FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > So Starmer says:
So Starmer says:
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company" That's something I'd like to see happen. It'll be fascinating after a few years to compare their accounts with those of private companies. This could put an end to all of those arguments about whether public or private enterprise is more efficient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Is he going to deploy them in France? Otherwise, I don't see the point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes." He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I don't know what he means when he says he will stop boat crossings by using border security command
Is he going to deploy them in France? Otherwise, I don't see the point "Agree. He's been asked about 5 times at least by reputable political pundits. He hasn't given any detail yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner." It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yeah I don't know what he means when he says he will stop boat crossings by using border security command
Is he going to deploy them in France? Otherwise, I don't see the point
Agree. He's been asked about 5 times at least by reputable political pundits. He hasn't given any detail yet. "That's because he either doesn't have any details, or they are so unpalatable or far fetched that he won't tell us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's going to return the Migrant Boat People - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to reduce the NHS waiting lists - But he doesn't say how. He's going to crack down on anti-social behaviour - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Launch Great British Energy (WTF?) and keep prices affordable for everyone forever (!) - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to recruit 6,500 more teachers - currently there are currently around 2,300 vacant teacher posts advertised that are NOT being filled or even applied for. So where are they going to come from? He's also not making promises. lol. " I'll believe it when I see it. I can't wait for Sunak to be thrown out of 10 downing Street! Shame it's not someone that I'm confident of, moving in  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's going to return the Migrant Boat People - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to reduce the NHS waiting lists - But he doesn't say how. He's going to crack down on anti-social behaviour - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Launch Great British Energy (WTF?) and keep prices affordable for everyone forever (!) - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to recruit 6,500 more teachers - currently there are currently around 2,300 vacant teacher posts advertised that are NOT being filled or even applied for. So where are they going to come from? He's also not making promises. lol. " we won’t need the extra teachers if he sorts out the migrant problem but he’s not the man for that sadly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the electorate are a little more far sighted and he never gets near the doors of Downing Street . Only a fool would suggest that his proposals could be funded by removing the non dom status . Non dom residences have flexibility in how they invest their money and would simply to another country. His surrender to trade union power would be another nail in our coffin. " I agree with Pat. The electorate will fall into line and vote for five more years of brutal self serving narcissists who couldn't give a fuck about the country or about British people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the electorate are a little more far sighted and he never gets near the doors of Downing Street . Only a fool would suggest that his proposals could be funded by removing the non dom status . Non dom residences have flexibility in how they invest their money and would simply to another country. His surrender to trade union power would be another nail in our coffin. I agree with Pat. The electorate will fall into line and vote for five more years of brutal self serving narcissists who couldn't give a fuck about the country or about British people. " im shocked that ppl still think he won’t win the torries don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the electorate are a little more far sighted and he never gets near the doors of Downing Street . Only a fool would suggest that his proposals could be funded by removing the non dom status . Non dom residences have flexibility in how they invest their money and would simply to another country. His surrender to trade union power would be another nail in our coffin. I agree with Pat. The electorate will fall into line and vote for five more years of brutal self serving narcissists who couldn't give a fuck about the country or about British people. im shocked that ppl still think he won’t win the torries don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting " Not one person on here other than Johnny thinks the Tories will win . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the electorate are a little more far sighted and he never gets near the doors of Downing Street . Only a fool would suggest that his proposals could be funded by removing the non dom status . Non dom residences have flexibility in how they invest their money and would simply to another country. His surrender to trade union power would be another nail in our coffin. I agree with Pat. The electorate will fall into line and vote for five more years of brutal self serving narcissists who couldn't give a fuck about the country or about British people. im shocked that ppl still think he won’t win the torries don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting " I don't see why anyone who voted for the Tories the last five times would change their mind now. Nothing much has changed since the last few elections. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the electorate are a little more far sighted and he never gets near the doors of Downing Street . Only a fool would suggest that his proposals could be funded by removing the non dom status . Non dom residences have flexibility in how they invest their money and would simply to another country. His surrender to trade union power would be another nail in our coffin. I agree with Pat. The electorate will fall into line and vote for five more years of brutal self serving narcissists who couldn't give a fuck about the country or about British people. im shocked that ppl still think he won’t win the torries don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting I don't see why anyone who voted for the Tories the last five times would change their mind now. Nothing much has changed since the last few elections." have you heard of the red wall they only voted torries once and you know fine we’ll why the most interesting part of the election will be who’s second and third and by how much | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".... the tories don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting " Indeed and a second GE may not be that long after the first if Labour doesn't get a decent majority. But who will be the leader of the tories by then? Rishi will have fucked off to California. Truss again? Nutella Braverman? Boris? Shapps? Terrifying thoughts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
".... the tories don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting Indeed and a second GE may not be that long after the first if Labour doesn't get a decent majority. But who will be the leader of the tories by then? Rishi will have fucked off to California. Truss again? Nutella Braverman? Boris? Shapps? Terrifying thoughts." If it's anyone, it will be Cameron. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He says he will get NHS funding by getting rid of tax-avoidance and non-dom "loopholes". Would be interesting to see how he plans to stop tax-avoidance. Teachers to be funded by taxing private schools. So private school fees will go up. It would be interesting to see if that will push more people to send their kids to public school, thereby pushing need for more teachers." I wonder if he means Tax Avoidance (legal) or Tax Evasion (illegal)? So fed up of politicians (and lately HMRC) conflating the two. Four separate research studies have now confirmed what parents have been saying re VAT of private school fees = 25% of parents will move their kids out (presumably into state). If that happens it will torpedo the claims that it will raise £1.6bn a year and will see around 150,000 kids enter state system requiring their £6k per year funding, so that’s £900m a year needed straight off and only £1.2bn raised. Not to mention how this will disproportionately kids on bursaries (which will disappear*) and scholarships (which will likely reduce). The super rich will suck it up but those who can only do it through sacrifice will have to withdraw. Therefore making these schools more elite! *You stop treating Private Schools as charities by removing VAT exemption then they stop being charitable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's going to return the Migrant Boat People - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to reduce the NHS waiting lists - But he doesn't say how. He's going to crack down on anti-social behaviour - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Launch Great British Energy (WTF?) and keep prices affordable for everyone forever (!) - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to recruit 6,500 more teachers - currently there are currently around 2,300 vacant teacher posts advertised that are NOT being filled or even applied for. So where are they going to come from? He's also not making promises. lol. " The 6 u-turns are to resonate with the last of the disgruntled tory voters, who will be putting labour in power this term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ?" Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ?" Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost." In my day the Armed Services paid for the Public Schooling of some offspring, and many Companies did the same for ex-pats working abroad. Has this changed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector." get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector." Exactly right, say private school and the image of toffs strolling along the banks of the Thames is promoted into sharp focus. Private schooling paid for by parents, some with second jobs to make it happen, is not Eton and as you say saves the tax payer a fortune. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost. In my day the Armed Services paid for the Public Schooling of some offspring, and many Companies did the same for ex-pats working abroad. Has this changed?" Armed Forces (might be rank/role specific I don’t know) snd FCO for overseas postings will pick up the tab for boarding school until you return). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He says he will get NHS funding by getting rid of tax-avoidance and non-dom "loopholes". Would be interesting to see how he plans to stop tax-avoidance. Teachers to be funded by taxing private schools. So private school fees will go up. It would be interesting to see if that will push more people to send their kids to public school, thereby pushing need for more teachers. I wonder if he means Tax Avoidance (legal) or Tax Evasion (illegal)? So fed up of politicians (and lately HMRC) conflating the two. Four separate research studies have now confirmed what parents have been saying re VAT of private school fees = 25% of parents will move their kids out (presumably into state). If that happens it will torpedo the claims that it will raise £1.6bn a year and will see around 150,000 kids enter state system requiring their £6k per year funding, so that’s £900m a year needed straight off and only £1.2bn raised. Not to mention how this will disproportionately kids on bursaries (which will disappear*) and scholarships (which will likely reduce). The super rich will suck it up but those who can only do it through sacrifice will have to withdraw. Therefore making these schools more elite! *You stop treating Private Schools as charities by removing VAT exemption then they stop being charitable." Agree with both your points. This is pretty clearly an attempt by Starmer to get the economic left wingers in the country but I don't think he has clearly through or he has thought this through and tells it just for the sake of votes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ?" How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!" they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's going to return the Migrant Boat People - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to reduce the NHS waiting lists - But he doesn't say how. He's going to crack down on anti-social behaviour - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Launch Great British Energy (WTF?) and keep prices affordable for everyone forever (!) - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to recruit 6,500 more teachers - currently there are currently around 2,300 vacant teacher posts advertised that are NOT being filled or even applied for. So where are they going to come from? He's also not making promises. lol. " I also see this as setting out his general ideas and hopefully more details will emerge. One thing that strikes me is some of the things for funding his ideas do not sound guaranteed. Allocating