The first post-Christmas poll has LAB leading by 26% – politicalbetting.com

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Milan Reports 50% of Passengers on China Flights Have Covid
(Bloomberg) -- Italian health authorities will begin testing all arrivals from China for Covid after almost half of the passengers on two flights to Milan were found to have the virus.


CNN: U.S. will require airline passengers traveling from China to test negative for Covid

https://twitter.com/PonchoZoho/status/1608201518125142024?s=20&t=7mUGpkQErBPa7cbv9r8lDw

Yes but we have the vaccine now, this is not January 2020

Sure. But we should be insane if we are not "a tad worried"

Hopefully the Final Great Chinese Wave will be the end of Covid as a significant emergency. And it will become a new flu, dangerous to some, but no cause to reorder society

It feels like the last set of rocks on a nasty white water rafting course. You are nearly through, but there is still one last chance you will drown

Jonathan said:

There is no money thanks to Liz, Rishi and co. Are tax breaks for private education an affordable, fair priority? No. If you don’t like this brutal reality, take it up with the Tories.

Driver said:

.

Jonathan said:

There is no money thanks to Liz, Rishi and co. Are tax breaks for private education an affordable, fair priority? No. If you don’t like this brutal reality, take it up with the Tories.

Removing the "tax break" won't raise any money. And isn't intended to.

Jonathan said:

Driver said:

.

Jonathan said:

There is no money thanks to Liz, Rishi and co. Are tax breaks for private education an affordable, fair priority? No. If you don’t like this brutal reality, take it up with the Tories.

Removing the "tax break" won't raise any money. And isn't intended to.

We’re all in this together.

Driver said:

Jonathan said:

Driver said:

.

Jonathan said:

There is no money thanks to Liz, Rishi and co. Are tax breaks for private education an affordable, fair priority? No. If you don’t like this brutal reality, take it up with the Tories.

Removing the "tax break" won't raise any money. And isn't intended to.

We’re all in this together.

So you admit it's gesture politics, and therefore pointless?

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

Leon said:

Milan Reports 50% of Passengers on China Flights Have Covid
(Bloomberg) -- Italian health authorities will begin testing all arrivals from China for Covid after almost half of the passengers on two flights to Milan were found to have the virus.


CNN: U.S. will require airline passengers traveling from China to test negative for Covid

https://twitter.com/PonchoZoho/status/1608201518125142024?s=20&t=7mUGpkQErBPa7cbv9r8lDw

Do need to keep perspective. 1 in 45 Britons has Covid at present, so the added effect of a few arrivals from China makes little difference.

Of which a few thousand are in hospital, out of the well over a million people with covid.

In my hospital we have 180 inpatients with covid, though often not their main diagnosis even when adding complexity to their management. It is adding significant strain to the system.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

So @ydoethur, how can you possibly decide where to put the tax if you say only boarding schools should be covered? Where does the axe fall, is it how much the fees are a year? I can see why Labour just said stick it on all purely from ease of administration

As I say, on boarding fees, which are usually charged for separately.

And that simplicity Labour proposed, as I pointed out above, might cause significant problems of its own by roping in many things it wasn't intended to cover but are actually beneficial.

Not a bad idea to charge just on the boarding fees.

Although in my view as I said towards the end even the day kids were becoming far more "elite", I actually felt quite out of place at times and indeed was bullied about it

EPG said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

Of course he doesn't. It is interesting that he said that CR's post did not move him a jot. Well, his (Benpointer's) posts have moved me.

They remind me that Labour is still supported by people who are insanely envious of anyone that has done better than them. That is is always someone else's fault for their own sad mediocrity. If only they had the privileges of private education then they too could be "rich", but of course they wouldn't really want that would they?

Labour is the mover of everything to the lowest common denominator; the purveyors of the belief that more government and more taxation is always the answer, that society can be made better by them paying attention to nasty and vindictive policy change that will not move the dial of human happiness one iota.

Yes, his posts definitely moved me.

I don't think outdoor education is a particularly moving story. You can just go camping. Now I don't care if people spend their money on education versus holidays, but Labour has always thought that segregation by financial means is bad, so it doesn't stun me that they would like to fund such segregated systems less, even if they bring benefits to the people who get the better schools, which is again not a very surprising or moving fact.

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

Foxy said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

ydoethur said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

So @ydoethur, how can you possibly decide where to put the tax if you say only boarding schools should be covered? Where does the axe fall, is it how much the fees are a year? I can see why Labour just said stick it on all purely from ease of administration

As I say, on boarding fees, which are usually charged for separately.

And that simplicity Labour proposed, as I pointed out above, might cause significant problems of its own by roping in many things it wasn't intended to cover but are actually beneficial.

Not a bad idea to charge just on the boarding fees.

Although in my view as I said towards the end even the day kids were becoming far more "elite", I actually felt quite out of place at times and indeed was bullied about it

Mrs Foxy went to a private school for a couple of years and hated it. Her parents scraped together enough to send her, and she was always the poorest in the class, with the other girls talking of their ponies and ski holidays etc. She was very glad to leave to go to a state sixth form.

Leon said:

HYUFD said:

Leon said:

Milan Reports 50% of Passengers on China Flights Have Covid
(Bloomberg) -- Italian health authorities will begin testing all arrivals from China for Covid after almost half of the passengers on two flights to Milan were found to have the virus.


CNN: U.S. will require airline passengers traveling from China to test negative for Covid

https://twitter.com/PonchoZoho/status/1608201518125142024?s=20&t=7mUGpkQErBPa7cbv9r8lDw

Yes but we have the vaccine now, this is not January 2020

Sure. But we should be insane if we are not "a tad worried"

Hopefully the Final Great Chinese Wave will be the end of Covid as a significant emergency. And it will become a new flu, dangerous to some, but no cause to reorder society

It feels like the last set of rocks on a nasty white water rafting course. You are nearly through, but there is still one last chance you will drown

Stuartinromford said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

There is another thing worth remembering. State school funding has been put through the mangle over the last decade, roughly a ten percent cut per pupil from 2010 to 2020. And the state sector has been told to get on with it, work more efficiently yada yada.
In that context (plus the knowledge that private businesses set charges at "as much as we can get away with" more than "cost plus reasonable margin"), I'm not sure that private schools should be a priority for tax allowances. Not because of hate or envy, just because there are other kids who would benefit more.

StillWaters said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

Because the charitable benefit is from the use of the facilities during weekends and holidays. If the increase in taxes makes that non-viable then charitable benefit is removed.

tlg86 said:

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

The question of whether or not it's right to tax private education ultimately revolves around whether or not you think it's a social good or not. We don't have VAT on books, for example, because we want to encourage reading.

So, are private schools a social good? Well, they reduce the pressure on state schools by allowing parents with the ability to pay to pay, which increases the overall spend per child in state schools. They engage in charitable acts, supporting the community and other educational institutions in and around that community. They increase free choice, giving people more of a say in the way they want their children to be educated. They give kids who might be, for example, bullied or have special needs, an alternative to their local comp. They reduce ridiculous distortions in the housing market, where people pay more to live in relevant catchment areas. All of these sound like net positives so far, and good arguments for zero rating school fees for VAT, the same way books are zero rated.

But the really perverse thing about Labour's policy is just how much it's going to reduce social mobility. At the moment, you have people like Casino who are making sacrifices to give their children an education they think will be better than the local state school (borne out by lower class sizes, better grades at gcse / a level etc). An instant 20% increase in prices is going to mean a lot of children taken out of school, and also a lot of smaller, less illustrious private schools shutting up shop (look at how many shut up shop during and after the GFC - it's lots!).

What this means is you'll end up with an even more bifurcated system, where the very rich are still able to send their kids to the "top" public schools, with all the negative "old school tie", "establishment" connotations that comes with. The pool from which the establishment tends to draw its ranks will actually grow smaller and more elitist. Meanwhile all the good things that the so-called lesser private schools do, both directly in terms of community outreach and indirectly in terms of reducing pressure on state schools, will be lost. Net result, a smaller, more elite pool of elitists, with more advantages than everyone else.

Of course, the real answer to all of this is to make private education undesirable by making state schools so good, nobody feels the need to fork out 30% or more of their post tax income to give their kids a better start in life.

But I don't hear that from any of the anti-private-school-brigade. No suggestions on how to improve things. No suggestions on how to improve choice for parents, or how to improve educational outcomes for state educated kids.

All I hear is the steady beat of the old class war drum that wants to create an "us and them" division in society. I wonder why that is.

Easy.
We need more funding.
We lost £571 per pupil last year. We could do a lot with that.
I don't hear much of that from the pro-private school brigade.
Of course the funding isn't everything. But it's a necessary start.

OK, so lets run the numbers on this one, based on a quick google of the numbers.

There are 615,000 private school places in the UK, with fees averaging £15654 per year.

If we assume unitary elasticity for a moment, a 20% tax would reduce the number of public school students to 492,000. This would mean the 20% tax would raise an extra £3130 per head, or £1539 million in all.

Divide that by the number of state school pupils (approx 10.5m), and you get £149.20 more per pupil per year to spend.

Ah yes, but there's a problem here. Finding places for the other 123,000 former private school students who now need a state school place.

Average spend per head in the state system was 6970 last year, so you'd need to find an extra 857m just to pay for the extra state places required.

