It's interesting how so many people today are in favour of mind-altering drugs being legalised but are against free speech in case it offends people. I find that combination puzzling.
I found interesting the report the other day that US states that have legalised cannabis have seen a 10% reduction in underage young people taking the drug.
Licensed and legal outlets puts drug dealers out of business and while legal outlets have to ask for ID, drug dealers don't.
I would love to see a link to that if you have it.
It's interesting how so many people today are in favour of mind-altering drugs being legalised but are against free speech in case it offends people. I find that combination puzzling.
I found interesting the report the other day that US states that have legalised cannabis have seen a 10% reduction in underage young people taking the drug.
Licensed and legal outlets puts drug dealers out of business and while legal outlets have to ask for ID, drug dealers don't.
I would love to see a link to that if you have it.
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
To hold the view that the private option should not be available but send your own child private is to place the welfare of your child above your political principles.
It is harsh and unfair to describe this as hypocrisy.
However, if you send your child private but attack others for doing the same, that IS hypocrisy.
While if you send your child private while attacking others for having been sent to private school themselves (something they had no control over) that is even worse hypocrisy.
» show previous quotes What did you get? I had had a series of A4s and their cost seemed to have gone from about £22k to £30k+. Nice cars but not worth that. It seemed to reflect the exchange rate changes more than general inflation though.
It was a Q5 S Line TDI40, took all the bells & whistles , everything but sunroof. Very nice to drive and can potter along on soft suspension or in sports mode etc. The auto DSG box is incredible.
Wow. That's quite a few turnips! Congratulations.
It was indeed, I thought I would treat myself. Thank you.
Hm, has I known turnip farming was so lucrative, I would have taken a different path in my life
It's interesting how so many people today are in favour of mind-altering drugs being legalised but are against free speech in case it offends people. I find that combination puzzling.
I found interesting the report the other day that US states that have legalised cannabis have seen a 10% reduction in underage young people taking the drug.
Licensed and legal outlets puts drug dealers out of business and while legal outlets have to ask for ID, drug dealers don't.
I would love to see a link to that if you have it.
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
I don't think it's at all hypocritical to say "The system loads the dice in favour of people whose families do X. Like everyone else I'll try to make sure my family doesn't lose out, but I think the system is wrong." The same applies to someone whose spouse is facing a 2-year waiting list for a hip replacement - they may (as Denis Healey did) say OK, I'll pay for you to go private, but that doesn't mean they suddenly think 2-year waiting lists are a good thing.
The case is a little stronger when it comes to oneself - I've declined to have private medical treatment when something arose for that reason. But I don't think we should ask our families in the present be hostage to what we believe the future ought to be like.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
I lean more to KInabalu's view than yours. One's own principles should come second to the welfare of one's children/family. Although I'm in favour of community schooling, we have grammar schools here and I was happy to apply for a place for our daughter.
Another example is veganism: vegans shouldn't stop their children eating meat.
But that's the problem: you can go against your principles because *reasons*, yet you want others (who may not share those principles) to suffer the effects of those principles and not to be able to make that choice.
In other words: you are putting your family first (and fair enough). But you want to stop others from making exactly the same choice. Because ... reasons.
Actually, it's because people who do this instinctively think they're better than other people, and are therefore worthy of it. After all., they have 'principles'.
(By 'you', I don't mean you specifically, but someone in that situation.)
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
I don't think it's at all hypocritical to say "The system loads the dice in favour of people whose families do X. Like everyone else I'll try to make sure my family doesn't lose out, but I think the system is wrong." The same applies to someone whose spouse is facing a 2-year waiting list for a hip replacement - they may (as Denis Healey did) say OK, I'll pay for you to go private, but that doesn't mean they suddenly think 2-year waiting lists are a good thing.
The case is a little stronger when it comes to oneself - I've declined to have private medical treatment when something arose for that reason. But I don't think we should ask our families in the present be hostage to what we believe the future ought to be like.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
I lean more to KInabalu's view than yours. One's own principles should come second to the welfare of one's children/family. Although I'm in favour of community schooling, we have grammar schools here and I was happy to apply for a place for our daughter.
Another example is veganism: vegans shouldn't stop their children eating meat.
But that's the problem: you can go against your principles because *reasons*, yet you want others (who may not share those principles) to suffer the effects of those principles and not to be able to make that choice.