extra money for a project is fine but if that money comes from just hopefully raising money from tax loopholes and non doms what happens if they don't raise what they expected to. Extra nurses etc is a cost that definitely has to be paid, whereas tax loophole fund raising is not a guaranteed income. Good to finally hear what's in store after the GE though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He says he will get NHS funding by getting rid of tax-avoidance and non-dom "loopholes". Would be interesting to see how he plans to stop tax-avoidance. Teachers to be funded by taxing private schools. So private school fees will go up. It would be interesting to see if that will push more people to send their kids to public school, thereby pushing need for more teachers. I wonder if he means Tax Avoidance (legal) or Tax Evasion (illegal)? So fed up of politicians (and lately HMRC) conflating the two. Four separate research studies have now confirmed what parents have been saying re VAT of private school fees = 25% of parents will move their kids out (presumably into state). If that happens it will torpedo the claims that it will raise £1.6bn a year and will see around 150,000 kids enter state system requiring their £6k per year funding, so that’s £900m a year needed straight off and only £1.2bn raised. Not to mention how this will disproportionately kids on bursaries (which will disappear*) and scholarships (which will likely reduce). The super rich will suck it up but those who can only do it through sacrifice will have to withdraw. Therefore making these schools more elite! *You stop treating Private Schools as charities by removing VAT exemption then they stop being charitable." We don't agree on much these days but this is absolutely spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count " Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes." "He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner." "It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters." But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company That's something I'd like to see happen. It'll be fascinating after a few years to compare their accounts with those of private companies. This could put an end to all of those arguments about whether public or private enterprise is more efficient." You do know EDF and others are state owned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next?" Not a lot of detail from starmer Binning the non dom scheme, generates £3.2bn more tax annually. Which is lost in the face of national debt interest at £9bn a month. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next?" That's a good point. The biggest challenge for Labour has always been the social issues with middle-class and rich supporters on the progressive side and the working class mostly being socially conservative. If Starmer wants traditional Tory voters too, the same issue extends to economic issues. The list of pledges look like an attempt to appeal to both sides. So the ones looking to appeal to the economic left might put off the economic right. Having said that, most Tory voters will still switch to Labour even if they find these pledges stupid. Many seriously want the Tories to go back to the drawing board and change their approach. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next? Not a lot of detail from starmer Binning the non dom scheme, generates £3.2bn more tax annually. Which is lost in the face of national debt interest at £9bn a month. " Where did that £3.2bn number come from? People who claim remittance basis on non-dom status for tax purposes do not have to declare how much money they earned outside UK. So I am curious how this number was calculated. Also, the non-dom rules have been already changed by the Tories. It affects me. I just moved all my money in India into long term investments instead. Pretty sure everyone who is affected by this law change would do that. So they won't really be receiving the tax money they think they will get. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next? Not a lot of detail from starmer Binning the non dom scheme, generates £3.2bn more tax annually. Which is lost in the face of national debt interest at £9bn a month. Where did that £3.2bn number come from? People who claim remittance basis on non-dom status for tax purposes do not have to declare how much money they earned outside UK. So I am curious how this number was calculated. Also, the non-dom rules have been already changed by the Tories. It affects me. I just moved all my money in India into long term investments instead. Pretty sure everyone who is affected by this law change would do that. So they won't really be receiving the tax money they think they will get." The £3.2bn figure is widely cited in media as the cost of non doms missing tax revenue. https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2022/09/27/abolishing-non-doms-would-raise-3-2bn-report-says/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count " So is it fair that some families have a luxury car? Or a bigger house. Or live in a nicer road? Go on nicer holidays? Or should people be allowed to spend their money on what they want? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company" "That's something I'd like to see happen. It'll be fascinating after a few years to compare their accounts with those of private companies. This could put an end to all of those arguments about whether public or private enterprise is more efficient." "You do know EDF and others are state owned." Yes, but they are owned by foreign states, which tend to have a more 'arms length' attitude to ownership. It'll be interesting to see how a British version will do with a government that has to be seen to not be letting anyone make a profit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he doesn't sort out the migrant problem, not only will we need extra teachers, but we'll need extra workers in every public service, along with buildings to house, work, train etc etc. " The government have the best lawyers money can buy, it can’t be sorted. We have to accept what it is. Sunak has tried his best and failed. Labour will be no different. UN says there will be 1.2bn migrants across Europe by 2050-80. We’ve seen nothing yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next? Not a lot of detail from starmer Binning the non dom scheme, generates £3.2bn more tax annually. Which is lost in the face of national debt interest at £9bn a month. Where did that £3.2bn number come from? People who claim remittance basis on non-dom status for tax purposes do not have to declare how much money they earned outside UK. So I am curious how this number was calculated. Also, the non-dom rules have been already changed by the Tories. It affects me. I just moved all my money in India into long term investments instead. Pretty sure everyone who is affected by this law change would do that. So they won't really be receiving the tax money they think they will get. The £3.2bn figure is widely cited in media as the cost of non doms missing tax revenue. https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2022/09/27/abolishing-non-doms-would-raise-3-2bn-report-says/" Thanks for sharing! It doesn't say how they arrived at that number. But I hope they did some diligence. Either way, the number is based on their calculation on how much money people made in foreign income. As I mentioned, if the rule changes, people will just move the money to long term investments that they won't sell immediately. After a few years, when they plan to sell, they will just live in some other country for a year to report tax there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost." not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. He plans to clamp down on 2 entirely legal activities? That doesn't sound like a vote winner. It is a vote winner. "Tax avoidance" and "non-dom loopholes" are just the right words to get support from a huge number of voters. But Starmer already has the votes of the 'politics of envy' crowd. What he needs is to win over traditionally Tory voters. Is taking away the legal rights of well-off people likely to appeal to those floating voters? Or will those people start to think that Labour just want to 'stick it to the rich'? Will they then pay more attention when the Tories claim that Labour will massively increase taxes? Will they end up less likely to vote for Labour, as they fear that they will probably be targeted next? Not a lot of detail from starmer Binning the non dom scheme, generates £3.2bn more tax annually. Which is lost in the face of national debt interest at £9bn a month. Where did that £3.2bn number come from? People who claim remittance basis on non-dom status for tax purposes do not have to declare how much money they earned outside UK. So I am curious how this number was calculated. Also, the non-dom rules have been already changed by the Tories. It affects me. I just moved all my money in India into long term investments instead. Pretty sure everyone who is affected by this law change would do that. So they won't really be receiving the tax money they think they will get. The £3.2bn figure is widely cited in media as the cost of non doms missing tax revenue. https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2022/09/27/abolishing-non-doms-would-raise-3-2bn-report-says/ Thanks for sharing! It doesn't say how they arrived at that number. But I hope they did some diligence. Either way, the number is based on their calculation on how much money people made in foreign income. As I mentioned, if the rule changes, people will just move the money to long term investments that they won't sell immediately. After a few years, when they plan to sell, they will just live in some other country for a year to report tax there." I don’t disagree. My point is £3.2bn is not a lot. It won’t build 1.5 million council houses he’s promising It won’t cover the £28bn annual climate change budget he’s just U turned on It will pay 10 days interest on the national debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. " 1. In 2022–23, average private school fees across the UK were £15,200 in today’s prices (net of bursaries and scholarships). This is £7,200 or nearly 90% higher than state school spending per pupil, which was £8,000 in 2022–23 (including day-to-day and capital spending). The gap between private school fees and state school spending per pupil has more than doubled since 2010, when the gap was about 40% or £3,500. https://ifs.org.uk/publications/annual-report-education-spending-england-2023#:~:text=Total%20spending,-1.&text=In%202022%E2%80%9323%2C%20total%20public,billion%20fall%20since%202010%E2%80%9311. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company That's something I'd like to see happen. It'll be fascinating after a few years to compare their accounts with those of private companies. This could put an end to all of those arguments about whether public or private enterprise is more efficient. You do know EDF and others are state owned. Yes, but they are owned by foreign states, which tend to have a more 'arms length' attitude to ownership. It'll be interesting to see how a British version will do with a government that has to be seen to not be letting anyone make a profit." If he wants a close relationship to the EU it’s likely going to have ‘arms length’ because in terms of electricity we are not a island but yes it will be an interesting project. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. " Already pointed this out above but under-estimated state funding per pupil which is £7690. So… 4 x independent research studies have concluded that c.25% of parents will remove kids from private school = c.150,000 kids requiring state funding = £1.153bn Labour believe they can raise £1.6bn adding VAT to school fees but that assumes there is no drop in pupil numbers from c.600,000 but it is predicted to fall to c.450,000 so that only raises £1.2bn. So £47m isn’t going to go far and is really just a rounding error. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If he doesn't sort out the migrant problem, not only will we need extra teachers, but we'll need extra workers in every public service, along with buildings to house, work, train etc etc. The government have the best lawyers money can buy, it can’t be sorted. We have to accept what it is. Sunak has tried his best and failed. Labour will be no different. UN says there will be 1.2bn migrants across Europe by 2050-80. We’ve seen nothing yet. " It can be sorted. Most migrants in this country are actually here on visas, it's just a shame we're importing low earners, which in turn keeps tax take from those migrants low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let's hope the electorate are a little more far sighted and he never gets near the doors of Downing Street . Only a fool would suggest that his proposals could be funded by removing the non dom status . Non dom residences have flexibility in how they invest their money and would simply to another country. His surrender to trade union power would be another nail in our coffin. I agree with Pat. The electorate will fall into line and vote for five more years of brutal self serving narcissists who couldn't give a fuck about the country or about British people. im shocked that ppl still think he won’t win the torries don’t stand a chance it will be labour for sure it’s the GE after this one that will be interesting I don't see why anyone who voted for the Tories the last five times would change their mind now. Nothing much has changed since the last few elections.have you heard of the red wall they only voted torries once and you know fine we’ll why the most interesting part of the election will be who’s second and third and by how much " They were elected and won elections without winning seats in the "red wall". I'm fully prepared to be wrong. But I just don't see why the Tories would suddenly lose now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer has reiterated a pledge to build 1.5 million new homes as part of a promise to “get Britain building again”. That’s a big statement, at a current average cost of around £300,000 a house Where’s the £450000000000 coming from to pay for these houses. " In 1969-70 the public sector paid to build 142,800 dwellings. In 2022-23 it only paid to build 35,570. The vast majority of new houses are built by housebuilders, like Barratt, Taylor Wimpey, Persimmon Group, Bellway, Redrow etc who invest their own money of course. Housebuilders (developers) will only start a development if they believe that they can sell the houses at a price that returns a development profit. They will only build out a development if there is an actual demand at that price, i.e., they can sell them. Public sector doesn't fund any of that, except through the planning permission/admin costs which they more than recoup with Stamp Duty and other taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. Already pointed this out above but under-estimated state funding per pupil which is £7690. So… 4 x independent research studies have concluded that c.25% of parents will remove kids from private school = c.150,000 kids requiring state funding = £1.153bn Labour believe they can raise £1.6bn adding VAT to school fees but that assumes there is no drop in pupil numbers from c.600,000 but it is predicted to fall to c.450,000 so that only raises £1.2bn. So £47m isn’t going to go far and is really just a rounding error." I agree it doesn't raise money based on 25pc drop out. Your numbers also suggest it doesn't add a strain from loads of people going into state education. There may be some more detail on the numbers that say the marginal cost isn't 8k. And imo 25pc drop out feels high given the emotional nature of children education. There may also be other sources of vat. But this feels one about philosophy rather than fund raising even if the tax raised is larger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. Already pointed this out above but under-estimated state funding per pupil which is £7690. So… 4 x independent research studies have concluded that c.25% of parents will remove kids from private school = c.150,000 kids requiring state funding = £1.153bn Labour believe they can raise £1.6bn adding VAT to school fees but that assumes there is no drop in pupil numbers from c.600,000 but it is predicted to fall to c.450,000 so that only raises £1.2bn. So £47m isn’t going to go far and is really just a rounding error.I agree it doesn't raise money based on 25pc drop out. Your numbers also suggest it doesn't add a strain from loads of people going into state education. There may be some more detail on the numbers that say the marginal cost isn't 8k. And imo 25pc drop out feels high given the emotional nature of children education. There may also be other sources of vat. But this feels one about philosophy rather than fund raising even if the tax raised is larger. " I would have thought 25% seemed high until you look at the reality of the private school sector beyond generally held inaccurate perceptions. There are a significant number of parents sending kids to private school who are not “rich”. Many of these are certainly upper quartile, but not “rich” just wealthier than the majority. To pay for their kid(s) to go to pvt they remortgage, take loans, forgo holidays, take on second jobs. I know there will be some who have no sympathy because it remains out of their reach regardless. However, for those struggling to pay c.£15k per year from post tax income, a 20% increase is the straw breaking their back pushing it out of reach. As already touched on, a chunk of these people rely on bursaries (means tested) and/or scholarships. If you remove charity status (or the VAT exemption) then why should these schools act charitably? This really is a populist ideological policy playing to people’s envy rather than something that brings tangible benefits. It could even end up cost negative. All that will have been achieved is higher middle income families and lower income families with extra talented kids, will be forced back into state leaving the much smaller pvt sch sector as very much the preserve of the rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company That's something I'd like to see happen. It'll be fascinating after a few years to compare their accounts with those of private companies. This could put an end to all of those arguments about whether public or private enterprise is more efficient." Already been done, and you have a comparator - the financial disaster that was Robin Hood Energy that crashed owing millions and bankrupted Notts County Council. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. Already pointed this out above but under-estimated state funding per pupil which is £7690. So… 4 x independent research studies have concluded that c.25% of parents will remove kids from private school = c.150,000 kids requiring state funding = £1.153bn Labour believe they can raise £1.6bn adding VAT to school fees but that assumes there is no drop in pupil numbers from c.600,000 but it is predicted to fall to c.450,000 so that only raises £1.2bn. So £47m isn’t going to go far and is really just a rounding error.I agree it doesn't raise money based on 25pc drop out. Your numbers also suggest it doesn't add a strain from loads of people going into state education. There may be some more detail on the numbers that say the marginal cost isn't 8k. And imo 25pc drop out feels high given the emotional nature of children education. There may also be other sources of vat. But this feels one about philosophy rather than fund raising even if the tax raised is larger. I would have thought 25% seemed high until you look at the reality of the private school sector beyond generally held inaccurate perceptions. There are a significant number of parents sending kids to private school who are not “rich”. Many of these are certainly upper quartile, but not “rich” just wealthier than the majority. To pay for their kid(s) to go to pvt they remortgage, take loans, forgo holidays, take on second jobs. I know there will be some who have no sympathy because it remains out of their reach regardless. However, for those struggling to pay c.£15k per year from post tax income, a 20% increase is the straw breaking their back pushing it out of reach. As already touched on, a chunk of these people rely on bursaries (means tested) and/or scholarships. If you remove charity status (or the VAT exemption) then why should these schools act charitably? This really is a populist ideological policy playing to people’s envy rather than something that brings tangible benefits. It could even end up cost negative. All that will have been achieved is higher middle income families and lower income families with extra talented kids, will be forced back into state leaving the much smaller pvt sch sector as very much the preserve of the rich."
As the beneficiary of generous bursaries and music scholarships as a kid I would never have been able to have gone to the (fee paying)schools I did, my dad was a shift supervisor in a factory and my mum was an office cleaner. This ideological hatred of the private sector is driven by nothing other then envy and supported by the very MPs who themselves went to fee paying schools (Starmer) who sent their kids to one (Abbott), in effect puling up the ladder behind them.
BLiar had fox hunting, Starmer wants to go after schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. Already pointed this out above but under-estimated state funding per pupil which is £7690. So… 4 x independent research studies have concluded that c.25% of parents will remove kids from private school = c.150,000 kids requiring state funding = £1.153bn Labour believe they can raise £1.6bn adding VAT to school fees but that assumes there is no drop in pupil numbers from c.600,000 but it is predicted to fall to c.450,000 so that only raises £1.2bn. So £47m isn’t going to go far and is really just a rounding error.I agree it doesn't raise money based on 25pc drop out. Your numbers also suggest it doesn't add a strain from loads of people going into state education. There may be some more detail on the numbers that say the marginal cost isn't 8k. And imo 25pc drop out feels high given the emotional nature of children education. There may also be other sources of vat. But this feels one about philosophy rather than fund raising even if the tax raised is larger. I would have thought 25% seemed high until you look at the reality of the private school sector beyond generally held inaccurate perceptions. There are a significant number of parents sending kids to private school who are not “rich”. Many of these are certainly upper quartile, but not “rich” just wealthier than the majority. To pay for their kid(s) to go to pvt they remortgage, take loans, forgo holidays, take on second jobs. I know there will be some who have no sympathy because it remains out of their reach regardless. However, for those struggling to pay c.£15k per year from post tax income, a 20% increase is the straw breaking their back pushing it out of reach. As already touched on, a chunk of these people rely on bursaries (means tested) and/or scholarships. If you remove charity status (or the VAT exemption) then why should these schools act charitably? This really is a populist ideological policy playing to people’s envy rather than something that brings tangible benefits. It could even end up cost negative. All that will have been achieved is higher middle income families and lower income families with extra talented kids, will be forced back into state leaving the much smaller pvt sch sector as very much the preserve of the rich.
As the beneficiary of generous bursaries and music scholarships as a kid I would never have been able to have gone to the (fee paying)schools I did, my dad was a shift supervisor in a factory and my mum was an office cleaner. This ideological hatred of the private sector is driven by nothing other then envy and supported by the very MPs who themselves went to fee paying schools (Starmer) who sent their kids to one (Abbott), in effect puling up the ladder behind them.
BLiar had fox hunting, Starmer wants to go after schools. "how do bursaries get funded? (I'm still undecided on this, so in fact seeking mode). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Considering parents as a rule pay for the fees, it costs the tax payer nothing, you can't get better than that as a cost.not quite what I asked. Vat creates tax. So depending on what the cost per pupil spend is in the state it may be the vat covers the cost of 25pc going into the state system. (I'm surprised that it's that high. And it assumes there's no reduction in fees absorb some of it) If school fees had vat today, I wonder what the view would be if the Tories announced that public schools were to become vat exempt. Already pointed this out above but under-estimated state funding per pupil which is £7690. So… 4 x independent research studies have concluded that c.25% of parents will remove kids from private school = c.150,000 kids requiring state funding = £1.153bn Labour believe they can raise £1.6bn adding VAT to school fees but that assumes there is no drop in pupil numbers from c.600,000 but it is predicted to fall to c.450,000 so that only raises £1.2bn. So £47m isn’t going to go far and is really just a rounding error.I agree it doesn't raise money based on 25pc drop out. Your numbers also suggest it doesn't add a strain from loads of people going into state education. There may be some more detail on the numbers that say the marginal cost isn't 8k. And imo 25pc drop out feels high given the emotional nature of children education. There may also be other sources of vat. But this feels one about philosophy rather than fund raising even if the tax raised is larger. I would have thought 25% seemed high until you look at the reality of the private school sector beyond generally held inaccurate perceptions. There are a significant number of parents sending kids to private school who are not “rich”. Many of these are certainly upper quartile, but not “rich” just wealthier than the majority. To pay for their kid(s) to go to pvt they remortgage, take loans, forgo holidays, take on second jobs. I know there will be some who have no sympathy because it remains out of their reach regardless. However, for those struggling to pay c.£15k per year from post tax income, a 20% increase is the straw breaking their back pushing it out of reach. As already touched on, a chunk of these people rely on bursaries (means tested) and/or scholarships. If you remove charity status (or the VAT exemption) then why should these schools act charitably? This really is a populist ideological policy playing to people’s envy rather than something that brings tangible benefits. It could even end up cost negative. All that will have been achieved is higher middle income families and lower income families with extra talented kids, will be forced back into state leaving the much smaller pvt sch sector as very much the preserve of the rich.
As the beneficiary of generous bursaries and music scholarships as a kid I would never have been able to have gone to the (fee paying)schools I did, my dad was a shift supervisor in a factory and my mum was an office cleaner. This ideological hatred of the private sector is driven by nothing other then envy and supported by the very MPs who themselves went to fee paying schools (Starmer) who sent their kids to one (Abbott), in effect puling up the ladder behind them.
BLiar had fox hunting, Starmer wants to go after schools. how do bursaries get funded?
(I'm still undecided on this, so in fact seeking mode). "Through the fees paid by other parents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Here is another consequence of adding VAT to school fees. The “sharp elbowed middle classes” will still use their superior wealth to their advantage even if they are forced back into state schools. They will identify best performing schools and buy houses in the catchment area, pushing up house prices making them unaffordable to others. 600,000 kids in pvt schools saves the taxpayer £4.6bn a year in school place funding. Yet the parents pay these fees out of post tax net income. Unlike other arguments around people paying tax for services they do not receive, these parents WOULD have to use schools so they are net contributors to the exchequer." Ah who cares as long as others don't get ahead..  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company That's something I'd like to see happen. It'll be fascinating after a few years to compare their accounts with those of private companies. This could put an end to all of those arguments about whether public or private enterprise is more efficient. Already been done, and you have a comparator - the financial disaster that was Robin Hood Energy that crashed owing millions and bankrupted Notts County Council. " Yes Robin Hood Energy reportedly cost Notts Council £38m in losses subsidising ordinary peoples energy costs. That is why Tories are furious because the little guy benefitted. Much better to line their own pockets e.g. Baroness Mone. And Bulb Energy a privately owned company also failed in a similar time frame to Robin Hood. Didn't cost the owners a penny as the taxpayer picked up the bill. Just a couple of billion pounds I believe. And all of us are paying increased energy prices to pay for all the failed supply companies. Perhaps a publicly owned supply company isn't such a bad idea in reality? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education?" you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ?" You’ve clearly not read any of my posts (not that you have to but they give more explanation). If a child is talented, be that in sport, music, drama, art, or academically, then they can apply to private school and if their parents cannot afford the fees they can receive a bursary. That bursary is funded by the fees the other parents pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? You’ve clearly not read any of my posts (not that you have to but they give more explanation). If a child is talented, be that in sport, music, drama, art, or academically, then they can apply to private school and if their parents cannot afford the fees they can receive a bursary. That bursary is funded by the fees the other parents pay." I get where your coming from bud but I’m talking more about the fairness of it all it’s morally wrong to me all kids should start from the same line and the ones that get the furthest will be the ones that deserve it not the ones who’s dad as most money that’s just how I see things that’s all lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? You’ve clearly not read any of my posts (not that you have to but they give more explanation). If a child is talented, be that in sport, music, drama, art, or academically, then they can apply to private school and if their parents cannot afford the fees they can receive a bursary. That bursary is funded by the fees the other parents pay. I get where your coming from bud but I’m talking more about the fairness of it all it’s morally wrong to me all kids should start from the same line and the ones that get the furthest will be the ones that deserve it not the ones who’s dad as most money that’s just how I see things that’s all lol" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? You’ve clearly not read any of my posts (not that you have to but they give more explanation). If a child is talented, be that in sport, music, drama, art, or academically, then they can apply to private school and if their parents cannot afford the fees they can receive a bursary. That bursary is funded by the fees the other parents pay. I get where your coming from bud but I’m talking more about the fairness of it all it’s morally wrong to me all kids should start from the same line and the ones that get the furthest will be the ones that deserve it not the ones who’s dad as most money that’s just how I see things that’s all lol On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?" no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% " Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools." isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools." As is already the case where you have grammar schools, the market for 11+ tuition is massive in my area and in spite of the fact that the bodies who adminster these tests saying tutoring doesn’t help, it does as about 90% of the kids who pass are tutored intesively for about a year. This is not an argument to do away with grammars but an argument to have more as supply is significantly smaller than demand which creates the skewed market. Having more grammars will create a more even supply market which will slow the heated housing market in catchment areas (making those areas more affordable) and create more targetted schools that cater to need. Another issue Liarbour have overlooked is a lot of parents pay school fees through finance companies (schools want their fees termly up front, these companies provide the bridging loans repayable in 12 monthly installments plus interest so that you are paying £1400 or so a month not £5k 3 x a year) and you do pay tax on the loan. Not only will a large number parents create expense by being priced out of the day school market and transferring to the state sector, but the income HMRC derives from bridge funding will dissapear not to mention the social costs of school closures and unemployment. A better policy would be to encourage the option of going private (with incentives) to reduce the cost burden on the public sector and re-investment in more grammar schools (to match the investment in UTCs) to balance demand and drive up standards. But that’s arguably evidenced based policy making rather than idological rage-envy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools.isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work " So you don't believe that public schools would ever get better and you want bring all the kids down to public schools? That's your "solution" to the problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools.isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work So you don't believe that public schools would ever get better and you want bring all the kids down to public schools? That's your "solution" to the problem?" the problem is that ppl see public schools as a bringing kids down as you say and punish other kids the fact that’s how you see it means it’s not fair get rid of private schools let them all start from the same and see who rises to the top why would that scare ppl what have we to loose just look at the politicians now lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% " Why let facts get in the way of a bit of prejudice eh? I pointed out in an earlier post I received a full music bursary as a child to attend a school my parents (factory shift supervisor and an office cleaner) could never have afforded. The only way your nirvana of social exactitude comes about is when everyone earns exactly the same money irrespective of what they do and their lives are dictated for them in terms of occupation and geography - totalitarian communism, and look how well that turned out for the majority of Russians. You may want to see how much the NOrth Koreans like it too. The answer is equality of opportunity, which is not the same as equality of outcome. The former is good policy, the latter social engineering. If you want to see how other centre-left governments handle the issue then turn to Spain, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and Belgium who all have various tax breaks, subsidies, or grants from the government to grow their independent schools sector to the benefit of the state sector. Again, this is ideologically focussed grievance-politics and in reality, how many people would bad policy like this really benefit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools. As is already the case where you have grammar schools, the market for 11+ tuition is massive in my area and in spite of the fact that the bodies who adminster these tests saying tutoring doesn’t help, it does as about 90% of the kids who pass are tutored intesively for about a year. This is not an argument to do away with grammars but an argument to have more as supply is significantly smaller than demand which creates the skewed market. Having more grammars will create a more even supply market which will slow the heated housing market in catchment areas (making those areas more affordable) and create more targetted schools that cater to need. Another issue Liarbour have overlooked is a lot of parents pay school fees through finance companies (schools want their fees termly up front, these companies provide the bridging loans repayable in 12 monthly installments plus interest so that you are paying £1400 or so a month not £5k 3 x a year) and you do pay tax on the loan. Not only will a large number parents create expense by being priced out of the day school market and transferring to the state sector, but the income HMRC derives from bridge funding will dissapear not to mention the social costs of school closures and unemployment. A better policy would be to encourage the option of going private (with incentives) to reduce the cost burden on the public sector and re-investment in more grammar schools (to match the investment in UTCs) to balance demand and drive up standards. But that’s arguably evidenced based policy making rather than idological rage-envy. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Why let facts get in the way of a bit of prejudice eh? I pointed out in an earlier post I received a full music bursary as a child to attend a school my parents (factory shift supervisor and an office cleaner) could never have afforded. The only way your nirvana of social exactitude comes about is when everyone earns exactly the same money irrespective of what they do and their lives are dictated for them in terms of occupation and geography - totalitarian communism, and look how well that turned out for the majority of Russians. You may want to see how much the NOrth Koreans like it too. The answer is equality of opportunity, which is not the same as equality of outcome. The former is good policy, the latter social engineering. If you want to see how other centre-left governments handle the issue then turn to Spain, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden and Belgium who all have various tax breaks, subsidies, or grants from the government to grow their independent schools sector to the benefit of the state sector. Again, this is ideologically focussed grievance-politics and in reality, how many people would bad policy like this really benefit?" prejudice ? grievance? ffs mate calm down it’s an opinion that’s all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" prejudice ? grievance? ffs mate calm down it’s an opinion that’s all " To be clear, I’m making the point the prejudice snd grievance politics is with the Labour party and its’ politicians, not you personally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools.isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work So you don't believe that public schools would ever get better and you want bring all the kids down to public schools? That's your "solution" to the problem?the problem is that ppl see public schools as a bringing kids down as you say and punish other kids the fact that’s how you see it means it’s not fair get rid of private schools let them all start from the same and see who rises to the top why would that scare ppl what have we to loose just look at the politicians now lol " You are the one who said that having some kids in public schools while other kids study in private schools is immoral and unfair. By that argument, you have already admitted the fact that taking kids from private school to public school is bringing the kids down. To fix it, we could strive to make the public schools better. But your choice is to bring down the private schools so that they can all race to the bottom because you also believe that public schools will never be fixed by politicians. But hey! At least we have equality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools.isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work So you don't believe that public schools would ever get better and you want bring all the kids down to