Starmer is in tune with the nation – politicalbetting.com

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Pagan2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

Rare that the whole thread including below the line is wrong but this will cost Labour votes despite being sensible and good policy. Doesn't make much difference to the big picture as the Tories are so abject on everything else, left with complete lightweights steering the ship and have nothing positive to offer the country whatsoever.

Serious question what good will come of it?
…

If nothing else, it will force a significant number of families, who believe that education is important, into the state system.

It will improve the schools they are at, it wont improve other schools was my point and I believe it will make it harder for the poorer in society to get their children into the good state schools.

Currently the choices are private schools, good state schools, failing schools.

Now if you abolish private schools then that 7% are going to end up in the good state schools. That means 7% less places in good state schools and guess which kids are going to be displaced....yes the poorer ones

Unless the money being spent on private schools can be redirected to make those failing schools better. Maybe if the wealthiest 7% had to send their kids to state schools, they'd become more interested in making sure state schools were better, including in how they voted!

Again those going from private to state are not going to put their kids into the failing schools they will use their money to leverage them into good state schools.

I really dont get how you dont see this.

My millionaire and his wife....oh private schools have been abolished

do they
a) go lets buy a house in the catchement area of a good state school so offspring get the best state schooling

or

b) well the local state school is shit but we will send offspring there anyway

I suspect a) is going to be the answer

That's the question. Will this plan abolish private schools or make it somewhat more expensive?

Because if private schools still exist, they will still be attractive, because they confer advantages that only money can buy. If you're after educational bang for buck, you should already buy a house in a nice catchment area. The people going private have their reasons for not doing that, and they won't change as a result of VAT policy.

One other question- do you think that outright bad schools will always be with us? Or is it possible, with the right policy and spending a moderate amount of extra cash, to reduce their number to zero? I'd hope that we can continue our progress in reducing their number (though the stubborn remnant, often "comprehensives" in grammar areas is quite stubborn.)

The worst 3 areas for average GCSE results, Burnley, Gosport and Norwich are all non selective

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11219349

ydoethur said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Police

No information to indicate a criminal offence and the BBC can now continue their processes

If that is the case there is a very real chance the Sun is in deep trouble. Because the way they phrased it made it sound as though there *was* a criminal offence.

Would be hilarious if they were sued into oblivion for printing something that was true and putting the wrong spin on it. That would be karma par excellence.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Police

No information to indicate a criminal offence and the BBC can now continue their processes

Malmesbury said:

felix said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

You have to earn $24k, have a clean criminal record, and buy health insurance. You can bring spouse and kids

The tax rate?

Oh that. yes, it's 0%. Yes, 0% on money earned outside Malaysia (ie all your income for most people)

How the fuck is this not going to attract people?

https://citizenremote.com/visas/malaysia/

Plus you get the FOOD in Penang

And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?

I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.

How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.

That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....

The majority of Chinese people live in China. Most people in this country are born in this country.
Most people don't move. Some do.

All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.

And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.

Many offices around the world mandate English for work. The extent of this is astonishing.

Anecdotally Scandinavian friends tell me it is near universal in practice throughout the zone, even if not mandatory. Certainly here in Spain there is a large variety of foreign immigrants and English is the language most use along of course with Spanish.

A fired in Denmark is finding it hard to practise his Danish - because Danish is practically forbidden in the office!

Apparently having private conversations in Danish is seen as exclusionary of international workers. At least in his office -there are regular emails about it.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

algarkirk said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.

Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.

No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos

That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.

I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.

Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..

Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.

So pick a couple and watch the reaction....

just did above

No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...

I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.

When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.

Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society

But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).

The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.

No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.

Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.

I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.

37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently
How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.

How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?

Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.

I am a higher rate tax payer. I am in absolutely no position to move to another country. There’s only a tiny proportion of people for whom moving to another country to pay less tax is viable. (I also support greater international cooperation to stop some countries acting as tax havens, which also helps to removed this effect.)

Apple and Starbucks invent complicated schemes to avoid paying tax. They’ve already off-shored a lot of their income, even though it was earned in this country. We need better laws and better enforcement to ensure money earned in this country is appropriately taxed. If Starbucks exit the UK entirely, so what? People will still want coffee. Companies that are in the UK will get their business instead.

