Polling errors – politicalbetting.com

Northern_Al said:

ToryJim said:

Farooq said:

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this election so far, other than the Tories flying kites in the thunderclouds, has been the spectre of Schrödinger's Labour.

We're being earnestly told by some commentators that Labour won't have the fiscal room or the inclination to do anything differently, so there's no point voting for them. At the same time, we're told they will usher in a dangerous radical break straight after, nay, even BEFORE the election, so one shouldn't vote for them.

(There some joke about putting the cat among the pigeons / dead cat strategy here that I can't quite nail down)

It's quite fun to see. As it happens, I don't find myself hugely disagreeing with the former group hugely, although I think they overstate the case.

This is a function of Labour Party strategy, they have located themselves in a good political position whereby they don’t put out too many hostages to fortune or anything that their opponents can get their teeth into. So all that’s left is projection of the type that is going on.

Their positioning will handsomely win them the election but will have post election consequences. Supporters are projecting too and there is plenty of wishful thinking going on. Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations. The course of the next Parliament will be determined by whether disappointed voters give Labour the benefit of the doubt or whether they start to listen to the siren voices that are already doing their warmup exercises.

Bit in bold - the point is that Labour has deliberately not set any wild expectations. Lefties like me are somewhat disappointed by the lack of ambition thus far in Labour's offer.

Starmer's strategy is clear - under-promise but over-deliver.

The bit in bold from "ToryJim" sounds to me like a Manchester United Fan convincing themselves that next season will be better, next season they'll finish above City. It could be that " Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations." but sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

I really pity political satire writers. The Tories have stolen all their best ideas, so what can they do now?

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Flatlander said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

Its an outrage.

Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...

I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).

Fatigue has caused train incidents, but often that fatigue was down to other causes. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-08-slash-2023-collision-between-two-freight-trains-at-loversall-carr-junction

Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.

Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.

I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?

Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?

A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.

One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.

Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.

Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.

In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.

Often, that's because they know the safety stuff costs a vast amount, and can restrict the system's usage. Therefore if they can do without the safety stuff, it makes the system more saleable.

Which means the sad old lessons have to be relearnt anew.

We've seen several examples of this with the new misguided bus system here in Cambridge, with lessons known for years on the railways -keeping trains/busses apart, and people separate from where things run, have led to accidents. Some tragic.

https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/guided-busway-deaths-hse-serves-cambridgeshire-county-counc-9364998/

eek said:

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

Because Nigel is going to focus on attack points where the Tories are losing votes on the right flank..

Quite

El_Capitano said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)

We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.

You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.

The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.

Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.

To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".

Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.

The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.

Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.

So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.

This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.

That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?

You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

What he says and does will probably sway a fair number of Tory or potential Tory voters. Not loads, but it wouldn't take loads to make a difference.

HYUFD said:

Interesting poll from a few months ago on where voters put the party leaders ideologically.

Starmer is put left of Blair and Brown but right of Corbyn and about level with Ed Miliband.

Sunak is put right of Cameron and May but left of IDS, Howard, Johnson and Truss
https://x.com/GavinBarwell/status/1745467856253329587

Smells about right, though it would be interesting to see what's happened in the last few months.

As a Centrist Dad, it's reasonable evidence for the "more centrist wins" theory of elections.

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).

wooliedyed said:

HYUFD said:

Interesting poll from a few months ago on where voters put the party leaders ideologically.

Starmer is put left of Blair and Brown but right of Corbyn and about level with Ed Miliband.

Sunak is put right of Cameron and May but left of IDS, Howard, Johnson and Truss
https://x.com/GavinBarwell/status/1745467856253329587

Probably right except Bojo is a screaming National Liberal type

I seem to recall at the time there was some bemoaning on the left that Cameron was seen as less right wing than he really was, but in fairness that's probably the case with every leader - the right bemoan that Starmer is not seen as as left wing as he really is etc.

Edit:

Which does rather tie into my theory that it is easier for someone to be radical if they don't come across as radical, eg Starmer could propose the same things as Corbyn but would not worry people as much in doing so.

Cookie said:

Facebook is heavily targeting me with a Labour Party advert urging me to vote for their candidate for Beckenham and Penge. Which suggests someone's algorithms aren't working terribly effectively.
I haven't watched it in detail, but from the subtitles it appears that the chap in question is 'proud of Beckenham'. He doesn't appear to mention Penge.

Can you blame him?

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)

We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.

You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.

The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.

Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.

A midwife married to a police sergeant though certainly could or even a Deputy head married to a nurse

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.

However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.

I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.

Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.

Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.

Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.

The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.

eek said:

bondegezou said:

TimS said:

bondegezou said:

megasaur said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

Fallacy. There's plenty of people sending children to Eton and Harrow that can afford it but only just

Indeed is it a law of economics that all goods are bought by the whole spectrum from zero to huge opportunity cost? Or are, say, Bugattis only bought by people who can buy them for pocket change?

Yes, logic suggests that some people who are sending their children to Eton or Harrow, or any other private school, can only just afford to do so.

I note, however, that private school fees have risen far higher than inflation over the last few decades. This suggests considerable price inelasticity. People have kept sending their kids despite increases in fees higher than the imposition of VAT will cause.

There’s been a huge race to compete on facilities, as international student numbers have grown and parents no longer tolerate falling down classrooms and mouldy concrete changing rooms. Private schools have been investing in buildings, technology, sports facilities and labs. That seems to be where the money has been going.

Exactly the kind of infrastructure the state sector could do with. Anyone who’s done the secondary school open day with year 6 children can testify to the huge gulf in facilities between private and state. Private schools have also kept their playing fields, the teaching and in many cases the results are not that different, it’s the physical estate where the contrasts are. That and class sizes.

Thanks for the possible explanation. This suggests that the private school sector can absorb VAT and that parents can afford some fee increases. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the policy, this suggests that the policy is unlikely to produce a torrent of closures forcing pupils into state schools.

But it will do so at the margins and the margins is where CR is when it comes to private education given that only 50% of families earning £200,000 go private.

But parents of school age children are probably not the target of the Tories’ attack line.

Remember the big lesson of the last few years and this campaign: the Conservatives are targeting the core pensioner vote.

They had children at a time when private schools were used by some hard working JAMs and access was easier. It doesn’t matter what 40 year old parents think of Starmer’s policy, it matters what quadruple-locked, ULEZ-hating, unmortgaged national service fans think. Because they’re the people who vote.

kle4 said:

eek said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Flatlander said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

Its an outrage.

Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...

I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).

Fatigue has caused train incidents, but often that fatigue was down to other causes. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-08-slash-2023-collision-between-two-freight-trains-at-loversall-carr-junction

Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.

Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.

I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?

Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?

A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.

One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.

Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.

Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.

In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.

There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.

The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.

By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.

Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?

HYUFD said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)

We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.

You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.

The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.

Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.

A midwife married to a police sergeant though certainly could or even a Deputy head married to a nurse

True. But then the midwife might be ill-disposed towards a Conservative government that has resisted pay rises for healthcare staff and continues to underfund the NHS, and a police sergeant may equally dislike the cuts in the police the Conservatives have imposed. I don't know. We'll see how the election plays out.

bondegezou said:

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).

They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.

berberian_knows said:

kle4 said:

eek said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Flatlander said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

Its an outrage.

Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...

I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).

Fatigue has caused train incidents, but often that fatigue was down to other causes. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-08-slash-2023-collision-between-two-freight-trains-at-loversall-carr-junction

Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.

Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.

I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?

Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?

A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.

One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.

Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.

Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.

In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.

There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.

The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.

By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.

Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?

The “minor” stations are where lots of the commuters live, that the rush hour trains are trying to serve.

berberian_knows said:

kle4 said:

eek said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Flatlander said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

Its an outrage.

Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...

I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).

Fatigue has caused train incidents, but often that fatigue was down to other causes. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-08-slash-2023-collision-between-two-freight-trains-at-loversall-carr-junction

Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.

Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.

I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?

Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?

A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.

One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.

Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.

Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.

In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.

There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.

The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.

By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.

Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?

Interesting thought and to a degree it happens - a number of trains coming in to London terminii in the morning are sent straight back as "Empty to Depot" to get back to the other end. I see this on the C2C which doesn't have huge capacity - the trains going to Barking and West Ham heading into London are plentiful, the service other way not so good but there are plenty of non-stopping trains heading back east.

SWR do something similar though as a regular passenger on the lines from Waterloo to Woking and Guildford, the demand for services from say Woking to Basingstoke and Guildford is there and has to be catered for - it clearly doesn't match the London-bound demand but nonetheless.

The same thing happens in the evening - trains come out of depot, run empty to London and then form evening commuter services.

Malmesbury said:

berberian_knows said:

kle4 said:

eek said:

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

Flatlander said:

JosiasJessop said:

Carnyx said:

RochdalePioneers said:

The unions aren't saints - we know that. But rail crew are people too. Their employers aren't allowed by the government to hire enough staff. So the only way the service can operate is via goodwill - people working rest days and thus not spending time with their family.

What happens when that goodwill evaporates? The service can't run fully. Then add into the mix some bizarre DfT dictat that drivers should have route restrictions - meaning more crew needed to operate a single service - and you're asking for trouble.

The solution? The Shapps - Williams plan is a start. A wholesale restructure to simplify the utter chaos which is he current structure. The Tories have had this on the planner since 2021 and other than spending money on competitions as to in which Tory maginal the HQ should be have done *nothing*.

So yes, its clearly the fault of the unions. Of people. How Dare They not work on a day off. Who do they think they are, putting family first?

Its an outrage.

Safety, too, ultimately. Work people too often on rest days ...

I fear that argument's false. Rest-day working has been around for donkey's years, and I can't think of an incident caused by it. AIUI RDW does *not* affect the amount of rest a driver should get between shifts (what ?used? to be called the HIDDEN rules).

Fatigue has caused train incidents, but often that fatigue was down to other causes. e.g. https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-08-slash-2023-collision-between-two-freight-trains-at-loversall-carr-junction

Good grief, how did I know know about this? It is on our local nature reserve.

Surely that kind of collision could be automated away.

I understand the reasoning behind not automating everything and only requiring the driver to do anything if they actually see something unusual - because then you definitely end up with someone having a snooze in the cab - but two trains on the same track?

Is this a case of it being too expensive (I sense a pattern here) to retrofit older trains?

A mixture of things IMO. The reasons these incidents are so remarkable is that they're rare, and that's because they try to process them out. Lessons are learnt, and more processes added to avoid them. An automated system has to implement all of those safety lessons - and that's really difficult. Especially when it also has to cope with the unusual - something humans do quite well. Just the human interactions of checking a door is closed and no-one waiting on the platform is going to try to open a door is hard to automate.

One of my bugbears is people introducing a brand-new transport system and calling it 'safe' without any of these very expensive systems. We saw it with Maglev, where it was claimed it was impossible to crash - just before many people were killed in a crash. We see it with 'Hyperloop', where pixies and fairy dust will keep people 'safe'.

Safety costs. The more safety you want, the more you pay.

Whenever new transport systems are mooted it seems to be on the assumption that maintenance is not a thing and stuff never breaks.

In most cases it seems like just building more trains would be a better option but it's not sexy enough to get attention.

There are hard limits on the number of carriages that a platform / station can handle and how many trains an hour can go down the track.

The latter is why HS2 was so important - it allowed the fast trains to be segregated on to fast tracks so you end up with 16 fast trains / hour, and 16 slow trains / hour on the old tracks rather than 10 trains per hour.

By more trains I was being inclusive of all sorts of associated train infrastructure, rather than building a hyperloop or some other futuristic new option, until suddenly you are building Neom, the line shaped city of Saudi Arabia.

Has anyone ever tried having an asymmetric scheduling system - trains run fast into London in the morning, skipping minor stations, while trains out of London stop everywhere, then the reverse in the evening? So if you are heading for a minor station you might need to overshoot and return. Would give some of the same benefits as HS2?

The “minor” stations are where lots of the commuters live, that the rush hour trains are trying to serve.

It's always been the case on the mainline services - you will be advised to go to station X or Y based on when the best connection is...

Changing at York / Darlington for Northallerton was always the case, it's true now for some times at Durham...