public schools? That's your "solution" to the problem?the problem is that ppl see public schools as a bringing kids down as you say and punish other kids the fact that’s how you see it means it’s not fair get rid of private schools let them all start from the same and see who rises to the top why would that scare ppl what have we to loose just look at the politicians now lol You are the one who said that having some kids in public schools while other kids study in private schools is immoral and unfair. By that argument, you have already admitted the fact that taking kids from private school to public school is bringing the kids down. To fix it, we could strive to make the public schools better. But your choice is to bring down the private schools so that they can all race to the bottom because you also believe that public schools will never be fixed by politicians. But hey! At least we have equality." the politicians mostly whent to private schools so why will they fix it they have had decades you say race to the bottom I say a fair race to the top all starting from the same line but fair enough who wants a fair race certainly not the rich | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools.isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work So you don't believe that public schools would ever get better and you want bring all the kids down to public schools? That's your "solution" to the problem?the problem is that ppl see public schools as a bringing kids down as you say and punish other kids the fact that’s how you see it means it’s not fair get rid of private schools let them all start from the same and see who rises to the top why would that scare ppl what have we to loose just look at the politicians now lol You are the one who said that having some kids in public schools while other kids study in private schools is immoral and unfair. By that argument, you have already admitted the fact that taking kids from private school to public school is bringing the kids down. To fix it, we could strive to make the public schools better. But your choice is to bring down the private schools so that they can all race to the bottom because you also believe that public schools will never be fixed by politicians. But hey! At least we have equality.the politicians mostly whent to private schools so why will they fix it they have had decades you say race to the bottom I say a fair race to the top all starting from the same line but fair enough who wants a fair race certainly not the rich " The problem is you can never make a fair race. All the solutions you propose will not solve any of the problems. The inequality will continue while it also reduces the average standards for everyone, pretty much what most socialistic policies end up doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" On that basis though isn’t it morally wrong that two kids in the same state school may have parents earning different incomes and the wealthier family pay for extra private tuition on top of state provision?no not really that’s like saying parents may also help with homework lol all I’m saying to me it’s moraly wrong to have private schools there’s only one reason for it is to keep the rich kids that ten steps ahead look at parliament im not sure of the percentage but I’d guess most the mps had private education maybe 75% Where exactly does this moral opinion come from? Different kids have different types of childhood. School is just a part of it. If private schools are morally wrong, we might as well get rid of everything that's private because it puts some kids at a higher position than the other. As Birdldn, pointed above, getting rid of private school doesn't work. Rich kids will still hire home tutors. The solution is to have policies that makes public schools better, not to punish private schools.isn’t that the same rubbish politicians have been saying for decades we should make public schools better as the gap ever been wider than now and if not that argument doesn’t work So you don't believe that public schools would ever get better and you want bring all the kids down to public schools? That's your "solution" to the problem?the problem is that ppl see public schools as a bringing kids down as you say and punish other kids the fact that’s how you see it means it’s not fair get rid of private schools let them all start from the same and see who rises to the top why would that scare ppl what have we to loose just look at the politicians now lol You are the one who said that having some kids in public schools while other kids study in private schools is immoral and unfair. By that argument, you have already admitted the fact that taking kids from private school to public school is bringing the kids down. To fix it, we could strive to make the public schools better. But your choice is to bring down the private schools so that they can all race to the bottom because you also believe that public schools will never be fixed by politicians. But hey! At least we have equality.the politicians mostly whent to private schools so why will they fix it they have had decades you say race to the bottom I say a fair race to the top all starting from the same line but fair enough who wants a fair race certainly not the rich " Guess what? It has never been and never will be a fair race. Why? Because life isn’t a fair race. Some kids are just more intelligent. End of. Some kids have a better work ethic. Some kids have nurturing home environments that encouraging success. Some kids have intelligent parents. All of those things contribute to success. If you remove pvt sch all that will happen (as I have already said) is the wealthy will use their money for private tuition. Are you going to stop that? What about that great performing state school in your town? All the wealthy will snap up the houses in the catchment area pricing out the poor. Are you going to stop that? Those 4 research studies I mentioned re 25% leaving pvt sch. They all said the above will happen as a result. Stupid ill-conceived policy and guess what else? Labour did not do research with the parents in creating this policy! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ?" It certainly is a punishment if you're taking away the ability to provide a superior education. Should all kids have the same chance in life? In utopia, yes. However, we don't, never have, and never will live in utopia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? It certainly is a punishment if you're taking away the ability to provide a superior education. Should all kids have the same chance in life? In utopia, yes. However, we don't, never have, and never will live in utopia. " yes we never have never will do same old shit then eh fuck the poor kids aslong as we can keep the gap wider parliament is almost all private educated ppl and why would anyone want to change that eh lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? It certainly is a punishment if you're taking away the ability to provide a superior education. Should all kids have the same chance in life? In utopia, yes. However, we don't, never have, and never will live in utopia. yes we never have never will do same old shit then eh fuck the poor kids aslong as we can keep the gap wider parliament is almost all private educated ppl and why would anyone want to change that eh lol" You keep saying fuck the poor kids? Why are you eluding to all state school kids being poor? Both my kids have been through state schools. We're not poor. We're not really talking about MPs here, we're talking about middle class families who want what's best for their children. Why shouldn't they be allowed that if they can do so? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector.get rid of all private schools and give every child the same chance this is what scares the rich why would they want every child to have the same chance ? How do you give every kid the same chance. There is no way the state will ever afford to pay the same level per pupil as parents pay for private. So this only goes in one direction pulling everyone down. The super rich won’t be affected anyway as they will simply send their kids abroad!they probably will the super rich send them to boarding schools now what type of person sends there kids away if every kid as the same chance how can that be not good for society isn’t it just fair or doesn’t fair count Your idea is get rid of private school and punish all those kids with inferior education? you say punish you class it as a punishment hmmm well what about the kids who can’t afford private schools should they be punished or should all kids have the same chance in life ? It certainly is a punishment if you're taking away the ability to provide a superior education. Should all kids have the same chance in life? In utopia, yes. However, we don't, never have, and never will live in utopia. yes we never have never will do same old shit then eh fuck the poor kids aslong as we can keep the gap wider parliament is almost all private educated ppl and why would anyone want to change that eh lol" If you cut down on private schools, the parliament will be full of people who had private tutors. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I wonder how much more is it costs educating a pupil in public school than state school. Any guesses ? Would twice as much be under or over estimating ? Private schools invest more per pupil through higher paid teachers and better facilities. These are all funded via the post tax net income of parents who have chosen to not use the state system (saving taxpayers a fortune). It is purely punitive politics of envy playing to the stalls where they have managed to conflate the likes of Eton, Harrow, Marlborough with the rest of the, more modest, sector." 100% correct. Arguably, anyone who privately educates or medicates is owed a refund from taxes paid for their state slot. It's that simple. Vat on private schools is a disgraceful politics of envy move, designed as a sop to the left. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools." Tough spending rules??? Where have you been on the moon? Every single labour government has bankrupted the UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools. Tough spending rules??? Where have you been on the moon? Every single labour government has bankrupted the UK. " Correct. They had to go to the IMF in the 70s for bailout. Left a note in the Treasury 2010 for next Tory government saying 'Sorry there's no money left' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees?" Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Every single labour government has bankrupted the UK. Correct. They had to go to the IMF in the 70s for bailout. Left a note in the Treasury 2010 for next Tory government saying 'Sorry there's no money left' " Our national debt in 2010 was 1 trillion pounds. It's now 2.7 trillion pounds and still rising. The Conservatives since 2010 have borrowed more than all Labour Chancellors put together by a large margin! Covid accounted for £400 billion, so where has the other £1.3 billion borrowed by the Tories gone? Whoever wins the GE will inherit a huge national debt due to Tory incompetence over the last 14 years -Fact! And going back to the 1970s Labour inherited an unsustainable balance of payments deficit from the Tories. Read your history not the Daily Mail! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs?" No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees?" Because Charities don't pay VAT | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees?" Because they are charities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Echo Echo Echo lol" We should VAT on echoes! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? Because Charities don't pay VAT" Why do they have charitable status? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? Because Charities don't pay VAT Why do they have charitable status?" Because they register themselves as so. Public Good Institutions can do that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Echo Echo Echo lol We should VAT on echoes!" VAT VAT VAT lol | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees?" Currently insurance, health and education are exempt from VAT. Nothing to do with charitable status. Insurance premiums are now taxed via Insurance Premium Tax (IPT). Private medical costs are free of VAT if provided by a Registered Practioner. If Labour stops Public Schools' VAT exemption, the schools would also be able to reclaim their VAT input costs (which they currently can't do) so they should be able to mitigate the VAT to some extent and reduce fees accordingly to offset the VAT increase perhaps halving it to 10%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? Because Charities don't pay VAT Why do they have charitable status?" Please read the various posts by me. They explain the charitable activity they undertake. They are not businesses as they have no shareholders and pay no dividends. All the income they generate from fees is reinvested into the objects of the charity. Charities are regulated by the Charities Commission and they are satisfied these pvt schools are charities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? Currently insurance, health and education are exempt from VAT. Nothing to do with charitable status. Insurance premiums are now taxed via Insurance Premium Tax (IPT). Private medical costs are free of VAT if provided by a Registered Practioner. If Labour stops Public Schools' VAT exemption, the schools would also be able to reclaim their VAT input costs (which they currently can't do) so they should be able to mitigate the VAT to some extent and reduce fees accordingly to offset the VAT increase perhaps halving it to 10%." Ah only 10% that’s ok then! Guess Labour better also add VAT to higher education and university costs too yes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nothing to do with charitable status. " Wrong. ***A registered independent school is included within the list of eligible bodies, and therefore private school fees are currently exempt from VAT. A charity which provides education is also included in this list. Many independent schools therefore fall within two of the categories of eligible body.**** | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? Because Charities don't pay VAT Why do they have charitable status?" To turn it around, why shouldn't private schools get some tax relief? The state don't pay to educate private school kids, yet collect taxes from parents, teachers, school. It's a financial win for the government and taxpayer, and only disliked on ideological grounds (or green eyed envy). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nothing to do with charitable status. Wrong. ***A registered independent school is included within the list of eligible bodies, and therefore private school fees are currently exempt from VAT. A charity which provides education is also included in this list. Many independent schools therefore fall within two of the categories of eligible body.****" All private schools are exempt from VAT whether run for profit, or not-for-profit, or registered as a charity. You are wrong. Not all private schools are charities and some are run to make profits to enrich their shareholders. Your quote actually confirms this! Suggest you re-read or Google: Are all schools charities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Because they register themselves as so. Public Good Institutions can do that." Quoting myself from above  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why do public schools have VAT exemption on fees? Maybe because pupils taken out of the state system save the taxpayer education costs? No, but seriously , why do public schools get VAT exemption on fees? Because Charities don't pay VAT" Own your mistake! You would be a better person in doing so! I repeat education is exempt from VAT. Nothing to do with Charitable Status.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say private schools are charities - I did say that they can register to become one and if accepted are VAT exempt. "Again. And for the last time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Every single labour government has bankrupted the UK. Correct. They had to go to the IMF in the 70s for bailout. Left a note in the Treasury 2010 for next Tory government saying 'Sorry there's no money left' Our national debt in 2010 was 1 trillion pounds. It's now 2.7 trillion pounds and still rising. The Conservatives since 2010 have borrowed more than all Labour Chancellors put together by a large margin! Covid accounted for £400 billion, so where has the other £1.3 billion borrowed by the Tories gone? Whoever wins the GE will inherit a huge national debt due to Tory incompetence over the last 14 years -Fact! And going back to the 1970s Labour inherited an unsustainable balance of payments deficit from the Tories. Read your history not the Daily Mail!" I never read the Daily Mail! I do know however that the mixture of the financial crash, the Covid pandemic and other exogenous factors have played a part. You're also not accounting for inflation over the decades. Bearing in mind the size of the economy, UK debt figures are still low compared with much of the last 100 years, and also compared with other leading economies. Up until recently, interest rates have been so low (compare that to Labour in the 70s!) Govt has been able to borrow large sums to deal with the climate crisis, migrant crisis and for future public investment (very savvy whilst rates so low). About 40% of government debt is owed to itself, so that's about a trillion. Totally different to the recklessness of previous Labour administrations! I wouldn't worry, enjoy your holidays to the Canaries, we're a fiat currency and Jeremy Hunt is one of the most impressive chancellors we've had. People in their 50s and 60s don't need the stress. You only need fret if incoherent Reeves gets in! Then watch your Air Passenger Tax soar! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say private schools are charities - I did say that they can register to become one and if accepted are VAT exempt.
Again. And for the last time. "Oh the irony, telling you to own your "mistake"!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Every single labour government has bankrupted the UK. Correct. They had to go to the IMF in the 70s for bailout. Left a note in the Treasury 2010 for next Tory government saying 'Sorry there's no money left' Our national debt in 2010 was 1 trillion pounds. It's now 2.7 trillion pounds and still rising. The Conservatives since 2010 have borrowed more than all Labour Chancellors put together by a large margin! Covid accounted for £400 billion, so where has the other £1.3 billion borrowed by the Tories gone? Whoever wins the GE will inherit a huge national debt due to Tory incompetence over the last 14 years -Fact! And going back to the 1970s Labour inherited an unsustainable balance of payments deficit from the Tories. Read your history not the Daily Mail! I never read the Daily Mail! I do know however that the mixture of the financial crash, the Covid pandemic and other exogenous factors have played a part. You're also not accounting for inflation over the decades. Bearing in mind the size of the economy, UK debt figures are still low compared with much of the last 100 years, and also compared with other leading economies. Up until recently, interest rates have been so low (compare that to Labour in the 70s!) Govt has been able to borrow large sums to deal with the climate crisis, migrant crisis and for future public investment (very savvy whilst rates so low). About 40% of government debt is owed to itself, so that's about a trillion. Totally different to the recklessness of previous Labour administrations! I wouldn't worry, enjoy your holidays to the Canaries, we're a fiat currency and Jeremy Hunt is one of the most impressive chancellors we've had. People in their 50s and 60s don't need the stress. You only need fret if incoherent Reeves gets in! Then watch your Air Passenger Tax soar! " I am not convinced on this analysis Debt GDP. 25% in 1900 238% after Second World War 25% in 1992. (Reduced 1950-1990) 85% 2010 105% 2021 98% March 2024 Recent debt growth has been reduced by the impact of austerity which has distorted these figures. As did PFI under labour Unfunded state pension liabilities are £1.2bn (ons) The tax payers alliance is quoting “The UK’s real national debt is much higher than suggested by Wednesday’s budget figures, at £12.1 trillion in 2024-25. This is over £180,000 per person” “The total debt, which includes PFI and pension liabilities, is more than four times the size of the UK economy and is more than the economic output of Africa, Central America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand combined” “ The real national debt has grown from £9.6 trillion, or £143,000 per person since 2021, when this research was last released. This is an increase of 25 per cent“ I think it’s difficult to take any of these figures at face value. It is not savvy to increase debt in periods of low interest rates when you have no strategy for repaying it before interest rates increase. Current debt interest is £9bn a month. Very roughly £330 per uk household per month. Highest tax rises in 70 years have been required to maintain current public spending which includes servicing this perpetual national debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say private schools are charities - I did say that they can register to become one and if accepted are VAT exempt.
Again. And for the last time. "Another load of nonsense from you. Private schools are exempt from VAT whether they are charities, not-for-profit, or run to make profits for their shareholders. They don't need to register as a charity to become VAT exempt as they are ALREADY VAT exempt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nothing to do with charitable status. Wrong. ***A registered independent school is included within the list of eligible bodies, and therefore private school fees are currently exempt from VAT. A charity which provides education is also included in this list. Many independent schools therefore fall within two of the categories of eligible body.**** All private schools are exempt from VAT whether run for profit, or not-for-profit, or registered as a charity. You are wrong. Not all private schools are charities and some are run to make profits to enrich their shareholders. Your quote actually confirms this! Suggest you re-read or Google: Are all schools charities?" Except the likes of Cognita, which is a private equity company that runs public schools, have a different model. The company makes money on overseas students and creates margin by driving down the economy of scale on operating costs (same as a Multi-Academy Trust) and by doing things like providing funding loans to parents (this is the “business activity” that generates the profits that support the company) but the schools themselves are still charities and are legally differentiated with the parent company they contract to to comply with charity commission rules still offer community outreach, bursaries and the like. In a similar way many state schools also have charitable arms for the purposes of raising money as well as operating for-profit activities like SCITTS (the model adopted by one of the gramars near where I live). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I didn't say private schools are charities - I did say that they can register to become one and if accepted are VAT exempt.
Again. And for the last time.
Another load of nonsense from you.
Private schools are exempt from VAT whether they are charities, not-for-profit, or run to make profits for their shareholders.
They don't need to register as a charity to become VAT exempt as they are ALREADY VAT exempt. "Oh, Dear. HMRC not in your thinking - easy to find, easy to navigate - easy to get your answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Nothing to do with charitable status. Wrong. ***A registered independent school is included within the list of eligible bodies, and therefore private school fees are currently exempt from VAT. A charity which provides education is also included in this list. Many independent schools therefore fall within two of the categories of eligible body.**** All private schools are exempt from VAT whether run for profit, or not-for-profit, or registered as a charity. You are wrong. Not all private schools are charities and some are run to make profits to enrich their shareholders. Your quote actually confirms this! Suggest you re-read or Google: Are all schools charities? Except the likes of Cognita, which is a private equity company that runs public schools, have a different model. The company makes money on overseas students and creates margin by driving down the economy of scale on operating costs (same as a Multi-Academy Trust) and by doing things like providing funding loans to parents (this is the “business activity” that generates the profits that support the company) but the schools themselves are still charities and are legally differentiated with the parent company they contract to to comply with charity commission rules still offer community outreach, bursaries and the like. In a similar way many state schools also have charitable arms for the purposes of raising money as well as operating for-profit activities like SCITTS (the model adopted by one of the gramars near where I live). " Yup - | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For example: _____________________________________ From the Legislation: there is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training, if it: (The Educational entity) Cannot and does not distribute any profit (to use the terminology of the legislation) it makes, and any profit that does arise from its supplies of education is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies. _____________________________________ Otherwise, VAT'able then.
"I'm afraid that, despite the optimism generated by his username, he hasn't got broad enough shoulders to acknowledge that you are right and he isn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For example: _____________________________________ From the Legislation: there is a separate VAT exemption for a charity or not-for-profit entity which supplies education or vocational training, if it: (The Educational entity) Cannot and does not distribute any profit (to use the terminology of the legislation) it makes, and any profit that does arise from its supplies of education is used solely for the continuation or improvement of such supplies. _____________________________________ Otherwise, VAT'able then.
