UK Politics

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Neil said:

its not the schools who'll pay the VAT itll be the parents of the kids.

But it's the schools who will have to make cuts to account for the ten's of thousands of pupils who will be re-locating to state schools and the government will have to raise the money to pay for the extra teachers and infrastructure needed - this in addition to the money raised by the imposition of VAT on fees. 
They really haven't thought this through.

Edited May 31, 2024 by Ommadawn

[steviewevie]

12 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

The sad thing is that during New Labour, Labour still had their roots firmly grounded in working class politics and the trade union movement. All of that cohort, whilst taking Labour in a different direction, would have been raised in an indelibly marked by the real traditions of the Labour movement.

The same cannot be said of this cohort. This is a party pursuing turbo blairism, made up to a much greater extent of people who grew up during the New Labour era after Labour had distanced itself from the Labour movement.

 

So if the acceptance of Blairism was for many, the act of swallowing a bitter pill and doing what you have to to get into power and maintain power, whilst believing in earnest in the fundamentals of socialism, I’d say nowadays, the party is made up to a far greater extent of people who actually didnt get that second part, and didnt perceive marketisation as a necessary evil. Thats the difference between then and now.

 

And in terms of outcome, it will mean all of the worst parts of Blairism with less concern for helping the worst off.

kind of contradicts what we've been saying about McSweeney and Labour Together and all that...but ok...turbo blairism.

[steviewevie]

Abbott thinking oh f**k do I really need to do this?

[steviewevie]

Now Starmer will get attacked from the right for looking weak and flip-floppy, same old lefty antisemitic labour... forever and ever..amen.

[steviewevie]

maybe now everyone will stop banging on about Diane f**king Abbott.

(but they probably won't)

[steviewevie]

also possibly shows that Angela Rayner does have quite a bit of power within Labour, more than past deputy leaders.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Labour have been quite specific about tax rises and said they will not increase them apart from those ones already announced so if they then increase others they lied.

https://www.ft.com/content/7749757c-a00f-4e34-b15c-f5bb33e5ee85

paywall

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

It is still down to the NEC next week though isn't it?

No, think this is it...Starner says she's free to stand. 

[steviewevie]

Ok well I bet you £1000000000000 that this is the decision, she can stand if she wants. The NEC are majorly Starmer people.

[Neil]

46 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

The sad thing is that during New Labour, Labour still had their roots firmly grounded in working class politics and the trade union movement. All of that cohort, whilst taking Labour in a different direction, would have been raised in an indelibly marked by the real traditions of the Labour movement.

The same cannot be said of this cohort. This is a party pursuing turbo blairism, made up to a much greater extent of people who grew up during the New Labour era after Labour had distanced itself from the Labour movement.

 

So if the acceptance of Blairism was for many, the act of swallowing a bitter pill and doing what you have to to get into power and maintain power, whilst believing in earnest in the fundamentals of socialism, I’d say nowadays, the party is made up to a far greater extent of people who actually didnt get that second part, and didnt perceive marketisation as a necessary evil. Thats the difference between then and now.

 

And in terms of outcome, it will mean all of the worst parts of Blairism with less concern for helping the worst off.

what blair knew not to do was waste political capital on 'nice to have' policies. he realised re-nationalising the railways was a thing to avoid, cos his govt is then responsible for every late train and every fare-rise.

 

blairism was very successful at helping the worst off.

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

48 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

But it's the schools who will have to make cuts to account for the ten's of thousands of pupils who will be re-locating to state schools and the government will have to raise the money to pay for the extra teachers and infrastructure needed - this in addition to the money raised by the imposition of VAT on fees. 
They really haven't thought this through.

its a policy which has lots of impact back onto state schools but extra teachers and infastructure probably won't be that impact,  cos its unlikely they'll be enough ex-private school kids at any one school to have that big an impact. its gonna be ones and twos scattered all round the country, and mostly absorbed into spare capacity.

[lazyred]

36 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

 

The sad thing is that during New Labour, Labour still had their roots firmly grounded in working class politics and the trade union movement. All of that cohort, whilst taking Labour in a different direction, would have been raised in an indelibly marked by the real traditions of the Labour movement.

The same cannot be said of this cohort. This is a party pursuing turbo blairism, made up to a much greater extent of people who grew up during the New Labour era after Labour had distanced itself from the Labour movement.

 

So if the acceptance of Blairism was for many, the act of swallowing a bitter pill and doing what you have to to get into power and maintain power, whilst believing in earnest in the fundamentals of socialism, I’d say nowadays, the party is made up to a far greater extent of people who actually didnt get that second part, and didnt perceive marketisation as a necessary evil. Thats the difference between then and now.

 

And in terms of outcome, it will mean all of the worst parts of Blairism with less concern for helping the worst off.

This is just nonsense. The unions are still embedded in the party at all levels. The main people around Starmer are basically the same as around Ed Miliband. The Labour revival has killed the Blairite plans for a new party. Purging Corbyn and Momentum is not turbo blairism. The arguments about socialism in the Labour party (in practice meaning a mixed economy nationalising the natural monopolies) have been going on for decades.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Now Starmer will get attacked from the right for looking weak and flip-floppy, same old lefty antisemitic labour... forever and ever..amen.

