Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
anonymoususer said:
I always go back to the title of the thread. He can and has.
Not this again! Johnson and Truss did the work, with icing on the cake from Sunak;s gaffes. Starmer breathed air as it happened.If you missed the Lord Ashcfoft and Guardian links, Starmer has failed to win hearts and minds, voters tend to prefer Tory policy but dislike the Tories more, and won't vote for them due to the people. Self-inflicted.
This isn't down to Boris.
It's down to the tory infighting and changes of leadership.
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
hidetheelephants said:
philv said:
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
This sort of bedwetting is hilarious. It's just a fact.
It may have escaped your notice, but BJ was pretty darn successful.
Like him or loath him, it changes nothing.
Very few people outside of labour diehards want what labour are going to bring to the party.
Unfortunnatly the great british public are easily led, believe whatever s
te the read on twitter etc etc.We'' see if you ind it hilarious in 5 years.
Derek Smith said:
1/ VAT remains the same at 20%.
2/ Not VAT and, NI and tax rates.
The vast majority of parents who send their kids to private school have stated they will continue to do so. It is also the norm. Tax rises on cigarettes stopped very few smoking. The same goes, but more so, for alcohol. It is probable they will pay up. The reasons for sending children to private schools will remain.
What are these unintended but not unforeseeable, and apparently difficult to specify, circumstances?
The exemption of a service, or product, from VAT has to be justified. What justification can there be for what is an expensive item, out of reach for most of the population and enjoyed by, as you suggest, a 'minority'? A private school near me charges £17,000+ per term for boarders. That, of course, is the base charge. There are a number of oncosts. That puts it out of reach of the majority of those who have kids. Mind you, I expect some of the fee will be 'absorbed', in the same way the cuts were absorbed by a number of public services. Full details for one particular one available on request.
The financial state of the country is such that sacrifices will have to be made by many. Fewer visits to food banks is not really an option that will bring much in. The lower middle has been squeezed. Where's the money for rebuilding coming from? How about luxury goods, particularly those so far exempt from VAT?
(1) is a change that increases VAT on a service.2/ Not VAT and, NI and tax rates.
The vast majority of parents who send their kids to private school have stated they will continue to do so. It is also the norm. Tax rises on cigarettes stopped very few smoking. The same goes, but more so, for alcohol. It is probable they will pay up. The reasons for sending children to private schools will remain.
What are these unintended but not unforeseeable, and apparently difficult to specify, circumstances?
The exemption of a service, or product, from VAT has to be justified. What justification can there be for what is an expensive item, out of reach for most of the population and enjoyed by, as you suggest, a 'minority'? A private school near me charges £17,000+ per term for boarders. That, of course, is the base charge. There are a number of oncosts. That puts it out of reach of the majority of those who have kids. Mind you, I expect some of the fee will be 'absorbed', in the same way the cuts were absorbed by a number of public services. Full details for one particular one available on request.
The financial state of the country is such that sacrifices will have to be made by many. Fewer visits to food banks is not really an option that will bring much in. The lower middle has been squeezed. Where's the money for rebuilding coming from? How about luxury goods, particularly those so far exempt from VAT?
Either way, we won't have to wait very long before those pledges of Starmer's are broken because on (2) there is sweet FA he can do outside of those 3x items that will raise the money he needs to raise. That you cannot cite any other areas where it will come from suggests it's not written down anywhere referenceable.
Can you please show me the data that backs up your assertions on what people sending kids to private school will do? Because I don't believe there is any of any substance.
The unintended consequences are not difficult to specify if you want to think about them.
Despite the 450k available secondary spaces that someone else (sim72?) noted, our state education system is in a state. I am only primarily interested in my own area and my own kids, on which the available state secondary schools around here are all under various measures and have been for years with little sign of improvement.
If people take their kids out of the private system, the likelihood, IMO, will be those parents will either move into catchment of better schools, and/or pay for extra tuition (that may or may not attract additional taxes). Would you like me to spell out what I think the results of those actions will be on those currently "disadvantaged"?
The "lower middle" aren't the only ones who are squeezed, and this further stratification simply increases division. We ALL need to pay more if we want better services. Govts being proud of taking more people out of paying tax, as one example, needs to stop.
FWIW I tend to agree that luxury goods and services could and likely should be taxed harder. However I do not see good quality education as a "luxury" and I sure as hell don't think penalising anyone striving for that through whatever means is sensible at all. It is levelling down simply because "well they can afford it and that's not fair", without fully acnowledging that those who are taking that path are paying more than twice already.
I would be very happy for a party to say they are going to change VAT. But only if they put it on proper luxury goods. Add additional layers of it if needed. I also think it would be a good way to ensure that some of the larger corps that get people all gammony collect taxes where their business us actually done. Win win.
btw, cigarettes and alcohol comparisons are silly. Not only are they relatively affordable, even with high levels of tax, they are also addictive substances. Both of which might be more indicative reasons why people still smoke and drink. Though both, interestingly, are in decline. Which even given the other facets noted kind of doesn't support your argument very well
( smoking and alcohol. Alcohol's on less of a downward slope, and there are other interesting stats on it, not least of which that increasing duties doesn't seem to stop those being most impacted being in the most deprived areas...so again, I'm not sure the outcome is as intended).That you feel comparing good education with cigarette and alcohol consumption is sensible looks like it sums up why you're cool with the idea...and it doesn't sound like it has anything at all to do with improving outcomes.