There are plenty of developed countries with higher tax rates than us and their citizenries haven’t all left, and they aren’t devoid of corporations. It’s a Tory myth that we couldn’t put tax up. It’s a choice: one can argue the pros and cons. But it’s not an impossibility.

I am sorry to disagree with you but really you don't think most of those earning 150k plus a year couldn't move to a different country?

Higher rate tax begins at £50271, not £150k.

Most people have familial and social ties where they live. Obviously, some people do move, but it’s not an easy choice.

I think the clearest evidence I can offer is that tax has gone up in recent years and we haven’t seen a mass exodus. I can’t see why past tax raises haven’t less to an exodus, but anything more now would.

No the higher tax rate is 45%, the one that starts at 50271 is the 40% rate and yes a lot of those cant move

I don't want to quibble, but the name the Government uses for the £50,271 to £125,140 rate is "Higher rate". Above that is called "Additional rate", and it starts at £125,141.

well it is the rate I meant, I apologise for the miscommunication.

It is also true that a lot of the 40% tax payers are also living paycheque to paycheque so raising there tax would also push people under

There are higher rate tax payers living paycheque to paycheque, yes... and they absolutely need to learn to be a bit more frugal because there's no reason they should have to be living paycheque to paycheque! I have very little sympathy for people earning over £50k claiming poverty.

50k a year gives you about 3k a month take home....you are paying 2k for rent because you need to live near enough to work yes you are just as much in poverty as the one taking home 2k but only paying 1k for rent

50k a year can be wealth or poverty depending on place and situation. For a single earner with spouse and several small children in SE/London preferring to live with 4 walls and a roof and without family wealth it's a struggle.

For a pensioner couple, owning modest home, no dependents, less expensive areas, it is quite comfortable.

Depending on when they bought, the pensioner couple might be living in an area that's expensive now but wasn't forty years ago. Romford is a strange mix of older WWC-made-good who couldn't afford to move here now and younger professionals renting or struggling to buy. Hence some of the political and social tensions you see as North East London shades into South West Essex.

But as long as the cost of housing is "whatever you can afford, plus some", I suspect nothing else matters for the cost of living. Tax cuts? Pay rises? They'll just feed into the market rate to rent or buy a home.

Epping too has become increasingly London professional and less WWC made good. Indeed now a majority of Epping District councllors are even Liberal Democrat. Plus it is getting a Waitrose (having lots of LD councillors and a Waitrose the closest match to an upper middle class area now)

Plenty of professionals are themselves WWC made good or at least their children or grandchildren. Most of us are plebs if you go back a generation or two.

TheScreamingEagles said:

In her statement, Vicky Flind said her husband Huw Edwards was "suffering from serious mental health issues" and is now "receiving in-patient hospital care where he will stay for the foreseeable future" as she asked for privacy for her family.

Ghedebrav said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

Ghedebrav said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

I didn't realise. In the dimly lit grimdark Napoleon film trailer, the old English actor playing somebody (Wellington?) is omigod Rupert Everett! Age and poor plastic surgery does not suit him...

This is your reminder that to film candle-lit tableaux in "Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick had to invent larger lenses to pull in enough light to be useful. Ridley seems to have muttered "just fix it in post", slapped it on film and went on to the next scene, shot in the gloomy dark darkling gloom.

Genuinely think Ridley Scott is one of the most overrated directors there is. Not bad, but massively overrated. Also have a pet theory that Alien was all Walter Hill.

Thelma and Louise is brilliant though tbf.

Mate, he did Alien and Blade Runner. And Gladiator. And Thelma

He's a genius

See above re. Alien (and T&L). I have a massive blind spot for Blade Runner, which has all the ingredients of a film I ought to love but find boring as hell. Gladiator is decent blockbuster schlock. He's a pretty good director with an eye for great material and good casting, but hardly a genius.

Blade Runner ties with Casablanca for the greatest film ever made.

Blimey. Two quite overrated, if culturally important, films.

HYUFD said:

Penddu2 said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I posted this yesterday, but although it got some pushback I didn't really see any compelling argument against it.

It is supported by various precedents, notably the disendowment of the Church of Ireland (1869) and the Church in Wales (1920) when it was held the money they had raised should go to the nation rather than a private organisation. And it is worth remembering at this point that 'public' schools were so called because they were meant to be open to the public.

El_Capitano said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

rottenborough said:

Paul Johnson
@PJTheEconomist
·
3h
Private school fees have risen 20% in real terms since 2010 and 55% since 2003. Numbers privately educated have been pretty constant that whole time. Removing tax exemptions likely to have only small effects on numbers. Net benefit to public finances likely to be £1.3-1.5bn p.a.

https://twitter.com/PJTheEconomist/status/1678687484992004096

Paying an extra 20% tomorrow isn't quite the same as 20% more over 10 years. Also be interesting to know the shift in who is attending. Has it shifted to much more reliance on overseas students?

Short answer: yes.

Labour's proposed changes will have basically no effect on Eton and Harrow. It's the smaller, less selective private schools with specialisms (e.g. music or autism support) which are going to suffer. It's not really a very progressive policy at all.

If I wanted to target Eton, Harrow, Clifton, Winchester, Westminster, Cheltenham etc my policy would be to disendow all schools registered as charities that charged fees.

I think that would make a very substantial difference to their business models. Either lose your reserves, or pay business rates.

I suspect those ones would also be able to compensate by whacking up the overseas fees, so it wouldn’t make much difference in practice to them.

And look at the damage that did to those churches. The Church in Wales just a shadow of its former self for example. Indeed more Welsh are Roman Catholic or Methodist now than Anglican and in Ireland more Catholic or Presbyterian than Anglican too

You are either missing the point or trying to rewrite history......because the Church in Wales was already much smaller than the Methodists. Nothing to do with Disestablishment - everything to do with Church vs Chapel.

The Church in Wales was not smaller than the Roman Catholic Church in Wales however, it is now

numbertwelve said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Police

No information to indicate a criminal offence and the BBC can now continue their processes

Personally speaking if there is no evidence of criminality I think this should really mark the end of it, at least as far as public interest is concerned.

I suspect it won’t go that way though.

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Stocky said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.

That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.

You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...

Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)

In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.

I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...

So that story doesn't wash.

Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.

Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.

My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.

I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.

Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.

The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.

I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.

Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.

The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.

The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.

Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.

Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.

Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).

Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.

There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.

You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.

This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.

To correct a misconception I think you have:

An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.

Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.

A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

felix said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

You have to earn $24k, have a clean criminal record, and buy health insurance. You can bring spouse and kids

The tax rate?

Oh that. yes, it's 0%. Yes, 0% on money earned outside Malaysia (ie all your income for most people)

How the fuck is this not going to attract people?

https://citizenremote.com/visas/malaysia/

Plus you get the FOOD in Penang

And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?

I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.

How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.

That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....

The majority of Chinese people live in China. Most people in this country are born in this country.
Most people don't move. Some do.

All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.

And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.

Many offices around the world mandate English for work. The extent of this is astonishing.

Anecdotally Scandinavian friends tell me it is near universal in practice throughout the zone, even if not mandatory. Certainly here in Spain there is a large variety of foreign immigrants and English is the language most use along of course with Spanish.

A fired in Denmark is finding it hard to practise his Danish - because Danish is practically forbidden in the office!

Apparently having private conversations in Danish is seen as exclusionary of international workers. At least in his office -there are regular emails about it.

I used to have this a lot on the rigs. If you were working for a French company on a French rig - as I did a great deal for the first decade of my offshore life - learning the language was both absolutely necessary and pretty easy as they simply refused to speak English at any time (This in spite of the fact the law stated that for safety reasons English was the primary language for operations).

Working on Dutch or Norwegian rigs it was hugely difficult to learn the language as they would go to extremes to speak English if you were there. You could regularly walk into the smoke shack where everyone was speaking Norwegian and as you came through the door all the conversations would seemlessly switch to English. They just felt it was bad manners to do anything else. You really had to work hard to persuade them to talk Norwegian to help you improve your language skills.

ydoethur said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

A fleet of taxpayer-funded cars was used to take senior SNP politicians home from Nicola Sturgeon’s leaving party.

Opposition parties claimed that use of the Scottish Government’s car service, to “ferry home” a dozen nationalists from a night out in honour of the departing First Minister, was “deeply inappropriate” and an abuse of public funds.

The news comes after it recently emerged that Ms Sturgeon also billed taxpayers for a business class flight and £500-a-night hotel as part of her ‘farewell tour’.

Records show that SNP ministers, including current First Minister Humza Yousaf and his deputy Shona Robison, used government drivers to collect them from the Ghillie Dhu in Edinburgh on the evening of March 23.

The pub, in central Edinburgh, was the venue for a leaving party for Ms Sturgeon, who just hours earlier had taken part in her final session of First Minister’s Questions, and her deputy John Swinney.

The exclusive celebrations were for around 100 loyalists to Ms Sturgeon, with the event described as being attended by the “SNP elite”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/12/snp-politicians-taxpayer-funded-cars-sturgeon-leaving-party/

Could have been worse. Could have been campervans.

Richard_Tyndall said:

ydoethur said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

Stocky said:

Miklosvar said:

eek said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

Sandpit said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

I fundamentally object to the plan to tax private education. Many parents, like mine - average middle class people - sacrificed everything so I could have a private education, to the point where we essentially lived close to poverty. No luxuries, no holidays, no nicer house that my Dad had promised my Mum when they got married. Had the fees been lumbered with a 20% additional charge, my education would have, by necessity, reverted to the State. And, the State would have had to find a space for me and pay for it. As it is, my parents paid their taxes for other people's kids to be educated and then paid extra for me. And Labour want to penalise such people even more. Talk about the politics of envy.

That was me too. Two foreign holidays in 18 years.

You were lucky. I had to live in a cardboard box...

Seriously though... we never had holidays. And I genuinely did live in a house with a broken pane of glass in my bedroom window covered with a bit of cardboard for 2 years that my parents literally couldn't afford to fix - that was fun in winter! (Not sure they were really wise about that, I suspect the heating bill savings could have paid for the glass, but they didn't see it that way at the time!)

In any case, the people who sacrifice everything for their kids and aspire for better for their offspring are not going to look kindly on Labour making their lives worse. Obviously with the current political climate, I don't suppose it'd swing an election, but morally wrong is morally wrong in my opinion.

I don't think a family unable to afford a window repair are going to have children in Private Education...

So that story doesn't wash.

Reality is a few middle class parents may not vote for Labour because of that policy but the flip side is that it will get some (possible a lot of) activists willing to do a bit more door knocking and that would probably more than offset the lost votes in that gets others out.

Bit churlish to call other posters, liars. Most things are on fairly continuous spectrums and that includes private education; people buying it range from those to whom the expense is negligible, to the serious scrimpers. My parents fixed broken windows but no foreign hols, no TV, no central heating. Not saying this is desirable; frankly I am clever enough to have done fine at a state school, and it has bought me 50 years of feeling guilty at the shit life my mother had. But it is true.

My daughters have attended both private and state schools. Private was a massive financial challenge. Trouble is when people think private schools they think about the elites such as Eton. Most private schools are nothing like that.

I've seen through my own experience that the gulf between most day private schools and the elite private schools is far wider than the gulf between modest day schools and good state schools. The latter are FAR better funded. When my youngest went from private to state she was wide-eyed about the facilities.

Those parents, and children, who are truly blessed are those endowed with a natural intelligence who get into the grammars. Those parents have nothing to pay and their offspring will rise to the top.

The parents we met at the private schools were no different in terms of class to the parent we met at the state schools. The difference is about what people choose to do with their money. We have always prioritised our children's needs above cars and eating out, for instance.

I don't think private schools should be banned. But charitable status has always struck me as a bit of a stretch. But it seems unfair to treat all private schools the same.

Parents of modest day schools WILL withdraw. They will have no choice. These schools have no reserves. They are skint already so will have to pass it on. There will be some closures and demand for state schools will increase.

The end result will be less tax raised than Starmer thinks.

The existence of "grammars" depends very much where you live, there's entirely zero in the east midlands outside of Lincolnshire whereas Kent has over 30.

Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford, Ripon and Bucks are fully grammar and high school for state education, no comprehensives.

Patches of grammars too still in Essex around Colchester, Chelmsford and Southend, Redbridge and Bromley and Kingston upon Thames in London and Poole in Dorset and Rugby in Warwickshire and in the Birmingham suburbs. Plus a semi grammar in Watford.

Simply not true. In Lincolnshire there are a dozen or so Grammars but also many Comprehensives (or Academies as they are apparently calld these days).

Having Grammar schools does not preclude having Comprehensives as well. In Grantham there are 2 Grammar schools and two comprehensives.

