNS screwed

    (copyright Antifrank)
    Lab and Tory rise and fall together.

    https://twitter.com/timfarron/status/1175836436559552514?s=19
  • nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    Looks like this is going to go against HMG.

    HMG lied to HM, and she let them.

    That doesn’t just cripple HMG, it fundamentally weakens HM and the entire system.

    She has had a good run, but her reign is not going to end well. Cheers Dave.
  • 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.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    Charles said:



    How in God's name is Eton, for example, a charity?

    I don't mean legally, I mean morally.

    1/3 of the pupils are on merit and needs based scholarships or bursaries (there is a proud tradition of boys who win King’s Scholarships but don’t need the money renouncing them for Oppidan Scholarships (which have no money attached) instead

    They have paired with 4 inner city schools in North London to provide significant support (both financial and academic)

    They share their facilities with the local community and, where appropriate, with national squads as well (eg the Dorney Lake)

    Eton actually scores pretty highly on most measures of charitable activity - as a Royal Foundation they are fairly constrained in what they can do
    How is their academic achievement ? Top of the league table ? That's why kids go to school.
    Given that only 1/3 are there on merit, you’d have to apply some relative measures, wouldn’t you?

    And I doubt that Eton sees a purely academic education as its sole or primary purpose. Especially as many of its pupils may be unsuited to it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Chris said:

    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
    What about for each course?

    Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.

    I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    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.
    try PPrune
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    Looks like this is going to go against HMG.

    HMG lied to HM, and she let them.

    That doesn’t just cripple HMG, it fundamentally weakens HM and the entire system.

    She has had a good run, but her reign is not going to end well. Cheers Dave.
    Good news that the gaps in our constitution are being highlighted. Wouldn't have thought a few years ago it would be the Cons who drew attention to them, but it's good that we're collectively now reaching a level of awareness that there are problems.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
    What about for each course?

    Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.

    I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
    Wait until they apply a maximum hourly wage...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 92,646
    justin124 said:

    CatMan said:
    That would be a swing from Con to Lab of 0.25% and would imply 1 Labour gain from the Tories offset by losses to SNP and to LDs giving Labour circa 250 seats or so. The Tories would also lose 21 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to leave a total of circa 285 seats.
    The poll has the Tory lead over Labour at 2%, ie exactly the same as in 2017 as it does not go to decimal points so there would be no seat change between the Tories and Labour though both parties would lose seats to the LDs and SNP on this poll
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    The motion calls for funds and properties held by private schools to be "redistributed democratically and fairly" to other schools.

    The Marxists are now in control of the labour party.

    Well duh!!!
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
    What about for each course?

    Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.

    I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
    Reminiscent of the attention newspapers give to Trump. They all know he's a disaster, but disasters sell clicks :(
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Noo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Legislation is not based on morality. Nor is politics about ethics. Politics is about making a space in which people can disagree and find a way to resolve those disagreements without violence. There is an ethical component.

    But the idea that morality = politics = law is one which suited an earlier age and which can be found now in the sort of countries in which most of us would hate to live.

    And now: dinner!
    There's a sophistic turn in your second paragraph which misrepresents what I said. I did not say equals.
    And of course legislation is based on morality. All law is ultimately "this is wrong and must be stopped" or "this is right and should be protected". I do not, of course, intend to flatten the academic richness and the intricate layers that years of wisdom have built in modern legal systems. But the source of all of it is that one concern: what are the rules we should have in common?
    Rules in common - yes I agree.

    But what is lawful may not be moral. One should always oneself not just: "Is this legal?" But also: "Is it right?" The two are not the same.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    Chris said:

    alex. said:

    I see another labour policy is that universities can only admit a maximum of 7% of pupils from private schools. Good luck with making that one work.

    Each university individually?
    What about for each course?

    Anyway, the concept of "indirect discrimination" waves hello.

    I am beginning to think that were I a lawyer at the start of my career I would vote Labour out of self-interest: think of all the lucrative work coming my way ......!
    Could you expand on that "indirect discrimination"? Which protected characteristic(s) are at play here?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 56,564
    nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    Is that speculation or informed speculation?
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380
    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Legislation is not based on morality. Nor is politics about ethics. Politics is about making a space in which people can disagree and find a way to resolve those disagreements without violence. There is an ethical component.

    But the idea that morality = politics = law is one which suited an earlier age and which can be found now in the sort of countries in which most of us would hate to live.

    And now: dinner!
    There's a sophistic turn in your second paragraph which misrepresents what I said. I did not say equals.
    And of course legislation is based on morality. All law is ultimately "this is wrong and must be stopped" or "this is right and should be protected". I do not, of course, intend to flatten the academic richness and the intricate layers that years of wisdom have built in modern legal systems. But the source of all of it is that one concern: what are the rules we should have in common?
    Rules in common - yes I agree.

    But what is lawful may not be moral. One should always oneself not just: "Is this legal?" But also: "Is it right?" The two are not the same.
    I absolutely agree. I'm trying -- clumsily -- to say that law is an imperfect mapping from morality. Naturally, laws can be utterly wrong.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,028
    edited September 2019

    Barnesian said:

    Noo said:

    kle4 said:

    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?

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/22/ad-astra-review-brad-pitt-james-gray#comment-133401304



    83% on Rotten Tomatoes
    83% from reviewers. 45% and a sick bucket from audiences.

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ad_astra

    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.
  • Best prices - World Cup initial matches

    Home Draw Away

    Wales v Georgia
    1/20 80/1 50/1

    England v USA
    1/41 100/1 50/1

    Japan v Ireland
    11/1 66/1 1/12

    Scotland v Samoa
    1/14 60/1 9/1
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    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 ?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 21,190
    Noo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Noo said:

    alex. said:

    Why is that relevant? If it meets the legal definition of a charity then it is one. A charity is a legal construct defined in legislation.

    Legislation is based on morality. Politics is ultimately applied ethics.
    If Eton is legally a charity, the legislation on charities is broken.
    Legislation is not based on morality. Nor is politics about ethics. Politics is about making a space in which people can disagree and find a way to resolve those disagreements without violence. There is an ethical component.

    But the idea that morality = politics = law is one which suited an earlier age and which can be found now in the sort of countries in which most of us would hate to live.

    And now: dinner!
    There's a sophistic turn in your second paragraph which misrepresents what I said. I did not say equals.
    And of course legislation is based on morality. All law is ultimately "this is wrong and must be stopped" or "this is right and should be protected". I do not, of course, intend to flatten the academic richness and the intricate layers that years of wisdom have built in modern legal systems. But the source of all of it is that one concern: what are the rules we should have in common?
    Rules in common - yes I agree.

    But what is lawful may not be moral. One should always oneself not just: "Is this legal?" But also: "Is it right?" The two are not the same.
    I absolutely agree. I'm trying -- clumsily -- to say that law is an imperfect mapping from morality. Naturally, laws can be utterly wrong.
    I think we are in agreement.

    I said that law is intellectually fascinating. The interplay between law, politics and morality is one that has interested me since I started studying it at university (where I did not do law).

    I know, I know: I should get a life......
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    edited September 2019
    Noo said:

    nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    Looks like this is going to go against HMG.

    HMG lied to HM, and she let them.

    That doesn’t just cripple HMG, it fundamentally weakens HM and the entire system.

    She has had a good run, but her reign is not going to end well. Cheers Dave.
    Good news that the gaps in our constitution are being highlighted. Wouldn't have thought a few years ago it would be the Cons who drew attention to them, but it's good that we're collectively now reaching a level of awareness that there are problems.
    Hardly good news since we have no remedy for fixing them. “A written constitution” you say? Who’s going to write it? Not Parliament I hope given what a horlicks have been made of various constitutional reforms since 1997? Can any one of them be seriously said to have been a success, or (perhaps more neutrally) be said to have achieved the declared aims of its proponents?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 28,661

    Best prices - World Cup initial matches

    Home Draw Away

    Wales v Georgia
    1/20 80/1 50/1

    England v USA
    1/41 100/1 50/1

    Japan v Ireland
    11/1 66/1 1/12

    Scotland v Samoa
    1/14 60/1 9/1

    Samoa looks value ;)
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    CatMan said:
    That would be a swing from Con to Lab of 0.25% and would imply 1 Labour gain from the Tories offset by losses to SNP and to LDs giving Labour circa 250 seats or so. The Tories would also lose 21 seats to LDs and circa 10 to SNP to leave a total of circa 285 seats.
    The poll has the Tory lead over Labour at 2%, ie exactly the same as in 2017 as it does not go to decimal points so there would be no seat change between the Tories and Labour though both parties would lose seats to the LDs and SNP on this poll
    The Tory lead was 2.5% in 2017. Labour would gain Southampton Itchen on this data.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,502
    RobD said:

    nico67 said:

    No Supreme Court decision tomorrow . Now more likely on Tuesday.

    It’s very unlikely they’d be taking this long to just decide if the issue is justiciable .

    Is that speculation or informed speculation?
    Informed speculation ! Joshua Rozenberg who is as good as they get . The delay means at least on justiciable the court will agree that it does .

    If they ruled against they wouldn’t need this long to compile the majority opinion , because aswell as this they wouldn’t have to deal with any of the arguments about lawfulness .
This discussion has been closed.