Edited by Murph7355 on Sunday 23 June 00:33
Derek Smith said:
Murph7355 said:
1) He is changing VAT - on private school fees 
1/ VAT remains the same at 20%.For some reason the IFS made up figure that had people talking about 40,000 extra pupils to accommodate in the state sector as a result was based on an effective VAT rate of 15%.
Labour aren't even in yet and there are already private schools who have seen much larger drops for this year's intake than the IFS prediction.
philv said:
If the conservatives had stuck with Boris theyd be getting reelected on 4th july.
This isn't down to Boris.
It's down to the tory infighting and changes of leadership.
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
If Johnson hadn't been completely and utterly bent you mean?This isn't down to Boris.
It's down to the tory infighting and changes of leadership.
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
Because you must have forgotten that part.
This is entirely self-inflicted.
You (not you personally) were told at the time but hey "will of the people" you know.
Guess that's where we are now too.
Boris would have done much better than Rishi if he'd stayed on and had no more scandals and could probably have convinced a lot of people to forget the parties, but we all know that it would have continued with yet another scandal after yet another scandal because that's what Boris brings.
Mr Penguin said:
Boris would have done much better than Rishi if he'd stayed on and had no more scandals and could probably have convinced a lot of people to forget the parties, but we all know that it would have continued with yet another scandal after yet another scandal because that's what Boris brings.
As you say though he was incapable of no more scandals and people don't and haven't forgotten the lies and the parties.I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
Both in quantity and seriousness.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
I appreciate you're too new to politics to understand this, but it's how it works when you're in government. The Conservatives were seen to be scandal free during the scandalous last Labour government, before which the Conservatives were the party of scandals.It will be Labour's turn again next.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: As you say though he was incapable of no more scandals and people don't and haven't forgotten the lies and the parties.
I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
Both in quantity and seriousness.
Part of the reason people haven't forgotten about the parties is because Truss was useless and Rishi didn't bury it so it became a symbol of wider incompetence as much as an active issue in itself. I think if you ask people how important they are in their vote they will get more prominence now the betting scandal is in the news than they would last week.I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
Both in quantity and seriousness.
I'm not surprised that Labour doesn't have many scandals - there are fewer opportunities in opposition and those that are there are also available to the government (who by definition have more MPs so more opportunities for backbenchers to do something), the media narrative is still focused on the Conservatives and not on Labour, and they are more disciplined because they can sense being in office in two weeks time with relatively new candidates and a lot of choice.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:philv said:
If the conservatives had stuck with Boris theyd be getting reelected on 4th july.
This isn't down to Boris.
It's down to the tory infighting and changes of leadership.
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
If Johnson hadn't been completely and utterly bent you mean?This isn't down to Boris.
It's down to the tory infighting and changes of leadership.
This country is going to be screwed by a hard left government because the torys could not present a unified front.
Because you must have forgotten that part.
This is entirely self-inflicted.
You (not you personally) were told at the time but hey "will of the people" you know.
Guess that's where we are now too.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Mr Penguin said:
Boris would have done much better than Rishi if he'd stayed on and had no more scandals and could probably have convinced a lot of people to forget the parties, but we all know that it would have continued with yet another scandal after yet another scandal because that's what Boris brings.
As you say though he was incapable of no more scandals and people don't and haven't forgotten the lies and the parties.I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
Both in quantity and seriousness.
You'll have to wait till labour are in gov for their scandals.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: As you say though he was incapable of no more scandals and people don't and haven't forgotten the lies and the parties.
I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
Both in quantity and seriousness.
Perhaps Starmer has done a deal with Murdoch to hide the fact his dad ran a dildo factory all those years ago?I'm sure at some point something will come up at some point but genuinely is nobody even a tiny bit surprised at the utter lack of scandal in the Labour party in comparison to the Conservatives?
Both in quantity and seriousness.
hidetheelephants said:
It's a luxury, it gets taxed along with all the other luxuries.
We'll that's telling....Anyone regarding education as a luxury is an idiot. (ad hom me all you like, point and opinion remains).
If state education was good enough on a nationally consistent basis then using private education should be unnecessary. It isn't. That is what the govt should focus on.
Instead they are tapping into "it's unfair" and getting people all frothy about how unfair it is.... Rather than how unfair it is we don't all have access to the same standard of state provided education.
If there are 450k "spaces" already, they shouldn't need MORE money to fix the genuine issues. The 1.5bn pipedteam that will never materialise will fix nothing.
It shows exactly where the priority is. It is levelling DOWN.
.:ian:. said:
biggbn said:
.:ian:. said:
biggbn said:
.:ian:. said:
He is a simple ex-barrister tool-makers son.
I don't get this sneering. He can be both, can't he? 
Although I'd hazard a guess that they're still a little sore Corby isn't running for PM.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff