Polling errors – politicalbetting.com

JosiasJessop 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?

Various scheduling/timetable systems have been tried, and what works varies, e.g. according to whether it is commuter, long-distance express traffic, or even freight.

I knew someone whose job this was, and it is exceedingly complex, even with the help of computers.

(Incidentally, I vaguely STR that the Midland Railway developed some of the core techniques used for modern logistics planning and implementation. They realised in the mid-1800s that coal wagons were spending weeks getting down to London - a waste of wagons and effort. So they implemented a system to fix this, which was rapidly adopted by other railways. Annoyingly I did not copy the relevant section into my notes...)

Wasn't it the use of huge marshalling yards such as Toton at the north end of the MML, and processing yards in London?

Clutch_Brompton said:

On topic - this is of course a view held by Mike Smithson for a long time. I am also more inclined to believe the lower Lab leads - be that for the reason of don't knows, shy Tories or whatever. There is a soft Lab lead out there between 20 and 15% which will be chipped away at, possibly by third parties rather than the Cons. Once you get below 15% I suspect the Lab lead is rather firmer and at about 10% I think it is pretty solid. Betting on spread markets looks very high risk (if also high reward).

It is worthy of note that Lord Hayward's spectrum of potential results runs from 1997 to wipeout. When your best scenario as a Conservative is 1997 that says something.

It says you are out of ideas and are a passenger rather than captain of the ship.

1997 is a very apt comparison. TB's 418 seats is bang in the middle of betfair's favourite 400-449 seats band (3.2).

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

Where do you think a lot of the money is coming from for those specialist schools?!

williamglenn said:

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

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

That's ridiculous? How will they run the top secret alien/UFO projects?

On topic, Labour would be foolish to believe these huge poll leads. Undecided Tory voters could become decided Tory voters very quickly.

The reality is that the Tory Party normally wins elections. Labour are ahead but they can still mess this up.

https://x.com/GregBirks/status/1794820867400302787

Just been sent this by one of my mates (who voted for Johnson...), he's nailed the voice to be fair.

wooliedyed said:

dixiedean said:

wooliedyed said:

Redfield are wading in to the polling with a 12k sample megapoli at 5 apparently with regional breakdowns et al

Aha!
So they haven't mysteriously taken the Bank Holiday weekend off.
They've been using it to get us a treat.

We also have Survation (due early afternoon) and they'll also set out their MRP release timeline and'a new phone poll series'

And before all that I have to go get my mouth mutilated by a mad mouth fiddler

kyf_100 said:

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.

Private schooling is definitely discretionary spending and so subject to demand shocks but to attribute that solely to a potential future policy of VAT on school fees and ignore the considerable reduction in families' disposable income due to cost of living and mortgage payment rises is "one-eyed". Private schools would be struggling regardless of the VAT policy.

turbotubbs said:

williamglenn said:

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

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

That's ridiculous? How will they run the top secret alien/UFO projects?

The book “The Mitrokhin Archive“ contains a darkly funny moment. Someone in the KGB suggests that they hire some thugs to break Rudolf Nureyev‘a legs.

The plan foundered because no-one can find space in their budget for *planning* the operation. So it fails to be included in the next monthly operational plan.

Somewhere in the void, Sir Terry Prachet and Franz Kafka are toasting each other…

Dopermean said:

kyf_100 said:

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.

Private schooling is definitely discretionary spending and so subject to demand shocks but to attribute that solely to a potential future policy of VAT on school fees and ignore the considerable reduction in families' disposable income due to cost of living and mortgage payment rises is "one-eyed". Private schools would be struggling regardless of the VAT policy.

And in the case of CR's school that school appeared to have problems even before the cost of living / mortgage payment rises...

HYUFD;
Really, not the mood music around here, a 15,000 Conservative majority that appears doomed.

rkrkrk said:

On topic, Labour would be foolish to believe these huge poll leads. Undecided Tory voters could become decided Tory voters very quickly.

The reality is that the Tory Party normally wins elections. Labour are ahead but they can still mess this up.