 

Already in the Sun

 

SIR Keir Starmer has today CAVED to Diane Abbott and let her stand for Labour in the election - marking a massive u-turn.

The wannabe PM backed down to the veteran left-winger following a a backlash at his bungled attempt to block her candidacy.

He today confirmed she was "free" to run in Hackney North for the party - just hours after saying no decision was made.

It culminates a hellish 48 hours in which splits emerged within Labour over whether to welcome back Ms Abbott, who had been under investigation for an anti-semitism scandal.

He appeared to have been bounced into the decision by his deputy Angela Rayner and Scots leader Anas Sarwar who said Ms Abbott should be allowed to stand.

 

etc etc

 

Edited May 31, 2024 by Ommadawn

[lazyred]

28 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Nope, NEC

""

Asked if Abbott will be allowed to run on behalf of Labour, Starmer replies: "She is free to go forward as a Labour candidate, the whip is back with her, it's been restored."

But he reminds reporters that it is "formally a matter for the NEC" but he has not expressed a view until now and reiterates Abbott is free to run as a Labour candidate.""

That's the formal process but the BBC are reporting Labour sources saying she will be selected -

 

In the last few minutes, we've heard Labour leader Keir Starmer say Diane Abbott is "free to go forward" as a Labour candidate.

A senior Labour source has clarified that this means Abbott will be Labour's candidate in the constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

They also confirm the National Executive Committee (NEC), Labour's governing body, will not block her.

The committee will meet next week to endorse all Labour's candidates before nominations legally close on 7 June.

 

[Neil]

8 minutes ago, lazyred said:

This is just nonsense. The unions are still embedded in the party at all levels. The main people around Starmer are basically the same as around Ed Miliband. The Labour revival has killed the Blairite plans for a new party. Purging Corbyn and Momentum is not turbo blairism. The arguments about socialism in the Labour party (in practice meaning a mixed economy nationalising the natural monopolies) have been going on for decades.

if you spend resources on nationalising  those resources aren't available to improve peoples lives.

[lazyred]

49 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Labour have been quite specific about tax rises and said they will not increase them apart from those ones already announced so if they then increase others they lied.

https://www.ft.com/content/7749757c-a00f-4e34-b15c-f5bb33e5ee85

What if they restrict tax relief on pension contributions or apply capital gains tax on your main house or replace council tax or start indexing  fuel duty again or extend NI to pensioner income or put charges on some free services. None of those would make Reeves a liar.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, Ommadawn said:

 it's the schools who will have to make cuts to account for the ten's of thousands of pupils who will be re-locating to state schools 

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

Genuinely perplexes me that people send their kids to private school, I went to one of the best state schools in Scotland (lucky, I know) and if you can afford to live in the catchment area then a decent amount will also be able to afford school fees but many choose not to cause the state school is good.

 

And you might say , 'well not all state schools are good and some are dumps' but people who could go to private school don't tend to live in areas with poor state schools from my experience. It may be different in England where you have grammar schools etc I dunno

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lazyred said:

What if they restrict tax relief on pension contributions or apply capital gains tax on your main house or replace council tax or start indexing  fuel duty again or extend NI to pensioner income or put charges on some free services. None of those would make Reeves a liar.

Just continuing to freeze income tax thresholds will be like a tax increase 

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20240528/281487871475247

Plenty of other sources if you look.

Edited May 31, 2024 by Ommadawn

[steviewevie]

I actually would have preferred Faiza Shaheen to stand rather than Abbott...not sure what Abbott can actually contribute whereas Shaheen seemed smart, keen etc. May not have been super loyal but wouldn't be grumbling about everything like Abbott does.

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

What's the actual evidence for this? I highly doubt this transpires.

 

Genuinely perplexes me that people send their kids to private school, I went to one of the best state schools in Scotland (lucky, I know) and if you can afford to live in the catchment area then a decent amount will also be able to afford school fees but many choose not to cause the state school is good.

 

And you might say , 'well not all state schools are good and some are dumps' but people who could go to private school don't tend to live in areas with poor state schools from my experience. It may be different in England where you have grammar schools etc I dunno

They send their kids to private schools because the best universities and the best jobs in business/science/arts/politics are full of people who went to private schools.

Edited May 31, 2024 by steviewevie

[fraybentos1]

5 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20240528/281487871475247

Plenty of other sources if you look.

Yeah I've seen stuff like this. What people say they will do and what actually happens is a different matter.

 

It's like when before we had a minimum wage people said we can't have this, it's unaffordable and businesses will go under. Yet here we are. 

 

Why the f**k shouldn't they pay VAT. Please spare me the charitable status drivel cause its total pish.

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Ommadawn said:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20240528/281487871475247

Plenty of other sources if you look.

like...

The public cost of private schools: rising fees and luxury facilities raise questions about charitable status (theconversation.com)