This would therefore mean you'd actually only be looking at an extra £64.33 spend per pupil.

And for that, you would be uprooting the lives of 123,000 children, as well as significantly reducing their educational outcomes, and reducing social mobility (due to the increased bifurcation I mentioned in my previous post) all for an extra £64.33 spend per state school pupil.

The numbers don't add up.

Thanks for this, interesting to see some simple estimates.

Trying to model the impact of such a policy is tricky. On the one hand, private education might be resilient to such a tax hike. Most people might just make more sacrifices to keep paying the fees.

On the other hand, there might be a tipping point. If demand falls enough, many schools might become unviable and close. The options for private education would fall meaning more don't bother with it even if they were willing to pay the increased fees.

Also, I suspect the effect might take time to come through. If you're already sending your kid to private school, you will probably do what it takes to keep them going. But, if you're in the position my sister is, you might decide not to bother sending them in the first place.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

FYI I went to day schools, well mixed technically but mostly all day pupils, parents targeted them specifically over Wellington, Marlborough etc because they were day

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

DougSeal said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

Fixing that would just require an amendment to the Charities Act 2011 to exclude educational services provided for a fee.

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

Is there much evidence private schools really reduce pressure on the state system? I would argue the state system has been gutted to such a degree that it can't support people as it should - but that isn't because parents are putting their kids in private schools.

The idea parents do it to relieve pressure on the state system is clearly absurd.

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

Fixing that would just require an amendment to the Charities Act 2011 to exclude educational services provided for a fee.

You mean, like university courses?

kyf_100 said:

dixiedean said:

kyf_100 said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

The question of whether or not it's right to tax private education ultimately revolves around whether or not you think it's a social good or not. We don't have VAT on books, for example, because we want to encourage reading.

So, are private schools a social good? Well, they reduce the pressure on state schools by allowing parents with the ability to pay to pay, which increases the overall spend per child in state schools. They engage in charitable acts, supporting the community and other educational institutions in and around that community. They increase free choice, giving people more of a say in the way they want their children to be educated. They give kids who might be, for example, bullied or have special needs, an alternative to their local comp. They reduce ridiculous distortions in the housing market, where people pay more to live in relevant catchment areas. All of these sound like net positives so far, and good arguments for zero rating school fees for VAT, the same way books are zero rated.

But the really perverse thing about Labour's policy is just how much it's going to reduce social mobility. At the moment, you have people like Casino who are making sacrifices to give their children an education they think will be better than the local state school (borne out by lower class sizes, better grades at gcse / a level etc). An instant 20% increase in prices is going to mean a lot of children taken out of school, and also a lot of smaller, less illustrious private schools shutting up shop (look at how many shut up shop during and after the GFC - it's lots!).

What this means is you'll end up with an even more bifurcated system, where the very rich are still able to send their kids to the "top" public schools, with all the negative "old school tie", "establishment" connotations that comes with. The pool from which the establishment tends to draw its ranks will actually grow smaller and more elitist. Meanwhile all the good things that the so-called lesser private schools do, both directly in terms of community outreach and indirectly in terms of reducing pressure on state schools, will be lost. Net result, a smaller, more elite pool of elitists, with more advantages than everyone else.

Of course, the real answer to all of this is to make private education undesirable by making state schools so good, nobody feels the need to fork out 30% or more of their post tax income to give their kids a better start in life.

But I don't hear that from any of the anti-private-school-brigade. No suggestions on how to improve things. No suggestions on how to improve choice for parents, or how to improve educational outcomes for state educated kids.

All I hear is the steady beat of the old class war drum that wants to create an "us and them" division in society. I wonder why that is.

Easy.
We need more funding.
We lost £571 per pupil last year. We could do a lot with that.
I don't hear much of that from the pro-private school brigade.
Of course the funding isn't everything. But it's a necessary start.

OK, so lets run the numbers on this one, based on a quick google of the numbers.

There are 615,000 private school places in the UK, with fees averaging £15654 per year.

If we assume unitary elasticity for a moment, a 20% tax would reduce the number of public school students to 492,000. This would mean the 20% tax would raise an extra £3130 per head, or £1539 million in all.

Divide that by the number of state school pupils (approx 10.5m), and you get £149.20 more per pupil per year to spend.

Ah yes, but there's a problem here. Finding places for the other 123,000 former private school students who now need a state school place.

Average spend per head in the state system was 6970 last year, so you'd need to find an extra 857m just to pay for the extra state places required.

This would therefore mean you'd actually only be looking at an extra £64.33 spend per pupil.

And for that, you would be uprooting the lives of 123,000 children, as well as significantly reducing their educational outcomes, and reducing social mobility (due to the increased bifurcation I mentioned in my previous post) all for an extra £64.33 spend per state school pupil.

The numbers don't add up.

Foxy said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

Fixing that would just require an amendment to the Charities Act 2011 to exclude educational services provided for a fee.

You mean, like university courses?

Personally, I think all universities should be privatised, and happy for them to charge VAT.

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

We would be wise to forbid flights from China, and entry to Chinese nationals, for a few months

The Chinese gave us this virus, from their lab, they then lied about it in multiple ways, exported it around the world (quite deliberately), so let them suck on its nasty fag end, alone

How many flights from China arrive in the U.K. each day? How many extra people with covid to add to the over a million already here?

HYUFD said:

Yet we were told earlier in the Year by OGH and others that removing Boris would restore Tory fortunes, instead they have gone further back.

However at least 25% is better than the 22% they were polling under Truss before Sunak replaced her as leader and PM. 6% for RefUK to squeeze too

https://www.omnisis.co.uk/media/1138/vi-006-bring-back-boris-tabs-22102022.xlsx

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

We would be wise to forbid flights from China, and entry to Chinese nationals, for a few months

The Chinese gave us this virus, from their lab, they then lied about it in multiple ways, exported it around the world (quite deliberately), so let them suck on its nasty fag end, alone

Last time we didn't do anything, unlike most countries.

Trump was slated as a racist for doing what Biden has just done: impose specific restraints on Chinese visitors

"In late January, the Trump administration implemented a travel restriction from China, where the coronavirus originated.

Some on the left described the move as a racist or xenophobic ploy aimed at punishing a country that Trump has clashed with"

lol. The Left is a hyena's nest of pathetic hypocrisy

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/498350-biden-trumps-coronavirus-response-has-been-nakedly-xenophobic/

Foxy said:

StillWaters said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

Because the charitable benefit is from the use of the facilities during weekends and holidays. If the increase in taxes makes that non-viable then charitable benefit is removed.

As I pointed out earlier, if Charitable status existed only for schools using more of their budget for charitable purposes than they gain from tax relief then the true charities would continue. Those taking the piss could either give up that status and operate as businesses, or start being more generous.

DougSeal said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

ydoethur said:

DougSeal said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

bigjohnowls said:

Foxy said:

Benpointer said:

turbotubbs said:

Is private healthcare subject to VAT? If yes, then private schools should be too. Both are provided to all by the state, so taking the private option is a choice.
Fundamentally I believe we pay too little tax for the services we want. The harder question is how you levy those taxes in a fair way. Personally I’d prefer flat taxation. The more you earn, the more you pay, but no stupid cliff edges and marginal rates. Seems simple to me, so there must be something wrong with it.

Private healthcare is currently VAT exempt I believe but, like private education, should be VATable imo.

VAT is payable on cosmetic surgery, and a few other niche areas.

VAT is always a bit daft, hence cakes vs biscuits, whether a pasty is still warm etc.

A reasonable approach is to require a school to spend more of its income on charitable acts than it saves in VAT in order to maintain charitable status.

Education is a charitable purpose according to the Charity commission

Yes, but parents cannot deduct school fees against income tax. It is not a charitable transaction, it is fee for service.

I know, but you said "a school should be required to spend more of its income on Charitable acts than it saves in VAT".

I was just pointing out they already do as the act of education is a Charitable purpose. So almost all their expenditure is Charitable. So your idea wouldn't work.

Fixing that would just require an amendment to the Charities Act 2011 to exclude educational services provided for a fee.

You mean, like university courses?

Parliamentary drafting is an art that is ill reflected in a short post on the world’s most pedantic message board that sought to make a general point that laws can be changed.

Parliamentary drafting is an art that is lost, if it ever existed.

I’m not sure you spend as much time reading the output as I do, but okay.

Andy_JS said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

We would be wise to forbid flights from China, and entry to Chinese nationals, for a few months

The Chinese gave us this virus, from their lab, they then lied about it in multiple ways, exported it around the world (quite deliberately), so let them suck on its nasty fag end, alone

How many flights from China arrive in the U.K. each day? How many extra people with covid to add to the over a million already here?

To be in favour of domestic lockdowns but against preventing people travelling between countries where many people have Covid is a combination I will never understand.

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

We would be wise to forbid flights from China, and entry to Chinese nationals, for a few months

The Chinese gave us this virus, from their lab, they then lied about it in multiple ways, exported it around the world (quite deliberately), so let them suck on its nasty fag end, alone

Last time we didn't do anything, unlike most countries.

Trump was slated as a racist for doing what Biden has just done: impose specific restraints on Chinese visitors

"In late January, the Trump administration implemented a travel restriction from China, where the coronavirus originated.

Some on the left described the move as a racist or xenophobic ploy aimed at punishing a country that Trump has clashed with"

lol. The Left is a hyena's nest of pathetic hypocrisy

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/498350-biden-trumps-coronavirus-response-has-been-nakedly-xenophobic/

Remind me who chants "lock her up" at Hillary Clinton for her handling of sensitive documents in tandem with outrage over an FBI seizure of classified documents at the man who leads them, repeats unsubstantiated concerns over election fraud while attempting to overthrow the democratic process, assert that "Blue Lives Matter" except during the Jan. 6 insurrection, claim that invoking the Fifth amendment means a person is definitely guilty, except when they do it? You sure that’s the Left?

Benpointer said:

Is all this debate about VAT on school fees a distraction from Labour?

Much as I have argued it's wrong to exempt fees from VAT, I can't see it being a huge vote winner for Labour. Few voters will say 'that settles it then, I am voting Labour' on the basis of taxing school fees.

A question of huge importance hanging over the next two years is 'What is going to be in the Labour manifesto?'

I fear a damp squib but maybe they are keeping their powder dry. I do hope Labour come up with a bit more than VAT on school fees.

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

We would be wise to forbid flights from China, and entry to Chinese nationals, for a few months

The Chinese gave us this virus, from their lab, they then lied about it in multiple ways, exported it around the world (quite deliberately), so let them suck on its nasty fag end, alone

How many flights from China arrive in the U.K. each day? How many extra people with covid to add to the over a million already here?

For a scientist you are alarmingly low-watt

China is basically a 1.4bn strong human petri dish, in the global lab, right now - a petri dish given the task of finding out if Covid can conjure up another dangerous vaccine evasive variant - when allowed to assault 1.4bn unprotected people in a matter of a few weeks

Hopefully China will prove that our fears are overblown, but why err on the side of generosity to Chinese tourists and visitors, given what China has done to itself and to the world, these last three years?

I swear there are people in the UK who would rather we all die, than that they might be perceived as just 5% "racist"

Covid is doing the experiments right round the world anyway. You are falling into the suppression trap again. The most dangerous people are not Chinese peasants, they are the immune compromised western patients who undergo lengthy covid infections, and those being treated with mabs, now being shown to provoke mutations (hardly suprising really - treatment puts evolutionary pressure on virus, result obvious).
There really is little point stopping Chinese travellers today. There would have been in early 2020.

turbotubbs said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Dixie Dean's record is going this season if Haaland remains fit isn't it?

Flat track bully.

I disagree (I suspect your are joking😘!). Harland is the real deal. We have not a striker like this, as good as this for a very long time, if at all.

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Bear with me as I disappear down the Covid Conspiracy Rabbithole


"Xi has gone from welding his citizens inside buildings to pushing free travel of Chinese citizens infected with the virus (or a new variant thereof).Xi could easily limit travel, so what is actually going on?Travel bans on Chinese flights are a must.#China"

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1608165210157907968?s=20&t=-6el5S1PDPZfu_LgnlTO1A

it is an astonishing volte face by the CCP. From Zero Covid to Fuck It: in a few weeks

Is it possible they have identified a new variant which is not only highly nasty, but cannot be contained, and they want the rest of the world to suffer from it, as they suffer? I would ignore this wild possibility, if it weren't for the fact this is EXACTLY what China did with Original Covid, in early 2020. They kept the international air routes open as long as humanly possible, in the face of global opposition, precisely so they seeded it around the world, even as they CLOSED internal routes out of Wuhan/Hubei Province

Yep, rabbit hole. We already have variants in the U.K. that cannot be contained. China is now experiencing what happens if you try and fail to suppress covid, use shit vaccines and fail to vaccinate those who need it most, and fail to update the vaccines.

At heart most people in the U.K. have now had covid, and thus have antibodies against the whole virus, not just spike protein. This makes it a lot harder for the virus to evade immunity completely. This is not the same as neutralising antibodies - it’s the rest of the immune system. So we get lots of infections (tick) but also most people getting over it (also tick).

There is no need to invoke a new variant to explain what is happening in China.

StillWaters said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

StillWaters said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

Because the charitable benefit is from the use of the facilities during weekends and holidays. If the increase in taxes makes that non-viable then charitable benefit is removed.

Eton had a new sports hall built whilst the school around the corner was asking for donations to buy teaching supplies. How is that fair

Because it was privately funded by donations from taxed income (I assume).

The charitable aspect - and Eton is great about this - is from sharing the facilities with local schools and residents for no cost. So those kids get access to facilities that they wouldn’t otherwise have in the state sector.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Bear with me as I disappear down the Covid Conspiracy Rabbithole


"Xi has gone from welding his citizens inside buildings to pushing free travel of Chinese citizens infected with the virus (or a new variant thereof).Xi could easily limit travel, so what is actually going on?Travel bans on Chinese flights are a must.#China"

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1608165210157907968?s=20&t=-6el5S1PDPZfu_LgnlTO1A

it is an astonishing volte face by the CCP. From Zero Covid to Fuck It: in a few weeks

Is it possible they have identified a new variant which is not only highly nasty, but cannot be contained, and they want the rest of the world to suffer from it, as they suffer? I would ignore this wild possibility, if it weren't for the fact this is EXACTLY what China did with Original Covid, in early 2020. They kept the international air routes open as long as humanly possible, in the face of global opposition, precisely so they seeded it around the world, even as they CLOSED internal routes out of Wuhan/Hubei Province

Yep, rabbit hole. We already have variants in the U.K. that cannot be contained. China is now experiencing what happens if you try and fail to suppress covid, use shit vaccines and fail to vaccinate those who need it most, and fail to update the vaccines.

At heart most people in the U.K. have now had covid, and thus have antibodies against the whole virus, not just spike protein. This makes it a lot harder for the virus to evade immunity completely. This is not the same as neutralising antibodies - it’s the rest of the immune system. So we get lots of infections (tick) but also most people getting over it (also tick).

There is no need to invoke a new variant to explain what is happening in China.

Forgive me for suggesting that Xi and the Chinese Communist Party might not always act in the interests of all humanity, rather than in the narrow interests of Xi, his cronies and the Chinese regime

I don't know what came over me

Cyclefree said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

I wouldn't like to reveal my age but with the greatest of respect to all PB posters, I was probably at a private school the most recently. Still a long time ago mind.

I went to school in Hampshire/Surrey so I am sure my views will be based on those experiences. When I started off, it was similar to the view HYUFD gives across, that's certainly the background my parents came from.

But as time went on and the fees became higher it became more Russians/Asians/Saudis. I have some friends who have much younger siblings still at these schools and they are now completely different people going. My parents wouldn't be able to afford it now but also I am not sure I'd want to go, it's mixing with Princes and Royalty and gives a very distorted view of the world in my experience of these kids.

So perhaps it is different elsewhere in the country but I cannot see how putting VAT on these parents can be anything but positive overall.

I am the Chair of Trustees of a small independent Catholic girls' primary school, my old primary school. My experience of education is therefore much more recent than yours. And I can categorically state that none of our parents fall remotely within the category of royalty, Saudis or people even remotely like them, that you describe.

Not every private school is like Eton, Winchester etc and the discussion on this topic would be better if people realised this.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Bear with me as I disappear down the Covid Conspiracy Rabbithole


"Xi has gone from welding his citizens inside buildings to pushing free travel of Chinese citizens infected with the virus (or a new variant thereof).Xi could easily limit travel, so what is actually going on?Travel bans on Chinese flights are a must.#China"

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1608165210157907968?s=20&t=-6el5S1PDPZfu_LgnlTO1A

it is an astonishing volte face by the CCP. From Zero Covid to Fuck It: in a few weeks

Is it possible they have identified a new variant which is not only highly nasty, but cannot be contained, and they want the rest of the world to suffer from it, as they suffer? I would ignore this wild possibility, if it weren't for the fact this is EXACTLY what China did with Original Covid, in early 2020. They kept the international air routes open as long as humanly possible, in the face of global opposition, precisely so they seeded it around the world, even as they CLOSED internal routes out of Wuhan/Hubei Province

Yep, rabbit hole. We already have variants in the U.K. that cannot be contained. China is now experiencing what happens if you try and fail to suppress covid, use shit vaccines and fail to vaccinate those who need it most, and fail to update the vaccines.

At heart most people in the U.K. have now had covid, and thus have antibodies against the whole virus, not just spike protein. This makes it a lot harder for the virus to evade immunity completely. This is not the same as neutralising antibodies - it’s the rest of the immune system. So we get lots of infections (tick) but also most people getting over it (also tick).

There is no need to invoke a new variant to explain what is happening in China.

Forgive me for suggesting that Xi and the Chinese Communist Party might not always act in the interests of all humanity, rather than in the narrow interests of Xi, his cronies and the Chinese regime

I don't know what came over me

I think your analysis of what they did in 2020 is absolutely on the money. It’s possible you are on to something now, but I think the narrative of the Chinese watching the World Cup, realising the rest of the world is no longer doing what China is re covid and finally cracking is most likely.

Yes, I agree, which is why I used the word "rabbit-hole". I am not sure of this, just rightly cautious and suspicious

This is a time for the Precautionary Principle. China "suddenly" wants to open up, as does Hong Kong, after three years of telling us all to fuck off and stay away, following a virus THEY leaked (out of China, for sure, out of a lab, probably)? Hmmmmmm

We should politely tell them to do one, for three months. No flights from China, no Chinese nationals, until the spring, and until we know more about their exit wave. Let us take care of our own - as they did

StillWaters said:

Foxy said:

StillWaters said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

Because the charitable benefit is from the use of the facilities during weekends and holidays. If the increase in taxes makes that non-viable then charitable benefit is removed.

As I pointed out earlier, if Charitable status existed only for schools using more of their budget for charitable purposes than they gain from tax relief then the true charities would continue. Those taking the piss could either give up that status and operate as businesses, or start being more generous.

A bright line test doesn’t work (eg free use of facilities - how do you account for that). But absolutely the Charity Commission has been very focused for 10+ years on making private schools justify their charitable status by demonstrating what they are doing.

Benpointer said:

Is all this debate about VAT on school fees a distraction from Labour?

Much as I have argued it's wrong to exempt fees from VAT, I can't see it being a huge vote winner for Labour. Few voters will say 'that settles it then, I am voting Labour' on the basis of taxing school fees.

A question of huge importance hanging over the next two years is 'What is going to be in the Labour manifesto?'

I fear a damp squib but maybe they are keeping their powder dry. I do hope Labour come up with a bit more than VAT on school fees.

EPG said:

StillWaters said:

CorrectHorseBattery3 said:

StillWaters said:

Benpointer said:

tlg86 said:

Benpointer said:

FPT:

felix said:

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Tres said:

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

Casino_Royale said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

As a few of us have been saying.

"Starmer has — and this is possible to glimpse despite his opacity — always been quite left-wing. He was to the left of every leader since he was in his twenties. Except Corbyn, because there is nobody to the left of Corbyn. But he was, at least, quite comfortable with Corbyn as leader. The alternative theory posits that this wasn’t play-acting. He didn’t just say that the 2017 manifesto was a foundational document for Labour, he actually meant it. He didn’t just run as a leader from the left — mainstream, not Corbynite, but still the left — that is actually his politics.

But on becoming leader he understood he couldn’t win an election like that. He’d have to lowball voters. It took him a while to appreciate that, but once he did he was pretty robust about it. He has been focused and committed in his work of reassurance.

If he were to capture power he would then be able to move the country leftward, with voter assent. He would return to something closer to his natural instinct. And it would not be the left who would feel betrayed."

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-may-be-more-left-wing-than-he-lets-on-82fwdr2t7

Yawn. New Labour, New Danger. Seen this every time a Labour leader looks like winning.

The thing about pooh-poohing the boy who cried wolf is that the wolf did eventually come.

10 years ago, I was living on about £100 a month after housing, commuting, bills and food and only paying basic rate. I've worked very hard to get where I am now. But, because I now have a six-figure income (and that's only in the last 18 months) Labour sees no difference between me and Elon Musk - despite me having very little equity.

You can't expect me to want to vote for a party like that. And I won't be alone.

Please elaborate on how Labour believe you and Elon Musk are the same.

Labour will view me as the top 1%, the privileged elite, the wealthy, calibrate their political rhetoric to match - the politics of envy - and tax me as highly as they possibly can.

I have no doubt it will be politically rewarding for them, but I think it will be bad for the country.

"They can't possibly be worse than this lot" is a potent campaigning line, but - again - it's an emotive one and of course they can.

They certainly can.

And so to avoid taxes on income you will vote for a party that is terrified of taxing the capital you don't possess.

Labour wants to put VAT on private schools.

My daughter is at an independent prep school that I went to when I was eight years old. It costs a fair bit but we make sacrifices. We don't go on holiday quite as often as we'd like. We don't eat out as much. But it's a tradeoff we're willing to make. Of course, we're not on the breadline, but we don't lead the lifestyle some of our fellow middle-class professionals do - but it's a choice.

The school was founded in 1936. It only has 210 pupils. It specialises in outdoor education. I acquired a lifelong love of hiking, camping and archery from it. My passion for design and technology too. Some of the teachers who taught me are still there now. The current headmaster is a real brick and works his socks off. He's a good egg. My daughter loves it there. She's settled, has lots of friends and is very happy. Her and her friends virtually skip into school. They play and learn outside every day.

At weekends and holidays it throws its doors open to schoolkids in the local area, and runs adventure camps for inner city schoolkids. It also runs Chinese and Russian language courses that attract children from all over the region, to learn, facilities they struggle to find elsewhere.

Labour's policies would target schools like this. We wouldn't be able to afford the increase in the fees. We'd be faced with wrenching our daughter out of a school she loves and her friends - for us, this is very very personal.

The survival of the school itself would be in question. And, the benefits it offers to children and the wider community would be lost too. And, for what? So we can plough our extra money into consumption and higher house prices instead, and overburden our local state school instead?

It might put a smile on the faces of some Labour activists but when it comes to the next election and you can't fathom why everyone doesn't think Labour is the best thing since sliced bread and is desperate to vote for them - think of us.

I'm afraid that whole post has swayed me not a jot.

Of course it won't - you're angry at the Tories - not without cause and have convinced yourself, as have so many others, that Starmer is moderate centre-left who won't frighten the horses while trhowing you bits of red meat. And you wish to bathe in the warm red glow of supporting a party that cares, that will probably return the the UKto the EU and do all and only nice things. You need to re-read Animal Farm - next time it's never different.

"angry with the Tories" doesn't begin to cover it.

Starmer is, I fear moderate centre-left. I suspect he will be far too moderate to achieve much good.

I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable.

Casino told us some time ago what his
salary is; it's a good salary and no doubt well-deserved. Since the government judges that an adult can live on £335 pm, a couple on £525 pm, and a child on £245 pm I suspect Casino will find a way to fund the
VAT on his daughter's school fees.

But do you want him to be able to afford it? It sounds to me that your objection is the unfair advantage his daughter will have in life.

I'll repeat the salient point from my post: "I honestly bear no ill will towards either Casino or his daughter but to keep the VAT exemption and charitable status of private education, which is clearly a service offered for fees, is unsustainable. "

Because the charitable benefit is from the use of the facilities during weekends and holidays. If the increase in taxes makes that non-viable then charitable benefit is removed.

Eton had a new sports hall built whilst the school around the corner was asking for donations to buy teaching supplies. How is that fair

Because it was privately funded by donations from taxed income (I assume).

The charitable aspect - and Eton is great about this - is from sharing the facilities with local schools and residents for no cost. So those kids get access to facilities that they wouldn’t otherwise have in the state sector.

The parents can just send their kids to state schools and fund a charitable sports hall out of altruism.

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

turbotubbs said:

Leon said:

Bear with me as I disappear down the Covid Conspiracy Rabbithole


"Xi has gone from welding his citizens inside buildings to pushing free travel of Chinese citizens infected with the virus (or a new variant thereof).Xi could easily limit travel, so what is actually going on?Travel bans on Chinese flights are a must.#China"

https://twitter.com/Jkylebass/status/1608165210157907968?s=20&t=-6el5S1PDPZfu_LgnlTO1A

it is an astonishing volte face by the CCP. From Zero Covid to Fuck It: in a few weeks

Is it possible they have identified a new variant which is not only highly nasty, but cannot be contained, and they want the rest of the world to suffer from it, as they suffer? I would ignore this wild possibility, if it weren't for the fact this is EXACTLY what China did with Original Covid, in early 2020. They kept the international air routes open as long as humanly possible, in the face of global opposition, precisely so they seeded it around the world, even as they CLOSED internal routes out of Wuhan/Hubei Province

Yep, rabbit hole. We already have variants in the U.K. that cannot be contained. China is now experiencing what happens if you try and fail to suppress covid, use shit vaccines and fail to vaccinate those who need it most, and fail to update the vaccines.

At heart most people in the U.K. have now had covid, and thus have antibodies against the whole virus, not just spike protein. This makes it a lot harder for the virus to evade immunity completely. This is not the same as neutralising antibodies - it’s the rest of the immune system. So we get lots of infections (tick) but also most people getting over it (also tick).

There is no need to invoke a new variant to explain what is happening in China.

Forgive me for suggesting that Xi and the Chinese Communist Party might not always act in the interests of all humanity, rather than in the narrow interests of Xi, his cronies and the Chinese regime

I don't know what came over me

I think your analysis of what they did in 2020 is absolutely on the money. It’s possible you are on to something now, but I think the narrative of the Chinese watching the World Cup, realising the rest of the world is no longer doing what China is re covid and finally cracking is most likely.

Yes, I agree, which is why I used the word "rabbit-hole". I am not sure of this, just rightly cautious and suspicious

This is a time for the Precautionary Principle. China "suddenly" wants to open up, as does Hong Kong, after three years of telling us all to fuck off and stay away, following a virus THEY leaked (out of China, for sure, out of a lab, probably)? Hmmmmmm

We should politely tell them to do one, for three months. No flights from China, no Chinese nationals, until the spring, and until we know more about their exit wave. Let us take care of our own - as they did

That would require the world to do that, not just us.

We could at least start. America and Italy have now suddenly imposed tests etc

Just stop flights and introduce travel bans from China. It's not hard. They are going through an unprecedented exit wave. The risk to us is palpable

NOT doing this because we are scared of being accused of "racism" is puerile