Labour are very clearly not believing these huge polls.

eek said:

dixiedean said:

eek said:

dixiedean said:

Wrt SEN and MH education.
This is all pennywise pound foolish stuff.
Without specialist early intervention, kids don't build coping strategies. Nor do the necessary neural pathways to offset Sensory Processing Difficulties, at an age when they're brains are plastic, which prevent them coping in the outside world. They then can't master the basics of literacy and numeracy, let alone the social and emotional regulation to hold down employment and live independently. Similar for mental health.
So they're on the dole, with a carer, at the State's
expense for life. And it's a worse life.

Worth adding - and it's actually worse for girls who quickly build up defence mechanisms that only go so far.

But those mechanisms only take them so far at which point they fall apart at potentially the wrong time (in the case of 1 friend during her universities finals)...

Yep. Happens to boys too.
I masked super successfully so nobody noticed.
Until I didn't.

Remember we only got Twin A diagnosed aged 17 after she fell apart at her GCSEs - everyone pointed out that girls simply don't manifesto the issues in the obvious ways boys do at younger ages so it's always boys who get the attention early on...

A great-nephew was finally, at about 12, admitted to a SEN school and is now making unbelievable progress, both educationally and socially. His parents have been fighting for such for years.

eek said:

Rishi has just given SKS a get out clause for the debates

Harry Cole
@MrHarryCole
·
3m
NEW: Sunak has "respect" for
@Nigel_Farage
but its a no on his challenge to a debate about migration....

Spks: "We respect Nigel but there’s only two people who can be PM at the end of this campaign, Rishi or Starmer and that's who should be up on stage debating each other."

Given that Rishi has little chance of being PM based on current polling I don't see the need..

May ducked the debates.........its not a good look

Carnyx said:

JosiasJessop 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?

Various scheduling/timetable systems have been tried, and what works varies, e.g. according to whether it is commuter, long-distance express traffic, or even freight.

I knew someone whose job this was, and it is exceedingly complex, even with the help of computers.

(Incidentally, I vaguely STR that the Midland Railway developed some of the core techniques used for modern logistics planning and implementation. They realised in the mid-1800s that coal wagons were spending weeks getting down to London - a waste of wagons and effort. So they implemented a system to fix this, which was rapidly adopted by other railways. Annoyingly I did not copy the relevant section into my notes...)

Wasn't it the use of huge marshalling yards such as Toton at the north end of the MML, and processing yards in London?

I think I know what book it was in, but that's buried in the garage atm.

Going from vague memory: the Midland carried vast amounts of coal; often on private-owner wagons (ones that belonged to the customers, not the railway). In ye olden days of horse/cart and the canal, the load would be entrusted to the carter or bargeman to its destination. But trains contain many wagons that would often go on different trains on their way to their destination. This meant that wagons would get 'lost' in sidings for months and not get to their destination. Often wagon were found and no-one knew who owned them (*), the load, or where it was supposed to go.

The Midand Railway therefore introduced a system of logging each wagonload it was moving via waybills and other papaerwork, and how each train should be marshalled at the sidings or yards. It also allowed them to tell customers *where* a particular load was on the way to its destination - allegedly vital when something was being moved for the Queen!

This problem had never been encountered before at scale, for the obvious reasons. The Midland's solution is one that, it as claimed, is essentially still used by logistics firms nowadays - except they use computers, RFID and other high-tech stuff to implement the concept.

(*) This still happened under BR. When the TOPS system came in in the 60s/70s, they had to put every asset onto the computer system. They discovered loads of BR's wagons were in NCB coal sidings, being used to store coal. Likewise, private-owner wagons were being used by BR. It was a massive mess. BR discovered they owned thousands of wagons they had no idea about. If a wagon was empty, it was essentially not on any system and could be forgotten. It took years to sort out; often just by scrapping things not on the system, rather than entering them onto the system...

Eabhal said:

On HS2 - I was having an interesting/drunken chat with an operations manager a few days ago. Not very senior (my kind of grade) but exactly the sort of person who gets exposed to both the top and bottom of the business.

This is obvious, but worth reiterating. He pointed out that the workers, equipment and raw resources for something like HS2 are not sat around in a warehouse - it takes years (decades) for private developer to get the training completed, gear imported and the R&D finished.

Thus, companies must hedge against the probability of cancellation. In HS2's case, this was high, and the costs of that uncertainty were passed onto the taxpayer. Those costs turned out to be entirely proportionate - it was cancelled. And it was cancelled.... because the costs were so high.