In other words: you are putting your family first (and fair enough). But you want to stop others from making exactly the same choice. Because ... reasons.
Actually, it's because people who do this instinctively think they're better than other people, and are therefore worthy of it. After all., they have 'principles'.
(By 'you', I don't mean you specifically, but someone in that situation.)
"A senior Northern Ireland civil servant was paid £10,000 in compensation because he was offended at having to walk past portraits of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, it has emerged."
On Bridlington, clearly it's a poor result for both Labour and the Conservatives, and a very impressive one for the Lib Dems. But I would be wary of inferring too much from the swings which (a) are from May 2019 - how much has genuinely changed since then? and (b) are based on a three-seat election in which there were just 3 Conservative candidates and 1 Labour one, which would tend to inflate the Conservatives vote above and beyond, as they will have picked up some Labour "second preferences". And of course, there was no Lib Dem candidate at all.May 2019 result
Con 2101 Con 2050 Con 1929 Lab 855
Yesterday's by-election
Lib Dem 1308 Con 815 UKIP 349 Yorks 196 Lab 135 Ind 125 Ind 76 Ind 58
If we're going to look at local by-elections for a steer (and I think we should) we have to do so intelligently, and by looking at aggregate trends, not the seemingly startling outliers.
All this morning we have heard from Conservative posters telling other Conservative posters that they ought to go off an join the Lib Dems. I expect that, somehow, the good electors of Bridlington were just one day head of that good advice.
I think it’s clear that the voters are way ahead of the politicians at the moment. Yesterday’s Bridlington by-election result above is evidence for that.
Blue on blue catfights are just going to drive even more voters towards the Lib Dems, the natural home for most disaffected Tories.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
That is not what is happening in my scenario.
You believe the private option should not exist because (IYO) it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. That is a political opinion. It does not mean you are claiming to have higher standards than you actually have. Not at all.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
(i) You go state, prioritizing your political views over the welfare of your child?
(ii) Or you go private, prioritizing your child's welfare over your politics?
The 1st might be very noble - although some would say it is not particularly admirable to sacrifice your child's welfare on the altar of your politics - but the 2nd cannot fairly or accurately be described as hypocritical.
Hypocritical is as per the example I gave. If you criticize others for going private but then do so yourself. THAT is hypocritical.
This also accords with your definition - since in that case you would indeed be claiming to be morally superior to others (via your criticism of them) whilst your actions give the lie to it.
"A senior Northern Ireland civil servant was paid £10,000 in compensation because he was offended at having to walk past portraits of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, it has emerged."
There was an interesting debate on @Cyclefree's thread about when it is appropriate for a politician to resign. Signing off on a payment like that seems a pretty good example to me.
Given the LDs were the only unequivocally anti Brexit and pro Remain in all circumstances party who stood in that ward in Bridlington, 57% of the voters in that ward did not vote for an anti Brexit Party
Just saw this on the previous thread. For those who missed it it's a keeper.....
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
I don't think it's at all hypocritical to say "The system loads the dice in favour of people whose families do X. Like everyone else I'll try to make sure my family doesn't lose out, but I think the system is wrong." The same applies to someone whose spouse is facing a 2-year waiting list for a hip replacement - they may (as Denis Healey did) say OK, I'll pay for you to go private, but that doesn't mean they suddenly think 2-year waiting lists are a good thing.
The case is a little stronger when it comes to oneself - I've declined to have private medical treatment when something arose for that reason. But I don't think we should ask our families in the present be hostage to what we believe the future ought to be like.
With this debate, which surfaces every few years, if not months, when some Labour MP or other sends their kid to private school, I find it more enlightening to ask the individual what is so wrong with private education that they object to it on principle?
i.e. what is the nature of the principle.
It is clearly isn't a horrendously deep moral principle since in that case they wouldn't consider for a moment sending their child to private school.
Unless the child wanted to go to that school. Then we open a whole other barrel of issues.
» show previous quotes What did you get? I had had a series of A4s and their cost seemed to have gone from about £22k to £30k+. Nice cars but not worth that. It seemed to reflect the exchange rate changes more than general inflation though.
It was a Q5 S Line TDI40, took all the bells & whistles , everything but sunroof. Very nice to drive and can potter along on soft suspension or in sports mode etc. The auto DSG box is incredible.
Wow. That's quite a few turnips! Congratulations.
It was indeed, I thought I would treat myself. Thank you.
Hm, has I known turnip farming was so lucrative, I would have taken a different path in my life
You clearly don't remember the Turnip Mania of the mid 1990s. Worth more than gold at one point.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
That is not what is happening in my scenario.
You believe the private option should not exist because (IYO) it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. That is a political opinion. It does not mean you are claiming to have higher standards than you actually have. Not at all.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
(i) You go state, prioritizing your political views over the welfare of your child?
(ii) Or you go private, prioritizing your child's welfare over your politics?
The 1st might be very noble - although some would say it is not particularly admirable to sacrifice your child's welfare on the altar of your politics - but the 2nd cannot fairly or accurately be described as hypocritical.
Hypocritical is as per the example I gave. If you criticize others for going private but then do so yourself. THAT is hypocritical.
This also accords with your definition - since in that case you would indeed be claiming to be morally superior to others (via your criticism of them) whilst your actions give the lie to it.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
That is not what is happening in my scenario.
You believe the private option should not exist because (IYO) it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. That is a political opinion. It does not mean you are claiming to have higher standards than you actually have. Not at all.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
(i) You go state, prioritizing your political views over the welfare of your child?
(ii) Or you go private, prioritizing your child's welfare over your politics?
The 1st might be very noble - although some would say it is not particularly admirable to sacrifice your child's welfare on the altar of your politics - but the 2nd cannot fairly or accurately be described as hypocritical.
Hypocritical is as per the example I gave. If you criticize others for going private but then do so yourself. THAT is hypocritical.
This also accords with your definition - since in that case you would indeed be claiming to be morally superior to others (via your criticism of them) whilst your actions give the lie to it.
But in that scenario, why does *your* child matter more than those of people you want to prevent making that same choice? Why should others be denied the choice you have made?
(As it happens, we're both privately educated (in my case, both private and state), and we're not planning to send the little 'un to a private school.)
"A senior Northern Ireland civil servant was paid £10,000 in compensation because he was offended at having to walk past portraits of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, it has emerged."
Unbelievable Villiers signed off on that and Stephenson recommended she should too. WIll unionists be able to claim compo for walking past McGuinness' picture too ?!
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
To hold the view that the private option should not be available but send your own child private is to place the welfare of your child above your political principles.
It is harsh and unfair to describe this as hypocrisy.
However, if you send your child private but attack others for doing the same, that IS hypocrisy.
Generally I agree. However, you have to be convinced about the true motivation of the individuals in the specific context.
In the case of Diane Abbott, for example, a hard left winger who you would have thought would have been all for a wealth tax, I could only make sense of her campaign against Ed Miliband's mansion tax policy on the grounds of her own personal political expediency (i.e. seeking favour with some constituents in a constituency with high property prices). I concluded that her own political principles are less deeply held than is apparent and would invariably be trumped by her self interest. Because of that, I am less sympathetic to the educational choices that she made for her children.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
That is not what is happening in my scenario.
You believe the private option should not exist because (IYO) it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. That is a political opinion. It does not mean you are claiming to have higher standards than you actually have. Not at all.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
(i) You go state, prioritizing your political views over the welfare of your child?
(ii) Or you go private, prioritizing your child's welfare over your politics?
The 1st might be very noble - although some would say it is not particularly admirable to sacrifice your child's welfare on the altar of your politics - but the 2nd cannot fairly or accurately be described as hypocritical.
Hypocritical is as per the example I gave. If you criticize others for going private but then do so yourself. THAT is hypocritical.
This also accords with your definition - since in that case you would indeed be claiming to be morally superior to others (via your criticism of them) whilst your actions give the lie to it.
But in that scenario, why does *your* child matter more than those of people you want to prevent making that same choice? Why should others be denied the choice you have made?
(As it happens, we're both privately educated (in my case, both private and state), and we're not planning to send the little 'un to a private school.)
Private schools are much more expensive and state schools superior to when we were young (You're 40ish iirc ?) I think @JosiasJessop.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
Resign, if you really, really think it is a moral wrong for such jobs to exist. If you just marvel every day at the absurdity of you getting paid so much money for such a job, then crack on.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
We should really be arguing a) is it right to call turning state schools into academies privatization and if so b) what should you do to stop it. So the mail raising the fact that he sends his child to a a private school is deliberately muddying the waters.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
.
That rarely really happens though. School access in the state sector is driven by wealth. If you are in a financial position to pay private school fees you are more than likely on the doorstep of a pretty darn good state school.