I'm afraid that, despite the optimism generated by his username, he hasn't got broad enough shoulders to acknowledge that you are right and he isn't.
"Ah well. As the Mandalorian says: 'this is the way' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I will say another thing on this VAT on Private School fees policy. Why is it ALWAYS a punitive approach? And this is punitive as it punishes people for the audacity of having money, well in many cases (much of the 25%) having debt! The argument is these private schools are not charities they are businesses so they should not get charity status and VAT exemption. Let’s break that down: 1. The Charity Commission says they are charities. 2. They have no shareholders or dividends as all funds/income is reinvested back into the “objects” of the charity - ie provision of education. 3. They undertake charitable activity such as providing bursaries for low income families, scholarships for talented kids, and access free of charge to state schools to their facilities (in many cases, can’t speak for all). So how about flipping this around and say “if you want to maintain your charity status and VAT exemption, then you need to increase the levels of your charitable activity!” Introduce minimum thresholds on numbers of kids on bursaries/scholarships. If the school does not want to then they lose status. Turn this into a positive increasing access and opportunity to the less financially fortunate rather than what will happen and make pvt school unobtainable to anyone except the very rich!" Seems like The Guardian agree with me, or at least the writer of this article… “While Labour’s current policy gets low marks, VAT on private schools is not a bad idea – it is an incomplete one. Education outcomes would be definitively more positive if private schools were given the simple choice between imposing VAT and offering low-income students full bursaries equal to 20% of revenues. If all schools choose the bursary option, it would directly benefit about 100,000 low-income students, improving education outcomes for many. As the number of low-income bursaries exponentially rises, it will meaningfully improve social and demographic balances of the UK’s exclusive private schools and, in time, society as a whole. For those schools that don’t want to diversify beyond the elite, let them choose VAT, as they know best what impacts their demand. But for those that want to do what is best for their enrolment, their communities and society, let them offer bursaries over charging VAT. That is a policy that deserves high marks.” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its not inaccurate tropes as you put it, its logical facts but you know what as the saying goes in the Caribbean if you nah hear you must feel so you folks vote who you want to vote for but if Labour gets in (and I hope to God they dont) thats when you find out what Im talking about which by then the damage will already have be done" What are you worried that Labour will do? From my perspective, they're offering little to no change from the current government. Maybe less corruption and nepotism, but policy-wise, it's the same shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its not inaccurate tropes as you put it, its logical facts but you know what as the saying goes in the Caribbean if you nah hear you must feel so you folks vote who you want to vote for but if Labour gets in (and I hope to God they dont) thats when you find out what Im talking about which by then the damage will already have be done" Not sure how it's "inaccurate". Labour's Liam Byrne, later wrote of how he “burnt with the shame” over the letter which had been intended for Philip Hammond, a courteous and friendly Tory, who was expected to be appointed chief secretary. Insufficient shame to resign though. It doesn't need a note though from Liam Byrne to know that Labour are fiscally irresponsible, as you say. It is the same every time they get into power, they spend like there is no tomorrow, hook as many people as they can on generous benefits and then attack the following Tory government for making cuts when they are simply trying to reign in the largesse. On the other hand, the letter is the gift that keeps on giving! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its not inaccurate tropes as you put it, its logical facts but you know what as the saying goes in the Caribbean if you nah hear you must feel so you folks vote who you want to vote for but if Labour gets in (and I hope to God they dont) thats when you find out what Im talking about which by then the damage will already have be done Not sure how it's "inaccurate". Labour's Liam Byrne, later wrote of how he “burnt with the shame” over the letter which had been intended for Philip Hammond, a courteous and friendly Tory, who was expected to be appointed chief secretary. Insufficient shame to resign though. It doesn't need a note though from Liam Byrne to know that Labour are fiscally irresponsible, as you say. It is the same every time they get into power, they spend like there is no tomorrow, hook as many people as they can on generous benefits and then attack the following Tory government for making cuts when they are simply trying to reign in the largesse. On the other hand, the letter is the gift that keeps on giving! " I am not defending Labour. I have no loyalty to any political party. 1. The letter was a tradition and joke between outgoing and incoming Ministers. 2. It actually said “there is no money” not “ha ha the pot is empty”. 3. It wasn’t true because there can never be “no money” when you have a sovereign currency. 4. Govt debt had increased mainly due to the crash in the global financial markets (an exogenous event). 5. That debt has more than doubled under subsequent coalition then Tory governments (again you can point to the pandemic as an exogenous event). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its not inaccurate tropes as you put it, its logical facts but you know what as the saying goes in the Caribbean if you nah hear you must feel so you folks vote who you want to vote for but if Labour gets in (and I hope to God they dont) thats when you find out what Im talking about which by then the damage will already have be done Not sure how it's "inaccurate". Labour's Liam Byrne, later wrote of how he “burnt with the shame” over the letter which had been intended for Philip Hammond, a courteous and friendly Tory, who was expected to be appointed chief secretary. Insufficient shame to resign though. It doesn't need a note though from Liam Byrne to know that Labour are fiscally irresponsible, as you say. It is the same every time they get into power, they spend like there is no tomorrow, hook as many people as they can on generous benefits and then attack the following Tory government for making cuts when they are simply trying to reign in the largesse. On the other hand, the letter is the gift that keeps on giving! I am not defending Labour. I have no loyalty to any political party. 1. The letter was a tradition and joke between outgoing and incoming Ministers. 2. It actually said “there is no money” not “ha ha the pot is empty”. 3. It wasn’t true because there can never be “no money” when you have a sovereign currency. 4. Govt debt had increased mainly due to the crash in the global financial markets (an exogenous event). 5. That debt has more than doubled under subsequent coalition then Tory governments (again you can point to the pandemic as an exogenous event)." If 1 to 3 above is true, why on earth would Liam Byrne say he “burnt with the shame” over it? You appear to want to pass it off as a long standing joke, but the British public did not find it at all funny. And never will. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its not inaccurate tropes as you put it, its logical facts but you know what as the saying goes in the Caribbean if you nah hear you must feel so you folks vote who you want to vote for but if Labour gets in (and I hope to God they dont) thats when you find out what Im talking about which by then the damage will already have be done Not sure how it's "inaccurate". Labour's Liam Byrne, later wrote of how he “burnt with the shame” over the letter which had been intended for Philip Hammond, a courteous and friendly Tory, who was expected to be appointed chief secretary. Insufficient shame to resign though. It doesn't need a note though from Liam Byrne to know that Labour are fiscally irresponsible, as you say. It is the same every time they get into power, they spend like there is no tomorrow, hook as many people as they can on generous benefits and then attack the following Tory government for making cuts when they are simply trying to reign in the largesse. On the other hand, the letter is the gift that keeps on giving! I am not defending Labour. I have no loyalty to any political party. 1. The letter was a tradition and joke between outgoing and incoming Ministers. 2. It actually said “there is no money” not “ha ha the pot is empty”. 3. It wasn’t true because there can never be “no money” when you have a sovereign currency. 4. Govt debt had increased mainly due to the crash in the global financial markets (an exogenous event). 5. That debt has more than doubled under subsequent coalition then Tory governments (again you can point to the pandemic as an exogenous event). If 1 to 3 above is true, why on earth would Liam Byrne say he “burnt with the shame” over it? You appear to want to pass it off as a long standing joke, but the British public did not find it at all funny. And never will. "
There is an element of the electorate that simply doesn't care about what actually happened and would prefer to believe whatever decade old trope they were told.
This is one of the reasons I'm expecting five more years of Tory rule. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main element of Labour's plans for illegal immigration seems to be a crackdown on criminal smuggler gangs through improved cooperation with Europe. Isn't going to happen is it? Firstly the gangs are likely operating outside the UK's legal jurisdiction, and secondly we know full well our esteemed neighbours in Europe have no interest in stopping cross-channel smuggling (quite the opposite). More likely, Labour will simply redefine 'illegal' immigration and so the numbers will appear to plummet." He hasn't got a plan, he has an idea that has dependencies that carry so much risk of failure that anyone with an ounce of reasoning can see will stall, and then fail. I fear you are correct in the real world, redefine X to give us a positive spin for progressive echo chambers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"He's going to return the Migrant Boat People - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Smash The Migrant Gangs by adding another word to the end of Border Force (COMMAND) - Is this the How? He's going to reduce the NHS waiting lists - But he doesn't say how. He's going to crack down on anti-social behaviour - But he doesn't say how. He's going to Launch Great British Energy (WTF?) and keep prices affordable for everyone forever (!) - But he doesn't say how. He's going to recruit 6,500 more teachers - currently there are currently around 2,300 vacant teacher posts advertised that are NOT being filled or even applied for. So where are they going to come from? He's also not making promises. lol. " Just jumping back to the original OP . . . Has he added any detail yet?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Its not inaccurate tropes as you put it, its logical facts but you know what as the saying goes in the Caribbean if you nah hear you must feel so you folks vote who you want to vote for but if Labour gets in (and I hope to God they dont) thats when you find out what Im talking about which by then the damage will already have be done Not sure how it's "inaccurate". Labour's Liam Byrne, later wrote of how he “burnt with the shame” over the letter which had been intended for Philip Hammond, a courteous and friendly Tory, who was expected to be appointed chief secretary. Insufficient shame to resign though. It doesn't need a note though from Liam Byrne to know that Labour are fiscally irresponsible, as you say. It is the same every time they get into power, they spend like there is no tomorrow, hook as many people as they can on generous benefits and then attack the following Tory government for making cuts when they are simply trying to reign in the largesse. On the other hand, the letter is the gift that keeps on giving! I am not defending Labour. I have no loyalty to any political party. 1. The letter was a tradition and joke between outgoing and incoming Ministers. 2. It actually said “there is no money” not “ha ha the pot is empty”. 3. It wasn’t true because there can never be “no money” when you have a sovereign currency. 4. Govt debt had increased mainly due to the crash in the global financial markets (an exogenous event). 5. That debt has more than doubled under subsequent coalition then Tory governments (again you can point to the pandemic as an exogenous event). If 1 to 3 above is true, why on earth would Liam Byrne say he “burnt with the shame” over it? You appear to want to pass it off as a long standing joke, but the British public did not find it at all funny. And never will. " Not “if true” it was/is true, end of! He was ashamed because he didn’t think the joke would be weaponised and he trusted his successor to honour the tradition which goes back decades and was, I think but need to check, started by an outgoing Tory Chancellor. His shame was in his naivety. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main element of Labour's plans for illegal immigration seems to be a crackdown on criminal smuggler gangs through improved cooperation with Europe. Isn't going to happen is it? Firstly the gangs are likely operating outside the UK's legal jurisdiction, and secondly we know full well our esteemed neighbours in Europe have no interest in stopping cross-channel smuggling (quite the opposite). More likely, Labour will simply redefine 'illegal' immigration and so the numbers will appear to plummet. He hasn't got a plan, he has an idea that has dependencies that carry so much risk of failure that anyone with an ounce of reasoning can see will stall, and then fail. I fear you are correct in the real world, redefine X to give us a positive spin for progressive echo chambers. " dont forget Starmer so woke to a point where he cant tell you what a woman is or too scared to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main element of Labour's plans for illegal immigration seems to be a crackdown on criminal smuggler gangs through improved cooperation with Europe. Isn't going to happen is it? Firstly the gangs are likely operating outside the UK's legal jurisdiction, and secondly we know full well our esteemed neighbours in Europe have no interest in stopping cross-channel smuggling (quite the opposite). More likely, Labour will simply redefine 'illegal' immigration and so the numbers will appear to plummet. He hasn't got a plan, he has an idea that has dependencies that carry so much risk of failure that anyone with an ounce of reasoning can see will stall, and then fail. I fear you are correct in the real world, redefine X to give us a positive spin for progressive echo chambers. dont forget Starmer so woke to a point where he cant tell you what a woman is or too scared to" Is he really so "aware of social injustice, especially racism"? Starmer doesn't come across very woke to most of us. I don't know how much of the electorate will have voting preferences that are entirely based on stumbling over a question about a sensitive topic a year or two ago then. But let's hope it's not too many. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Starmer doesn't come across very woke to most of us. " Starmer doesn't come across as 'awake' to me! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Starmer doesn't come across very woke to most of us. Starmer doesn't come across as 'awake' to me! "I mean there is that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Starmer doesn't come across very woke to most of us. Starmer doesn't come across as 'awake' to me!
I mean there is that. "Hear hear! It's incredibly concerning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People need to stop falling for this blind trap that woke or being polictically correct means being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. " Definitely does, have a look in the dictionary. " It actually means wanting to control what others say to suit ones narrative and thinking and its proven even down to films and tv shows you lot watch. " This is a totally different slang use for the word than some others on here take it to mean. Do you have an example of where Starmer, a movie or TV show that wants to control what we say? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People need to stop falling for this blind trap that woke or being polictically correct means being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. It actually means wanting to control what others say to suit ones narrative and thinking and its proven even down to films and tv shows you lot watch. " “You lot”???? What an incredibly patronising post. You are implying you are smarter and have some incredible insight other people do not have! What makes you think you have a better understanding on these points than others? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools." Well he is probably going save in the £370 million that has been thrown away on this Rwanda bill for a start Plus he won't be spending 4 billion of dogy PPE that had to be thrown away at a further cost | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools. Well he is probably going save in the £370 million that has been thrown away on this Rwanda bill for a start Plus he won't be spending 4 billion of dogy PPE that had to be thrown away at a further cost " Labour's plan for illegal immigration will simply be to legitimise the small boat crossings. Then, like magic, the numbers disappear, we don't even know we have an illegal immigration problem. It's a conjurer's illusion to make the problem vanish. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools. Well he is probably going save in the £370 million that has been thrown away on this Rwanda bill for a start Plus he won't be spending 4 billion of dogy PPE that had to be thrown away at a further cost " The £370 billion to be written off is small beer Dwarfed by the £2bn annual accommodation costs for those already here. Add the benefits, healthcare, legal, courts etc and the total undisclosed cost is a lot higher. The current 215,500 asylum cases on the home office website were never all going to get deported. At the reported 200 annual deportation capacity to Rwanda that would take 431 years to achieve, provided no more arrive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People need to stop falling for this blind trap that woke or being polictically correct means being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. It actually means wanting to control what others say to suit ones narrative and thinking and its proven even down to films and tv shows you lot watch. " . Well said. A small but highly vocal minority wanting to inflict their ideas on others . I prefer to accept what most rational people think , the ideas of the metropolitan privileged vocal elite can be consigned to the dust bin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools. Well he is probably going save in the £370 million that has been thrown away on this Rwanda bill for a start Plus he won't be spending 4 billion of dogy PPE that had to be thrown away at a further cost " A bizarre post. The government wanted to save lives and were battling against other countries in the world to obtain ppe. How msny people would you have preferred to die. ? Many lives were saved. The Rwanda scheme is already working and other countries want to copy it. Any law abiding citizens wants any steps necessary taken to stop illegal entry . You either come here lawfully or not all all | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People need to stop falling for this blind trap that woke or being polictically correct means being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. It actually means wanting to control what others say to suit ones narrative and thinking and its proven even down to films and tv shows you lot watch. " does it also include controlling the use of words to suit, too ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People need to stop falling for this blind trap that woke or being polictically correct means being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. It actually means wanting to control what others say to suit ones narrative and thinking and its proven even down to films and tv shows you lot watch. . Well said. A small but highly vocal minority wanting to inflict their ideas on others . I prefer to accept what most rational people think , the ideas of the metropolitan privileged vocal elite can be consigned to the dust bin. " ... Along with the dictionary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools. Well he is probably going save in the £370 million that has been thrown away on this Rwanda bill for a start Plus he won't be spending 4 billion of dogy PPE that had to be thrown away at a further cost A bizarre post. The government wanted to save lives and were battling against other countries in the world to obtain ppe. How msny people would you have preferred to die. ? Many lives were saved. The Rwanda scheme is already working and other countries want to copy it. Any law abiding citizens wants any steps necessary taken to stop illegal entry . You either come here lawfully or not all all " The Rwanda scheme did seem to have an effect without actually being implemented which surprised me. But the main part of the scheme of sending people to Rwanda has not been tested and due to Labour's position on it, is never going to be tested. Apparently several EU countries are changing their minds on the scheme and looking at similar options. So it is possible the UK scraps it only to see it introduced by others | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A bizarre post. The government wanted to save lives and were battling against other countries in the world to obtain ppe. How msny people would you have preferred to die. ? Many lives were saved." At a cursory glance this post seems reasonable but of course it totally misses the key points about the whole PPE scandal. First of all the Tory govt completely ignored recommendations from Operation Cygnus in 2016 that tested NHS preparedness for a pandemic. That included maintaining adequate stock of PPE and emergency call off contracts to ramp up supply instantly. Second, when going out to market to procure PPE not only did they consistently ignore experienced, specialist UK companies, they actually created a VIP lane that was ONLY accessible to Tory MPs and their contacts, that provided a 1 in 10 chance of contract award vs 1 in 100 chance via standard channels AND grossly overpaid middle man fixers like Doug Barrowman and Baroness Mone fleecing taxpayers and in many cases delivering substandard and unusable PPE (that taxpayers are still paying £millions to yet more Tory cronies to store or destroy). It was basically a huge money laundering scheme set up to steal public money and put it into private hands (but only those with connections to the Tory party in some shape or form). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"These are the pledges Sticking to tough spending rules in order to deliver economic stability Cutting NHS waiting lists by providing 40,000 more appointments each week - funded by tackling tax avoidance and non-dom loopholes. Launching a border security command to stop the gangs arranging small boat crossings Setting up Great British Energy, a publicly owned clean power energy company Providing more neighbourhood police officers to reduce antisocial behaviour and introduced new penalties for offenders Recruiting 6,500 teachers, paid for through ending tax breaks for private schools. Well he is probably going save in the £370 million that has been thrown away on this Rwanda bill for a start Plus he won't be spending 4 billion of dogy PPE that had to be thrown away at a further cost A bizarre post. The government wanted to save lives and were battling against other countries in the world to obtain ppe. How msny people would you have preferred to die. ? Many lives were saved. The Rwanda scheme is already working and other countries want to copy it. Any law abiding citizens wants any steps necessary taken to stop illegal entry . You either come here lawfully or not all all The Rwanda scheme did seem to have an effect without actually being implemented which surprised me. But the main part of the scheme of sending people to Rwanda has not been tested and due to Labour's position on it, is never going to be tested. Apparently several EU countries are changing their minds on the scheme and looking at similar options. So it is possible the UK scraps it only to see it introduced by others " many of the others are looking to use offshore countries to house, but the processing is still done by the eu country and refugee status will be granted for the EU country. Afaik, we are the only one that is handing over processing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