There are no real comprehensives in Lincolnshire, just high schools/academies. To be a comprehensive you can't have the most academic kids in the area going to local grammars.

You don't. Most kids in Lincolnshire don't go to the Grammars. Most go to comprehensives/academies. Only 26% of secondary school kids go to Grammars in Lincolnshire and whilst there are 15 Grammar schools there are 40 non selective schools.

This is yet another subject on which you are making statements based on your particular beliefs rather than the facts.

To correct a misconception I think you have:

An academy is how a school is governed, not a way of running it. Academies are schools managed directly by the DfE and controlling their own budget and curriculum, not through the LEA.

Almost all grammar schools are academies because it makes it near impossible for the LEAs to shut them, which they kept trying to do.

A comprehensive is any state school that does not select by academic ability, 'comprehensive' meaning 'they take everyone in the area.' Most of these are also academies.

Yep thats fair enough. I was using acadamies and Comprehensives interchangeably so apologies. But my underlying point still stands. HYUFD's claim that most secondary school kids in Lincolnshire go to Grammar schools is simply wrong. 75% of them do not go to selective schools.

Cyclefree said:

Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.

There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:

- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and
- Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.

But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.

The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.

The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.

If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

Cyclefree said:

Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.

There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:

- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and
- Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.

But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.

The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.

The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.

If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

felix said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

You have to earn $24k, have a clean criminal record, and buy health insurance. You can bring spouse and kids

The tax rate?

Oh that. yes, it's 0%. Yes, 0% on money earned outside Malaysia (ie all your income for most people)

How the fuck is this not going to attract people?

https://citizenremote.com/visas/malaysia/

Plus you get the FOOD in Penang

And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?

I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.

How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.

That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....

The majority of Chinese people live in China. Most people in this country are born in this country.
Most people don't move. Some do.

All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.

And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.

Many offices around the world mandate English for work. The extent of this is astonishing.

Anecdotally Scandinavian friends tell me it is near universal in practice throughout the zone, even if not mandatory. Certainly here in Spain there is a large variety of foreign immigrants and English is the language most use along of course with Spanish.

A fired in Denmark is finding it hard to practise his Danish - because Danish is practically forbidden in the office!

Apparently having private conversations in Danish is seen as exclusionary of international workers. At least in his office -there are regular emails about it.

I used to have this a lot on the rigs. If you were working for a French company on a French rig - as I did a great deal for the first decade of my offshore life - learning the language was both absolutely necessary and pretty easy as they simply refused to speak English at any time (This in spite of the fact the law stated that for safety reasons English was the primary language for operations).

Working on Dutch or Norwegian rigs it was hugely difficult to learn the language as they would go to extremes to speak English if you were there. You could regularly walk into the smoke shack where everyone was speaking Norwegian and as you came through the door all the conversations would seemlessly switch to English. They just felt it was bad manners to do anything else. You really had to work hard to persuade them to talk Norwegian to help you improve your language skills.

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

Pagan2 said:

Cyclefree said:

Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.

There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:

- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and
- Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.

But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.

The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.

The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.

If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.

Hang on the education budget is 116 billion? How does that make sense. Not saying you are wrong but there are 11.9 million kids in the state sector. We are told the spend is 7.2k a head which is 85 billion thats a 31 billion gap unless universities are included in that budget which I am not sure they are as universities get fees

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

Malmesbury said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Malmesbury said:

felix said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Malmesbury said:

Farooq said:

Leon said:

Malaysia's Digital Nomad Visa

You have to earn $24k, have a clean criminal record, and buy health insurance. You can bring spouse and kids

The tax rate?

Oh that. yes, it's 0%. Yes, 0% on money earned outside Malaysia (ie all your income for most people)

How the fuck is this not going to attract people?

https://citizenremote.com/visas/malaysia/

Plus you get the FOOD in Penang

And your friends, and your kids' friends? You mum's who's in remission and can't travel? Can you go down the local boozer and watch England dropping catches and shout with the other fans. There really is more to life than tax rates, and if I'm wrong why are you still here?

I work in an office full of foreigners. Chinese, Indians, Malay, French, German, Czech.

How could they all move to the UK? And their kids? What about their parents? They can't get back to their local boozers to cheer their teams etc.

That's the thing about living in the cosmopolitan global world. Works both ways....

The majority of Chinese people live in China. Most people in this country are born in this country.
Most people don't move. Some do.