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

He is the chief influencer of the party in second, and the owner of the party in third. Apart from that, and being the closest Brit to the odds on favourite to be the next US president, he is just some bloke.

I wish you were correct, but you are not.

bondegezou said:

El_Capitano said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)

We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.

You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.

The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.

Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.

To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".

Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.

The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.

Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.

So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.

This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.

That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?

You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.

The issue is that Eton and Harrow are a minority of a minority. We are about to see what the demand curve for private schooling looks like.

The idea that all private schools will close is bat shit insane.

The idea that an everyone will just pay 20% tax and carry on as usual is also insane.

Somewhere in between is the result - and where that’s, no one knows for certain.

Someone posted an analysis which suggested that the result of VAT of school fees would be slightly negative on (tax-expenditure). Based on the effects of the Post COVID price rises, IIRC.

This seemed a fairly reasonable piece of work.

If so, there won’t be any extra money for the government.

Rachel Reeves plans to make it illegal for the government to buy paperclips without an OBR assessment

https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1795386396426764505

@Steven_Swinford

Rachel Reeves refuses to match the Conservative Party's pledge to cut income tax for pensioners, describing it as 'another desperate gimmick'

She says: 'I want taxes to be lower but I'm not going to make any new commitment where I can't say where the money is coming from'

@DPJHodges

In this campaign we've reached a new crossover. Labour pledging clear spending limits. But Tories gambling on major spending commitments, funded by 'cutting tax avoidance and waste'*.

* In other words, totally uncosted spending commitments

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

eristdoof said:

Northern_Al said:

ToryJim said:

Farooq said:

One of the most enjoyable aspects of this election so far, other than the Tories flying kites in the thunderclouds, has been the spectre of Schrödinger's Labour.

We're being earnestly told by some commentators that Labour won't have the fiscal room or the inclination to do anything differently, so there's no point voting for them. At the same time, we're told they will usher in a dangerous radical break straight after, nay, even BEFORE the election, so one shouldn't vote for them.

(There some joke about putting the cat among the pigeons / dead cat strategy here that I can't quite nail down)

It's quite fun to see. As it happens, I don't find myself hugely disagreeing with the former group hugely, although I think they overstate the case.

This is a function of Labour Party strategy, they have located themselves in a good political position whereby they don’t put out too many hostages to fortune or anything that their opponents can get their teeth into. So all that’s left is projection of the type that is going on.

Their positioning will handsomely win them the election but will have post election consequences. Supporters are projecting too and there is plenty of wishful thinking going on. Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations. The course of the next Parliament will be determined by whether disappointed voters give Labour the benefit of the doubt or whether they start to listen to the siren voices that are already doing their warmup exercises.

Bit in bold - the point is that Labour has deliberately not set any wild expectations. Lefties like me are somewhat disappointed by the lack of ambition thus far in Labour's offer.

Starmer's strategy is clear - under-promise but over-deliver.

The bit in bold from "ToryJim" sounds to me like a Manchester United Fan convincing themselves that next season will be better, next season they'll finish above City. It could be that " Labour will undoubtedly disappoint the wildest expectations." but sounds more like wishful thinking to me.

Not wishful thinking at all. The idea seems to be out there albeit implicitly rather than explicitly that the election of a Labour government of itself resolves some of the challenges the country faces. That is nonsense, the incoming Labour government is going to be quite hemmed in by circumstances. Clearly they will make different choices than the Tories but the options box is very limited. So anyone thinking that everything will be magically different simply because Labour will be in power will be sorely disappointed.

From the Tories point of view they will actually have to do the work of opposition which is actually thinking about the policy challenges both the obvious ones but also those that emerge that Labour either don’t have an answer for or have emerged from active decisions Labour take. The Tories are going to be in trouble if they think opposition will be a case of waiting for the voters to crawl on bended knee begging for rescue.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...

The Tories will be hoping for as much pushback on the Mega Triple Super Fantasy Lock from opposition and media as possible of course, so they can say to the 60 plus 'you see? They want you poor'

noneoftheabove said:

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

He is the chief influencer of the party in second, and the owner of the party in third. Apart from that, and being the closest Brit to the odds on favourite to be the next US president, he is just some bloke.

I wish you were correct, but you are not.

Whether Trump remains odds on favourite to be next US president likely depends on the jury verdict in his criminal trial in the next week or so. If guilty Farage may have jumped to the US and abandoned UK politics too swiftly, a weak Tory party polling lower than ever before is probably his best chance ever to realign the right towards Reform had he replaced Tice as Reform leader

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.

However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.

I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.

Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.

Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.

Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.

The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.

And that's the argument for the Conservatives being in really deep trouble.

Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.

Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.

What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Eabhal said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?

This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.

It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school

But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?

The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.

However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.

I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.

Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.

Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.

Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.

The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.

Quite likely that we get a similar story this time too.

As I commented on the cat graph the other day, the bias of FPTP flips at a certain point in favour of the largest party, rather than being systematically biased to either party. It is in effect a winners bonus for gaining the confidence of the centre ground.

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

The LibDems have not said this is some red line in coalition negotiations, no. If you're the junior member in a coalition, you don't get to dictate most of the policies!

So what are their redlines as I am open to persuasion

Stuartinromford said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.

However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.

I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.

Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.

Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.

Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.

The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.

And that's the argument for the Conservatives being in really deep trouble.

Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.

Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.

What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?

Tories 97 ICM and Tory 24 Opinium deficits are broadly similar leading in to the GE

noneoftheabove said:

eek said:

https://x.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1795391154667860276

Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
·
9m
If Labour get in, there will be +no+ summer budget. Rachel Reeves points out it takes to OBR 10 weeks to do a forecast. So if they do day 1 then Sept 12 is earliest date possible

So a late September budget looks possible but that enters into party conference season so the budget will be early October...

This stuff gives me more confidence. A bit of caution and patience has been sorely lacking from the Tories for the last few years, especially visible during the Trusstercluck period. It allows time for analysis and policies to be refined and considered.

Well done, Ms Reeves.

The adults are coming, time for the teenagers to turn off the music and get ready for their hangovers.

DM_Andy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...

As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be

I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time

If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?

Give me a reason on policy and I really could vote Lib Dem

DM_Andy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...

As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be

I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time

If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?

Surely we should all conspire to engineer as many lost deposits as possible, to reduce the national debt?

(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)

Stuartinromford said:

david_herdson said:

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

On topic, pollsters like YouGov probably are overstating Labour's lead because of the overly-politically active nature of their panels.

However, the results from Westminster by-elections and local elections suggest that a Labour lead in the high teens is very credible and we should expect something like that were the election today.

I don't buy the 'DK 2019 Tories will return' argument. The Tories have done a huge amount to piss off that group, many of whom were first-time Tory voters then anyway so have no deep loyalty to the brand (quite the opposite, if anything). They will most likely end up as DK-Abstain; to the extent they don't, they'll splinter all over the place to minimal effect either way.

Plus the real voting will include tactical mechanics which are hard to show in a poll.

Maybe Sunak will pull back a decent chunk of DK but there will be seats where the tactical switch to, say, Lab from LibDem in order to get them out will be compensate I suspect.

Good point. And that's one reason why most people didn't notice that the 1997 polls were wrong and overstated Labour.

The interpretation of the polls pointed to a Labour landslide, and a landslide was duly delivered - of roughly the scale that had been predicted using UNS. However, most of the polls (which actually varied quite a bit) gave Labour a bigger lead than they actually received at the ballot box - *but* the anti-Con tactical voting made both the Labour and (to an even greater extent) the Lib Dem votes more efficient, so causing more seats to change hands. The two effects cancelled out and the models looked vindicated to those not paying attention.

And that's the argument for the Conservatives being in really deep trouble.

Most of the 1992-7 polls were still getting Shy Tories wrong so there was a pooling fail on the day.

Take the Gold Standard ICM as the comparison, and the Conservatives are definitely doing worse than the last days of Major. Not that 165 seats counts as doing well, for all many Conservatives would grasp it with both hands right now.

What would be fatal, I wonder? 150 isn't, 50 probably is, where's the cliff edge?

The cliff edge for 200 seats becoming 20 - it's hard to gauge but I think it's 25%...

27-8% and the Tories have 200 or so seats, 23% and they really collapse away...

Malmesbury said:

bondegezou said:

El_Capitano said:

bondegezou said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

So it has been said, but do we have any figures on this? How many midwives send their kids to private schools? (And specialist private schools for those with autism or disabilities are excluded from Labour's proposals.)

We can do a back of an envelope calculation. About 6% of kids go to private schools. That's not exactly the wealthiest 6% of families, but it's somewhere close to it. So, let's presume sending your kids to private school is a top 10% thing.

You need to earn about £65k to be in the top decile. An experienced midwife earns £50k, says https://nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/job-profiles/midwife If you are a one-income family, then no, midwives aren't sending their kids to private school.

The average salary for a police sergeant is £50k. Ditto.

Deputy head, £53k-£59k in the state sector.

To clarify, the exclusion in Labour's proposals (insofar as anyone knows what they are) looks likely to apply to kids being sent to a private school because of a formally issued EHCP - an Education, Health & Care Plan, or what used to be called a "statement".

Unfortunately in many areas it's borderline impossible to get an EHCP. Typically, first the parents go through everything they can think of with the primary school (and often there's an element of the parents being reluctant to admit there's a problem). Eventually they agree to apply for an EHCP. The school puts together the application, which in itself takes a good while because the SENCO has 50 other things to do.

The council then takes up to two years to consider the application. It's supposed to take 20 weeks, but round here at least, it doesn't.

Considering the application may, of course, mean saying no. So then the parents appeal... and round it goes again. I can't remember offhand the amount of money Oxfordshire County Council is spending on fighting appeals right now but it's horrific.

So what parents do is sell the second car, or raid the piggy-bank of Grandpa & Grandma, or take on an extra job, so they can send the kid to a local private school with autism experience and small class sizes, right now. It's not really a discretionary "nice-to-have", it's a choice of whether you want to fail your kid for the next two years - and at primary level those are crucial development years. But there's no formal EHCP, so Labour's exception won't apply.

This isn't a "Conservatives good, Labour bad" thing - the blame for this state of affairs, IMO, can be shared equally between 14 years of Conservative underfunding and the general denigration of special education that began with David Blunkett in 1997. But this is the type of kid who's going to be affected most by Labour's policy. Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid.

That sounds to me like a Conservative-bad thing. Under austerity, local government funding has been hugely cut. That is bad. That's the problem, not David Blunkett. How do we put the money back into local government so this doesn't happen? Ultimately, we need a larger tax take. On whom should that tax burden fall?

You say Eton and Harrow won't bat an eyelid. Great, that's what Labour want. Labour wants those parents sending their kids to Eton and Harrow to pay more tax without batting an eyelid. Maybe Labour should highlight that some of this additional tax will go to local government to ensure they get better at dealing with EHCPs rather than just saying they'll spend it on new teachers, but I have more faith in Labour doing something about local govt funding than in the Conservatives.

The issue is that Eton and Harrow are a minority of a minority. We are about to see what the demand curve for private schooling looks like.

The idea that all private schools will close is bat shit insane.

The idea that an everyone will just pay 20% tax and carry on as usual is also insane.

Somewhere in between is the result - and where that’s, no one knows for certain.

Someone posted an analysis which suggested that the result of VAT of school fees would be slightly negative on (tax-expenditure). Based on the effects of the Post COVID price rises, IIRC.

This seemed a fairly reasonable piece of work.

If so, there won’t be any extra money for the government.

That was me, and the figures were remarkably close to the Guardian article.

I predicted a break even point for the government was a 30% drop in private education numbers, with a 3.5% year on year annual decrease in numbers, based on the last recession, with the policy becoming net negative to the taxpayer within the next decade as existing students work their way through the system without being replaced by new students. I made another post over the weekend calculating that parents with two kids would be better off spending the VAT money on a house in a better state school catchment area, and paying for private tuition.

I also noted my sums were contingent on a lot of assumptions, but, broadly, the Guardian journalist used the same methodology as me to arrive at a similar figure and a similar argument.

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...

As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be

I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time

This is the closest thing to a manifesto so far: https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan

Thank you

'We will build a strong, fair economy that benefits everyone in the UK, through wise investment, fair taxes and responsible management of the public finances. In particular, we will:

Invest in infrastructure, innovation and skills to create good jobs and prosperity in every region and nation of the UK, while tackling the climate emergency.

Help people with the cost of living and their energy bills by implementing a proper, one-off windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers and traders.

Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to income from work.

Give taxpayers real value for money, by clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, narrowing the tax gap, and giving HMRC more resources to properly tackle tax fraud, which has cost the taxpayer billions under the Conservatives.

Safeguard the UK’s economic prosperity while making the investments our country needs. We will make sure that day-to-day spending does not exceed the amount of money raised in taxes over the medium term, with additional flexibility during periods of economic crisis.

Uphold fiscal responsibility by ensuring that all fiscal events are accompanied by forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility.'

.............................................................................

I would say that is much the same aspiration as all the parties but this is interesting

Make taxes fair, ensuring that tax burdens don’t fall disproportionately on low earners, reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for big banks, and abolishing the separate Capital Gains tax-free allowance, to tax income from wealth more similarly to income from work.

dixiedean said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Eabhal said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?

This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.

It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school

But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?

The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can

The Danish State can.

The Danish state can also provide housebuilding, functional police, border control, healthcare, and a justice system. In football terms if they're in the premier league of Governments, we're Torquay Utd.

HYUFD said:

noneoftheabove said:

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

He is the chief influencer of the party in second, and the owner of the party in third. Apart from that, and being the closest Brit to the odds on favourite to be the next US president, he is just some bloke.

I wish you were correct, but you are not.

Whether Trump remains odds on favourite to be next US president likely depends on the jury verdict in his criminal trial in the next week or so. If guilty Farage may have jumped to the US and abandoned UK politics too swiftly, a weak Tory party polling lower than ever before is probably his best chance ever to realign the right towards Reform had he replaced Tice as Reform leader

A guilty verdict will barely move the dial. Trump has spent a year priming all supporters and friendly media to reject the whole process as rigged or irrelevant.

So it comes down to undecided independents, and if they are still undecided why on earth would this case, the least of all the cases, be the last straw?

bondegezou said:

Selebian said:

DM_Andy said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...

As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be

I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time

If you vote Lib Dem, you might help them save their deposit, that a good reason to vote for them?

Surely we should all conspire to engineer as many lost deposits as possible, to reduce the national debt?

(I'm assuming that the deposits that are lost end up in general government finances - or do they end up somewhere else. Trivial amounts of money, I know!)

I think they go to local government finances.

Oh, maybe not: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-acting-returning-officers-administering-a-uk-parliamentary-election-great-britain/after-election/deposits

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Eabhal said:

HYUFD said:

Roger said:

wooliedyed said:

Roger said:

Casino_Royale said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Interesting take on VAT on private schools from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/20/vat-private-schools-labour-low-income-kids-tax-bursaries

I would just say that because of the timing of the election the number of children leaving private schools for the state sector will become very apparent by the Autumn and I expect it will not be good news for labour's calculations on the funding available from this decision

Yep, it's a really dumb idea - it's damaging the education sector already and, as the article says, it will cost the Treasury not benefit it. But as Keir Starmer is, by his own confession, "a socialist", he's pressing ahead with it regardless.

Lots of businesses and private citizens who are planning to vote for him are going to feel had in 12-18 months time.

As only 5% go to pivate schools I can't see how it would make any difference to anything. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. If the 1 in 20 parents who send their children to private schools think they are stealing a lead on the 19 in 20 who cant afford it then I don't see anything wrong with the state charging them a small premium. Consider it a fine for trying to buy privilege.

Only buy the best for your kids if it's trainers or smartphones.

Those of us who went down the 5% route will remember their school chums whose surnames were those of cities or town or counties or the self made ones who are now are to be seen with titles of their own advising Prime Ministers or indeed sharing dormitories with them. No question money well spent but whether for the greater good I would say not

Except Labour's VAT on fees plan won't hit the likes of Eton and Harrow and Fettes and Charterhouse and the school that was posh enough for your kids, bankers and corporate lawyers and KCs and surgeons and Russian oligarchs and Nigerian and Saudi oil barons and Far Eastern billionaires will still easily afford the fees

Instead it will hit small businessmen, midwives, police sergeants, deputy heads, pharmacists, and those with autistic or disabled children who scrimp and save to send their children to small local private and special schools desperately trying to stay open and keep costs down

Do you appreciate what a desperate set of affairs it is when midwives, police officers and (state) deputy heads feel the need to send their kids to a private school? Especially when those kids are disabled?

This is what happens when public services are set up to benefit older people. People with families turn to the private sector, whether for education or healthcare.

It is called choice and for parents with disabled or autistic children they will always likely get more specialist attention in a small private school with specialist staff than a larger state school

But if this is something that a child needs shouldn't the state provide it?

The state can never afford to provide specialist schools with the small pupil to staff ratio the private sector can

I think we are a rich enough country to provide children who require specialist support with the help they need. The alternative - that only rich kids get this support, is utterly bleak.

wooliedyed said:

bondegezou said:

wooliedyed said:

bondegezou said:

wooliedyed said:

bondegezou said:

wooliedyed said:

Not sure why the press were covering Farages speech, he's not standing in this election and has an 'honorary' attachment to Reform. He's just 'some bloke' in terms of this election.

He's not just some bloke. He is a major figure in Reform. Lots of major politicians aren't standing in this election but we still talk about them (John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon, Michelle O'Neill, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Kate Forbes etc.).

They all have roles in governance within the UK and haven't specifically stated they can't be bothered to stand because they've got something better to do.

Reform UK poll higher than the SNP or PC or SF. I think the party's views should get media coverage that reflects that.

Yes. Tice, Habib etc their leader and candidates

Farage has a leadership role in the party too.

He resigned from the leadership and announced his retirement from politics in 2021, he has an honorary position.

It's not merely honorary. RefUK is constituted as a limited company with a company secretary and three directors, of whom Farage is one and Tice another. However, Farage is listed as having the power to appoint and remove directors giving him ultimate control (he could ditch Tice tomorrow).

Amusingly, the Companies House listing still shows Farage's occupation as "Leader of a Political Party". An admin error, presumably, but a revealing one as to where the power is.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/11694875/officers

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

Do you want higher taxes or higher tax reciepts (i.e., more money)?

The former isn't guaranteed to deliver the latter.

bondegezou said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

RochdalePioneers said:

HYUFD said:

Yes if voters voted Conservative last time and still have not committed to vote Labour, LD or Reform it is likely in the end they will vote Conservative again

No, if they haven't yet committed to vote it is likely in the end that they will not vote. See 1997 for a guide to what that looks like.

Good morning @RochdalePioneers

As a Lib Dem candidate can you explain their policy on vat on private school fees

This is a genuine question as I am interested if they are on the same page as Labour

We don't support the Labour plan.

Thank you and in that case in any coalition with the Lib Dems it would not go ahead ?

Indeed I could vote Lib Dem as a result

In the unlikely event of Coalition talks I think there would be higher priorities in terms of policies...

As I am politically homeless can you indicate what the higher priorities would be

I can be persuaded to vote Lib Dem this time

This is the closest thing to a manifesto so far: https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan

Just read the bit on housing and its rather disappointing.

Seems like they're trying to ride the twin horses of recognising the shortage of housing and keeping NIMBYs happy.

The two are diametrically opposed. Anyone who recognises that will get my vote, but it doesn't look like anyone will.

FF43 said:

williamglenn said:

https://x.com/owenjones84/status/1795382906367390106

Wild.

Here Keir Starmer says over and over again he can't afford to raise taxes on the top 5%.

When in fact that would help fund the pledges he now says he can't afford.

Just straightforward dishonesty which is insulting everyone's intelligence.

Yes. All of these are choices. Starmer chooses lower taxes for the very wealthy over ensuring children born to poor families get a very basic standard of living.

I would make a different choice.

How do you define "very basic standard of living"?

How much will it cost to *ensure* children born to poor families get it?