He reckons the real cost of HS2's cancellation has not yet been felt. It will be when someone - Labour or otherwise - attempts to fund another big infrastructure project and is faced with a deeply sceptical industrial base. NIMBYism is a cost, yes, but not a particularly big one compared with all the fannying about.

The simplest way to reduce the cost of infrastructure would be to apply the same consultation and democratic accountability to cancellations as to the approval of the thing in the first place.

Actially the simplest way of fixing things is to generate a proper framework with projects lasting well into the future so that the investment risk in training didn't exist. You kick off HS2, and start the debate as to whether HS3 is Bristol to Birmingham or one of Manchester / Leeds to Glasgow / Edinburgh and then schedule HS4 and 5...

These are the sort of projects that can easily last someone's working live so just kick them off and ensure the money exists...

Scott_xP said:

@georgeeaton

The Tories are running a core vote strategy; Labour is running a swing vote strategy.

That tells you a lot about how they view their polling positions.

As as been said by some commentators this could be a strategy of shore up the base in first two weeks and then move onto the swing voters.

Wonder what unfunded goodies Sunak will dangle in front of swing voters in two or three week's time?

Roger said:

Malmesbury 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 towns 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

Only a very small proportion of private schools are like that. I went to a couple (was both state and privately educated) and at the high end one, that kind of tie flashing stuff simply didn’t happen.

Well the ones where it did has poisoned the well for the rest. Very few will shed a tear for an extra tax on private schools. Few see them as providing a service but most as buying privilege.

There is a rumbling feeling of discontent in the UK at the moment which seems to revolve around classism and unfairness. Contracts for chums during covid and one set of rules for the rulers and another for the ruled. Angela Raynor being pilloried by a Belizian Tory billionaire for buying a council house.....

Private education is an epiphenomenon, not a cause, of privilege. No other country has public schools, all countries have a nomenklatura of one sort or another. I have public school friends who fell on hard times and sent their children to comprehensives. Doors still open for the children based on family connections. Smashing the school system may be satisfying, but it's not going to be effective.

Dopermean said:

kyf_100 said:

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.

Private schooling is definitely discretionary spending and so subject to demand shocks but to attribute that solely to a potential future policy of VAT on school fees and ignore the considerable reduction in families' disposable income due to cost of living and mortgage payment rises is "one-eyed". Private schools would be struggling regardless of the VAT policy.

Yes, we're currently in a cost of living crisis and a disguised recession (I know a heck of a lot of middle class professionals out of work, living on savings or severance pay, who will not show up in the stats), which will already be having an impact on private school intake.

If anything that's an argument that this policy will actually make things worse. My figures were based on some articles in the Independent, Mail and Guardian from the GFC that indicated (IIRC) a dip in demand by 30,000 pupils, with 30 schools closing during the GFC.

If we're already in a GFC-style blip, and Labour whack a 20% price shock on top of things, oh boy.

The other thing the Guardian article gets right, which I've been banging on about for months, is that while demand is very inelastic in the short term (you're not going to take your kids out of school if they've got two years left) in the long term many more parents will not start their kids in the private sector at all, leading to a year on year decline in numbers in the system. So the policy may well work in years 1 and 2 but become net negative for the taxpayer by year 10.

Another key point is that rather than being a straight line, demand is probably inelastic up until you get to the point where you reach parity with a substitute product, which in this case would be spending the money on a house in a good catchment area plus private tuition, plus banking say 10k a year to get your kids on the property ladder in their early 20s, which is arguably better value for money than private education, particularly as the 'old school tie' network effect is less than you think.

JosiasJessop said:

rottenborough said:

Eabhal said:

On HS2 - I was having an interesting/drunken chat with an operations manager a few days ago. Not very senior (my kind of grade) but exactly the sort of person who gets exposed to both the top and bottom of the business.

This is obvious, but worth reiterating. He pointed out that the workers, equipment and raw resources for something like HS2 are not sat around in a warehouse - it takes years (decades) for private developer to get the training completed, gear imported and the R&D finished.

Thus, companies must hedge against the probability of cancellation. In HS2's case, this was high, and the costs of that uncertainty were passed onto the taxpayer. Those costs turned out to be entirely proportionate - it was cancelled. And it was cancelled.... because the costs were so high.

He reckons the real cost of HS2's cancellation has not yet been felt. It will be when someone - Labour or otherwise - attempts to fund another big infrastructure project and is faced with a deeply sceptical industrial base. NIMBYism is a cost, yes, but not a particularly big one compared with all the fannying about.

The simplest way to reduce the cost of infrastructure would be to apply the same consultation and democratic accountability to cancellations as to the approval of the thing in the first place.

It was an appalling decision by Sunak. Utterly dreadful. Short term, desperate fix to give him something to talk about to his base. The way that a PM can - effectively on whim - cancel a project of this scale despite years of backing and parliamentary votes from both parties is an absolute disgrace. Shocking.

At times, I feel like I was the only person on PB defending the project. Now it's been cancelled, a lot more people seem to be in favour of it!

(AIUI what your manager said was correct - but it was not just cancellation 'insurance'. Insurance for general risks were also added onto the bill).

Can I point out you weren't the only person defending HS2 - personally that and Crossrail 2 are essential (and remember I live up North and so don't need Crossrail).

But the whole point of these schemes is that you get skilled people and keep them in continual work - that reduces risk and so keeps costs low...

The worst thing you can do is can a project for a few months hoping that when they restart the project the original people will be available to restart the work. It's not going to happen...

JosiasJessop said:

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?

That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.

Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree with it. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

wooliedyed said:

Redfield are wading in to the polling with a 12k sample megapoli at 5 apparently with regional breakdowns et al

I fully expect that this poll will either prove beyond doubt that my prior beliefs about this election were entirely correct, or be an outlier.

It's definitely either a done deal or we'll need to see more polling

megasaur said:

Roger said:

Malmesbury 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 towns 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

Only a very small proportion of private schools are like that. I went to a couple (was both state and privately educated) and at the high end one, that kind of tie flashing stuff simply didn’t happen.

Well the ones where it did has poisoned the well for the rest. Very few will shed a tear for an extra tax on private schools. Few see them as providing a service but most as buying privilege.

There is a rumbling feeling of discontent in the UK at the moment which seems to revolve around classism and unfairness. Contracts for chums during covid and one set of rules for the rulers and another for the ruled. Angela Raynor being pilloried by a Belizian Tory billionaire for buying a council house.....

Private education is an epiphenomenon, not a cause, of privilege. No other country has public schools, all countries have a nomenklatura of one sort or another. I have public school friends who fell on hard times and sent their children to comprehensives. Doors still open for the children based on family connections. Smashing the school system may be satisfying, but it's not going to be effective.

We only have public schools because of their original founding purpose. Public schools allowed anyone of any trade to send their children there - the other merchant schools only allowed Children of tradesman within the guild to send their children there. Hence public schools are public because any member of the public could send their children there.

https://x.com/RachelReevesMP/status/1795401252634784236?s=19

Get a tat, show your commitment

eek said:

JosiasJessop said:

rottenborough said:

Eabhal said:

On HS2 - I was having an interesting/drunken chat with an operations manager a few days ago. Not very senior (my kind of grade) but exactly the sort of person who gets exposed to both the top and bottom of the business.

This is obvious, but worth reiterating. He pointed out that the workers, equipment and raw resources for something like HS2 are not sat around in a warehouse - it takes years (decades) for private developer to get the training completed, gear imported and the R&D finished.

Thus, companies must hedge against the probability of cancellation. In HS2's case, this was high, and the costs of that uncertainty were passed onto the taxpayer. Those costs turned out to be entirely proportionate - it was cancelled. And it was cancelled.... because the costs were so high.

He reckons the real cost of HS2's cancellation has not yet been felt. It will be when someone - Labour or otherwise - attempts to fund another big infrastructure project and is faced with a deeply sceptical industrial base. NIMBYism is a cost, yes, but not a particularly big one compared with all the fannying about.

The simplest way to reduce the cost of infrastructure would be to apply the same consultation and democratic accountability to cancellations as to the approval of the thing in the first place.

It was an appalling decision by Sunak. Utterly dreadful. Short term, desperate fix to give him something to talk about to his base. The way that a PM can - effectively on whim - cancel a project of this scale despite years of backing and parliamentary votes from both parties is an absolute disgrace. Shocking.