All of the above are true and do not contradict what you see in your workplace.

And to reiterate the language point, the downside of English's status as lingua franca (yes yes, I know) is that you're more likely to find Chinese people able to cope here than British people able to cope in China.

Many offices around the world mandate English for work. The extent of this is astonishing.

Anecdotally Scandinavian friends tell me it is near universal in practice throughout the zone, even if not mandatory. Certainly here in Spain there is a large variety of foreign immigrants and English is the language most use along of course with Spanish.

A fired in Denmark is finding it hard to practise his Danish - because Danish is practically forbidden in the office!

Apparently having private conversations in Danish is seen as exclusionary of international workers. At least in his office -there are regular emails about it.

I used to have this a lot on the rigs. If you were working for a French company on a French rig - as I did a great deal for the first decade of my offshore life - learning the language was both absolutely necessary and pretty easy as they simply refused to speak English at any time (This in spite of the fact the law stated that for safety reasons English was the primary language for operations).

Working on Dutch or Norwegian rigs it was hugely difficult to learn the language as they would go to extremes to speak English if you were there. You could regularly walk into the smoke shack where everyone was speaking Norwegian and as you came through the door all the conversations would seemlessly switch to English. They just felt it was bad manners to do anything else. You really had to work hard to persuade them to talk Norwegian to help you improve your language skills.

When I worked in Big Oil, the Dutch were the same.

Hilariously, for my friend in Denmark it’s actually a problem - he is doing the full citizenship thing and that requires a very high standard of Danish - he needs the practise!

DougSeal said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

“Child”? Have I missed something? If these are adults the mother has no standing and, no, does not “deserve” a platform.

Ghedebrav said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

There is a live example of a current Conservative MP on bail after being arrested for rape and indecent assault. He seems to have been relatively left alone.

JosiasJessop said:

Pagan2 said:

Cyclefree said:

Starmer's policy is not to remove charitable status from private schools. It is to impose VAT on school fees. The reason there is no VAT at present is because under the relevant VAT legislation, provision of education by an “eligible body” (which includes a registered independent school) is an “exempt” supply for VAT purposes.

There is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training if it:

- Cannot and does not distribute any profit and
- Any profit that does arise from is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies.

But regardless of whether a school is a charity or not, if it charges fees it will have to charge VAT under Labour's proposed policy.

The amount Labour thinks it will raise is ca. £1.3 - 1.6 billion, which is a drop in the ocean. The education budget is the 2nd largest after health and in 2021-2022 its budget was £116 billion.

The school of which I am Chair of Trustees has been preparing for this for some time.

Regardless of what you think of the policy, it is delusional to think that the amounts raised by this will go anywhere near solving any of the problems in education. There have already been criticisms that Labour has allocated the money twice over.

If people want more money spent on education, ordinary people who do not go to independent schools will have to put their hand in their pocket. Ditto re the NHS, transport, housing and pretty much any sector you care to mention. That is going to be the big issue for Labour. People want more government spending but don't want to pay the taxes necessary for this - and at a time when taxes are already high and the cost of living is high too, how is Labour going to persuade them? It won't even abolish the triple lock, for heaven's sake, and the squeals from Labour supporters when Mrs May proposed asking rich people to use their assets to pay for their social care were quite something.

Hang on the education budget is 116 billion? How does that make sense. Not saying you are wrong but there are 11.9 million kids in the state sector. We are told the spend is 7.2k a head which is 85 billion thats a 31 billion gap unless universities are included in that budget which I am not sure they are as universities get fees

As ever, it seems it depends on what you are counting.

(1) says: "he total funding allocated to schools through the grants covered in this report is £57.3 billion in 2023-24" Whereas (2) suggests £116 billion for "Education spending". Whereas (3) suggests £100 billion, and has a breakdown by sector.

Which, I guess and as you suggest, also includes further education. And which is also as clear as mud.

(1) https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-funding-statistics
(2) https://ifs.org.uk/microsite/education-spending
(3) https://www.statista.com/statistics/298910/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-education/

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

tlg86 said:

Ghedebrav said:

Leon said:

The Sun is entitled to report that an extremely well known sixty something married BBC TV news reader is paying tens of thousands of pounds to a teenager for personal nudes and other sexual imagery

It’s an immensely sad story but it IS newsworthy. This is a paper doing it’s job

There’s a world of difference between that and the criminality that had been suggested though.

Where's the suggestion of criminality?

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

Stuartinromford said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

Does that principle apply to anyone whose pay comes from the taxpayer?

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.

Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.

No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos

That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.

I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.

Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..

Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.

So pick a couple and watch the reaction....

just did above

No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...

I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.

When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.

Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society

But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).

The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.

No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.

Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.

I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.

37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently
How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.

How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?

Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

bondegezou said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

Cookie said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

148grss said:

Pagan2 said:

I suspect Starmer will be viewed as in tune with the nation right up until they publish their general election manifesto. The I suspect their poll ratings will do a Theresa May plummet.

Do you think that the manifesto will be to the right or left of where the public are? Because at the moment I think it's more likely to be to the right of public sentiment, and leave a wide area for left wing attacks on Starmer's Labour Party.

No idea whether it will be right or left, I just think most people will look at it and go that isn't fixing any of our problems, the same will be true of the tory , green, snp and libdem manifestos

That's a reasonable take - the problems in front of us are massive and nothing short of revolutionary change on par with war time economy moves will deal with them. I feel Labour's manifesto will be a dull turd, and it will disappoint a number of people on the left, whilst not actually having enough of the red meat stuff wanted by those who would typically vote Tory, and so the LDs and Greens will have an opportunity to suggest radical change and get interest from voters. If the Tories keep polling as badly as they are, potentially squeezing for votes becomes harder - if the electorate see Tory defeat as inevitable they might feel less likely that they need to vote Labour to get the Tories out and can afford to vote for one of the alternatives if they truly want to.

I don't think the problems we face are that massive. We just need to face the fact that we are living beyond our means, and have been doing so since about 2001. And then we need to stop doing so. This isn't going to impoverish us - just make us realise that we aren't as rich as we thought.

Except you look at the areas where the Government spends money and none of them are in a position where cuts can be made..

Which is why I argue we need to reduce the number of area's the government spends money.

So pick a couple and watch the reaction....

just did above

No you didn't you picked the things you wish to priorities - tell me things you don't think money should be spent on...

I said these should be the priorities for fully funding. When we see what we have left over is the time to think about what else to spend on.

When I budget I first spend on the must haves, then I see what is left and decide what else to spend money on. It maybe for example after these top 4 then we have no money left.

Until we know what is left how can you decide. The ones I mentioned are essentials for a functional society

But countries aren't like individuals in their finances. It's a misleading analogy. You have an income. A country can raise taxes, but has much more flexibility in what those taxes are, yet also those taxes can have knock on effects on the economy. A country usually has its own currency. It can literally print money, although doing so can devalue everyone's holdings of that money through inflation. Countries can borrow comparatively cheaply over very long periods in a way a person can't. Countries are indefinite: they don't have to worry about a personal pension (although they do have to worry about paying many pensions all the time).

The Weimar republic printed money, so did zimbabwe etc....remind us how that worked. Having your own currency does not mean you can print unlimited amounts with no consequence as both my examples found out. Taxes are already higher than they have been since the 70's I do not believe more can be raised in tax without pushing a lot of heads underwater.

No, you can’t print unlimited amounts of money, but you can print limited amounts of money. I wasn’t intending to start a debate on monetary policy: just pointing out that it’s part of what makes a country running its finances different to a household running their finances.

Taxes are currently high. I suggest that’s because of austerity. Too much penny-pinching has ended up creating extra costs, whereas more investment would have put us in a better position. Or maybe it’s simply because the Tories are fundamentally bad at running the country, something easily solved at the next general election.

I think taxes can be raised, and can be raised in a manner that doesn’t impact on those struggling to keep their heads above water. There are plenty of people, including myself, who can afford to pay more in tax. There are plenty of companies that can afford to pay more in tax.

37% of uk people over 16 pay no income tax currently
How much can you raise corporation tax before we become unwelcoming to corporations coming here.

How many higher rate tax payers can you raise tax on before they go I can go elsewhere?

Sadly the truth is the only way to raise tax income is to raise the basic and 40% tax rates and those are also the people struggling to make the paycheque last till the end of the month.

Taxes should ideally be low, consistent, evenly applied and unavoidable.

That makes them fair and not an inhibitor to growth.