At times, I feel like I was the only person on PB defending the project. Now it's been cancelled, a lot more people seem to be in favour of it!

(AIUI what your manager said was correct - but it was not just cancellation 'insurance'. Insurance for general risks were also added onto the bill).

Can I point out you weren't the only person defending HS2 - personally that and Crossrail 2 are essential (and remember I live up North and so don't need Crossrail).

But the whole point of these schemes is that you get skilled people and keep them in continual work - that reduces risk and so keeps costs low...

The worst thing you can do is can a project for a few months hoping that when people return they will be available to restart the work. It's not going to happen...

I know I wasn't; but it felt like it at times! Countering the same false claims time and time again. "Why not just start building it in the north?" "Why not reopen the Great Central?" "Why do we need fast trains?" "Home working will kill the railways!" "Just build a Hyperloop instead!" etc, etc.

Labour still keen on British ISA
https://www.cityam.com/general-election-2024-labour-backs-british-isa-plans-but-natwest-share-sale-under-review/

FF43 said:

CarlottaVance said:

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.

Same principle applies to benefits, and in this case much more so. Skimping on these benefits will cost more in the long run, leaving aside issues of fairness and logic.

Nevertheless the point about choices remains. There are nuances. Nevertheless the choice is as clear as Owen Jones makes it out to be.

If you don't define what 'very basic standard of living' means, then you can have zero idea of what the cost will be, and all the other consequent effects. It's therefore a false choice as it's all meaningless.

The cancellation of HS2 will come to be seen as the biggest blunder of the last 100 years.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

The cancellation of HS2 will come to be seen as the biggest blunder of the last 100 years.

Conservative and Unionist Party: "Hold my pint!"

SandyRentool said:

Ed Davey. Pillock. What did he think would happen when a clueless middle aged bloke gets on a paddle board?

Perhaps he was hoping for it to make a splash in the papers...

megasaur said:

Roger said:

Malmesbury 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 towns 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

Only a very small proportion of private schools are like that. I went to a couple (was both state and privately educated) and at the high end one, that kind of tie flashing stuff simply didn’t happen.

Well the ones where it did has poisoned the well for the rest. Very few will shed a tear for an extra tax on private schools. Few see them as providing a service but most as buying privilege.

There is a rumbling feeling of discontent in the UK at the moment which seems to revolve around classism and unfairness. Contracts for chums during covid and one set of rules for the rulers and another for the ruled. Angela Raynor being pilloried by a Belizian Tory billionaire for buying a council house.....

Private education is an epiphenomenon, not a cause, of privilege. No other country has public schools, all countries have a nomenklatura of one sort or another. I have public school friends who fell on hard times and sent their children to comprehensives. Doors still open for the children based on family connections. Smashing the school system may be satisfying, but it's not going to be effective.

Actually Ireland, Canada, the US, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Singapore all have UK style private schools in the public school tradition and UK public schools have also opened branches now in the Middle East and Far East too

Farooq said:

SandyRentool said:

Ed Davey. Pillock. What did he think would happen when a clueless middle aged bloke gets on a paddle board?

Ah, this is classic it's 4-dimensional chess. Davey will now get sick with cryptosporidium, and will be catapulted to the front pages in another story that shows how the Tories can't be trusted with anything, including with our rivers and lakes.

Well played, Sir Ed. Well played.

It's Windemere. You have to go to South Devon for cryptosporidium.

nico679 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

I’d agree with that. I think the Tories will do enough in terms of policy announcements to get them back on board . For that reason I expect the polls to narrow . We should also factor in the Rayner investigation. So far Labours campaign has gone smoothly with no major dramas but if Rayner is charged that will cause a lot of problems for them. The Manchester police really need to conclude this investigation quickly .

It really is hard to imagine that Raynergate will make much difference either way, charged or cleared, just as it is unlikely a whole swathe of Conservative voters will change their allegiance because Andrea Leadsom is not standing.

Foxy said:

SandyRentool said:

Ed Davey. Pillock. What did he think would happen when a clueless middle aged bloke gets on a paddle board?

Perhaps he was hoping for it to make a splash in the papers...

Much needed publicity? But it will be the only thing most people know about him. Like Ed M vs the sandwich.