The biggest problem in this country isn't that taxes are too high, or too low, its that they're too uneven. Some people can arrange their affairs so they essentially avoid taxes almost altogether [far too low], while others are facing marginal tax rates of 60-70%+ [far too high].

Tackling the inequities in the system would allow lower taxes on those paying too much, but would require wiping out the exemptions that exist in the system and require taxing those who are undertaxed more - and that will cause pain and cost votes.

Gallowgate said:

I have started to consider the possibility of leaving the country for the first time in my life in the last year. It’s not really the tax rate which is the problem, it’s just too low salaries and too high cost of living.

Maybe everywhere else is the same, maybe it isn’t, but maybe there’s a better life somewhere else.

Pity that I picked one of the only geographically limited (save for language) jobs for a new career

nico679 said:

The Sun was desperate to find criminality and to use Edwards as a stick to beat the BBC with.

The fact Edwards is now receiving treatment in a mental hospital should be the end of the media orgy . The BBC will conduct their investigation and I don’t want to hear any more about this case until that’s finished .

Surely the general public have had enough now !

Miklosvar said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

What he does with his own money is his own business.

Had it been illegal, then it'd be public interest, but considering the Police have now investigated and said no crime committed then its much ado about nothing.

No it isn't

"Edwards facing 'yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues' - BBC
The BBC has just reported that Huw Edwards is facing "yet more allegations of inappropriate behaviour" this evening.

The fresh accusations are that he behaved inappropriately towards colleagues at the BBC, the broadcaster has reported"

Sky

That's all entirely new. They must be pretty confident of their case to put this out there at this stage

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

Sorry you are wrong, I say this as someone who has no truck with the bbc. If the BBC had been funding it to keep their talent you are right....however if you pay someone a salary and they spend it in a way thats less than optimal it is not down to the employer. It is the same if a civil servant uses their salary to pay for prostitutes...once its paid out as salary its no longer public money

Luckyguy1983 said:

I don't agree with removing the charitable status of public schools, but I do think they could be obliged to give more support to the care system, by taking on allocations of kids from childrens' homes. Take kids out of the care system and instead give them all the benefits of an education at Mallory Towers.

Leon said:

Pagan2 said:

Leon said:

Stuartinromford said:

tlg86 said:

Stuartinromford said:

eek said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I've met Huw Edwards, lovely fella, knows his politics, even followed me on Twitter.

This situation is very dangerous for the Sun and the rest of the anti-BBC press (and I say that as someone who is opposed to the licence fee as a funding emchanism).

If it turns out that Edwards has done nothing illegal then they will have driven a very popular man into a mental breakdown just for their own salacious or politically motivated benefit. As someone said earlier it would be lovely if the Liverpool attitude to the Sun was adopted by the whole country.

And that is what seems to be the case - albeit in a way that means the Bun (unlike 100,000s of people on twitter) won't be spending money in libel payments...

So what does the Sun do now? Presumably, their reports were written in such a way as to be libel-proof ("we just reported the concerns of a worried mother...") but they may have Ratnered their brand, as they did with the News of the World. Do they go for the kill or try to reverse ferret?

It may be my Centrist Dad bubble, but I'd like to think this costs them sales and advertising revenue. How many people want to pay to see wings pulled off butterflies like this?

Let's say this wasn't Huw Edwards but a prominent Conservative politician. Would that make it okay?

Does the mother of the child deserve a platform? (honest question)

1. If it's off-duty, no it shouldn't matter. If X is using their role to channel public favours to their private squeeze, or uses their public status to abusively snare a squeeze, that's different. But off-duty is off-duty. Recognition of that is one of the things that is better about now than the semi-recent past. "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" is a good principle.

2. Lots of people have complaints that don't make the front pages, because they aren't salacious enough. And I'm not sure that going to the press is going to make a reconcilliation within the family easier.

Huw was using our money - the licence fee money - to get his rocks off with a teen. Due to the unique way the BBC is funded I’m afraid this is therefore of public interest

The BBC cannot have it both ways

Sorry you are wrong, I say this as someone who has no truck with the bbc. If the BBC had been funding it to keep their talent you are right....however if you pay someone a salary and they spend it in a way thats less than optimal it is not down to the employer. It is the same if a civil servant uses their salary to pay for prostitutes...once its paid out as salary its no longer public money

He just got £400,000 a year and a massive pay rise. Unfortunate timing