Ed D could at least have been wearing a big buoyancy aid with 'Tory Government' or something on it, then could have quipped about it being representative of them going belly up. They normally love a bit of tacki symbolism, the Lib Dems!

JosiasJessop said:

FF43 said:

JosiasJessop said:

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?

That number is calculated by government with civil service input to determine a level of benefit that ensures a minimum standard of living for children. The outgoing government chose not to fund that minimum standard of living for families deemed to have too many children and in that case it's presumably OK for those children to go hungry.

Starmer is going along with that choice and presumably agrees with it. I don't agree. Remarkably, neither does Suella Braverman

As you don't have figures, you have no idea if it is affordable even with 100% tax rates for top earners.

Perhaps Starmer believes that your definition of 'very basic standard of living' is so high that it would be utterly unaffordable?

Do you really think government deliberately pads benefits for one or two children such that families can accommodate further children for no additional cost?

To get back to the point. There's no objective standard of what's affordable. With big budgets as governments have, we can usually afford what we think is important by compromising on things we think are less important. If he wanted to Starmer could easily choose to pay benefits for three or more children at the second and subsequent child rate. He doesn't want to.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

The cancellation of HS2 will come to be seen as the biggest blunder of the last 100 years.

Really? There's a lot of competition.

How about privatising Britain's nuclear power plants and not building any new ones - so that all those vital skills were lost?
What about choosing not to build tidal power plants?
What about making the wartime work on computers top secret so that Britain failed to build a computing industry after WWII?
How about supporting Bush II's invasion of Iraq in 2003?
Suez?

I'm sure there are countless others. I have a feeling that Britain might come to really regret no longer having a blast furnace in the country.

Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board

What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board

What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one

He wanted to make a splash at his campaign launch.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

It just get more surreal by the minute when Lee Anderson claims on Sky just now that Reform could hold the balance of power

Is there a universe where Reform does well enough to get any seats in the House of Commons but the Tories do well enough to prevent Labour gaining an overall majority? I can only think of some sort of last minute Conservative/Reform Alliance to only stand one candidate per seat.

Info offered without prediction for your information.
The Gaza factor
WPB three biggest targets are apparently holding Rochdale, Blackburn (Craig Murray standing) and the new Dewsbury and Batley plus they fancy indy Yakoob whom they are backing in Ladywood. Galloway also is heavily targeting Rayner in Ashton

The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.

Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.

The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board

What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one

Thanks God for the RNLI!

LostPassword said:

What about making the wartime work on computers top secret so that Britain failed to build a computing industry after WWII?

Hear, hear.

RochdalePioneers said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Davey clip is hilarious. What an utter prat.

Spin line is "Ed will be paddleboarding in Lake Windermere today but will still be drier than Rishi"

Still be in less shit than Rishi, surely?

Eabhal said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board

What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one

Thanks God for the RNLI!

To be fair it is a growing problem for them

kyf_100 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Sky have just shown Davey falling off a paddle board

What was he thinking if he wasn't familiar on how to use one

I'm not sure this is harmful, tbh. There's a well known 'pratfall effect' where we prefer slight imperfections in things and people.

I watched that clip and laughed and though, yup, that would happen to me too if I tried it. Making me like him more.

It's the reason why Boris was more loved after the infamous getting stuck on the zipline thing.

Things that are gaffes are things ordinary people can't relate to, that make you look less like one of us - the inability to hold a pint properly, or eat a bacon sarnie, or use a contactless card, or look like you've never used a petrol pump before.

It also depends on how he responds.

Part of Sunak's problem with the drowned rat election announcement was that he wasn't able to remark on it, let alone joke about it.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

LostPassword said:

Eabhal said:

The Davey clip is just lovely. This election needed some levity.

Who hasn't fallen off a paddleboard? It's one of the great unifying experiences of young people across the UK.

The Lib Dems would do well just to have fun and take the piss.

Ed may have gotten wet today, but he *planned* to do so and had a towel on standby. Sunak doesn't even take an umbrella outside when it's already raining...

The way he fell off he hadn't planned it he just had not learned how to balance on it

Are you a towel denier? Do you deny that the Lib Dem leader - may his health remain strong - had a towel on standby?

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Davey clip is hilarious. What an utter prat.

His defence for incompetence will no doubt be "no-one at the Post Office told me how difficult it would be to use a paddleboard"