"there are no good state schools" is a way of justifying a desire to send your child to a fee paying school.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, at best disappointing and perhaps in some ways contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
We should really be arguing a) is it right to call turning state schools into academies privatization and if so b) what should you do to stop it. So the mail raising the fact that he sends his child to a a private school is deliberately muddying the waters.
Yes but we're having fun on here of a Friday afternoon so to hell with it.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
.
That rarely really happens though. School access in the state sector is driven by wealth. If you are in a financial position to pay private school fees you are more than likely on the doorstep of a pretty darn good state school.
"there are no good state schools" is a way of justifying a desire to send your child to a fee paying school.
The corollary of which of course is that you will pay some large proportion of multi-year private school fees in the premium you will have price paid for living next to a good state school.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
What goods or services would such a job involve trading in ?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, disappointing and perhaps contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, disappointing and perhaps contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
:-o
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
I am always impressed with the number of highly intelligent stupid people who manage to make it from Oxford to the media.
But in that scenario, why does *your* child matter more than those of people you want to prevent making that same choice? Why should others be denied the choice you have made?
(As it happens, we're both privately educated (in my case, both private and state), and we're not planning to send the little 'un to a private school.)
Your own child tends to matter more to you than anybody else's. That is human nature.
Why should others be denied the choice? They won't be unless a policy of banning private schools is enacted. In which case it applies to everybody.
This is just a conflict between political view and private interest. It is only hypocrisy of you attack others for doing what you yourself do.
Similar example -
You do not believe in private healthcare but you discover that by paying a few thousand you can get your mother's hip done in 2 weeks rather than 2 years.
So you do it. Hypocritical? No.
However if you slag off others for doing the same - Hypocrite!
The reason that the Hypocrite charge is constantly thrown around by the Right against the Left is because the conflict between political view and private interest arises far more frequently on the Left (for obvious reasons).
But if the 'H' word is used correctly, it is usually a bum rap - for the reasons I have explained.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
.
That rarely really happens though. School access in the state sector is driven by wealth. If you are in a financial position to pay private school fees you are more than likely on the doorstep of a pretty darn good state school.
"there are no good state schools" is a way of justifying a desire to send your child to a fee paying school.
The corollary of which of course is that you will pay some large proportion of multi-year private school fees in the premium you will have price paid for living next to a good state school.
Yup.Private school battles are a sideshow. So much gold has been stuffed down the throats of the state school system, like a forced goose. Private schools genuinely dont have the differentials in resources that justify the extra expense except as a means to make 'connections'.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, disappointing and perhaps contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
:-o
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
To be honest they seemed pretty smug about that and quite a lot else. We also did LSE and Cambridge in a fun filled week. Cambridge seemed much more laid back in a "we know we are number 1 and we don't have to try that hard" kind of way.
LSE were fun. They have a course on Finance which only costs you your soul but promises enough material rewards to interest my son. There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored. He was also asked which of their various courses were most likely to allow the selling of said soul. His answer was that you will have a good degree from an excellent University in something that sounds hard. That will be enough.
Survation had Labour on 24% and the Lib Dems on 12% for the European elections. They seem to have major sampling issues and are not producing useful data on the current realignment.
Hypocrisy, noun: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case."
That fits exactly what you wrote in your first paragraph.
That is not what is happening in my scenario.
You believe the private option should not exist because (IYO) it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. That is a political opinion. It does not mean you are claiming to have higher standards than you actually have. Not at all.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
(i) You go state, prioritizing your political views over the welfare of your child?
(ii) Or you go private, prioritizing your child's welfare over your politics?
The 1st might be very noble - although some would say it is not particularly admirable to sacrifice your child's welfare on the altar of your politics - but the 2nd cannot fairly or accurately be described as hypocritical.
Hypocritical is as per the example I gave. If you criticize others for going private but then do so yourself. THAT is hypocritical.
This also accords with your definition - since in that case you would indeed be claiming to be morally superior to others (via your criticism of them) whilst your actions give the lie to it.
But in that scenario, why does *your* child matter more than those of people you want to prevent making that same choice? Why should others be denied the choice you have made?
(As it happens, we're both privately educated (in my case, both private and state), and we're not planning to send the little 'un to a private school.)
Any person that disadvantages their own child for political reasons deserves contempt. If you are able to afford private education, and an objective analysis demonstrates that they would be better off at such an institution (maybe better outcomes, sports or maybe less bullying) it is pretty damning of you as a parent if you deny them that opportunity. It is like saying I won't take my children on holiday as others can't afford it, or I will feed them the same diet as someone on a sink estate. Diane Abbott deserves praise not criticism for doing the best for her kids that she could afford, in spite of the opprobrium she knew she would get for it. It is her only real redeeming point that I can see
It's as though Survation makes respondents consider the fact that it's a FPTP election and therefore certain votes are effectively wasted. Is the wording of the question different?
While if you send your child private while attacking others for having been sent to private school themselves (something they had no control over) that is even worse hypocrisy.
It's as though Survation makes respondents consider the fact that it's a FPTP election and therefore certain votes are effectively wasted. Is the wording of the question different?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
We should really be arguing a) is it right to call turning state schools into academies privatization and if so b) what should you do to stop it. So the mail raising the fact that he sends his child to a a private school is deliberately muddying the waters.
Yes but we're having fun on here of a Friday afternoon so to hell with it.
Obviously, time for beer I think although I actually was interested in the answer because I’d never considered an Academy as privatization. Will ask my children.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, disappointing and perhaps contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
:-o
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
To be honest they seemed pretty smug about that and quite a lot else. We also did LSE and Cambridge in a fun filled week. Cambridge seemed much more laid back in a "we know we are number 1 and we don't have to try that hard" kind of way.
LSE were fun. They have a course on Finance which only costs you your soul but promises enough material rewards to interest my son. There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored. He was also asked which of their various courses were most likely to allow the selling of said soul. His answer was that you will have a good degree from an excellent University in something that sounds hard. That will be enough.
It's as though Survation makes respondents consider the fact that it's a FPTP election and therefore certain votes are effectively wasted. Is the wording of the question different?
Which is exactly what you want for a GE voting intention poll.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, disappointing and perhaps contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
:-o
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
To be honest they seemed pretty smug about that and quite a lot else. We also did LSE and Cambridge in a fun filled week. Cambridge seemed much more laid back in a "we know we are number 1 and we don't have to try that hard" kind of way.
LSE were fun. They have a course on Finance which only costs you your soul but promises enough material rewards to interest my son. There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored. He was also asked which of their various courses were most likely to allow the selling of said soul. His answer was that you will have a good degree from an excellent University in something that sounds hard. That will be enough.
Clearly LSE. But I am biased.
You think souls are overrated?
Seriously how did you find your time there? Mrs L is quite convinced that getting out of London with only 1 stabbing would be a result.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
arters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
:-o
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
To be honest they seemed pretty smug about that and quite a lot else. We also did LSE and Cambridge in a fun filled week. Cambridge seemed much more laid back in a "we know we are number 1 and we don't have to try that hard" kind of way.
LSE were fun. They have a course on Finance which only costs you your soul but promises enough material rewards to interest my son. There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored. He was also asked which of their various courses were most likely to allow the selling of said soul. His answer was that you will have a good degree from an excellent University in something that sounds hard. That will be enough.
Clearly LSE. But I am biased.
You think souls are overrated?
Seriously how did you find your time there? Mrs L is quite convinced that getting out of London with only 1 stabbing would be a result.
That really made smile! But seriously, she should stop reading the DM. It's not that bad.
I was born and brought up there and only ever got into two fights, both of which I started myself.
There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored.
I am not head of maths but a prof in maths, and I also avdise young adults to choose the subject that interests them.
In my years I haven't seen many students drop out because they find the course too hard, but I see large numbers of students drop out because they are not interested enough to put any work in. There are many many more students who get a degree lower than "their worth" because they do stick with their course but aren't enthused enough to do good work.
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
To hold the view that the private option should not be available but send your own child private is to place the welfare of your child above your political principles.
It is harsh and unfair to describe this as hypocrisy.
However, if you send your child private but attack others for doing the same, that IS hypocrisy.
Unless you admit your political principles are a load of bollocks I maintain it is rank hypocricy.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
I would say earn as much as your principles can stand as quickly as possible whilst retaining a modicum of a moral compass. When you have earned enough then do something more "useful" or spiritually rewarding. In other words, use your good fortune to help others. Problem is, earning large sums of money can easily become an addiction to spending equally large sums of money. Often to no particular purpose.
Clearly the voters liked what they saw on Panorama!
I said at the time the anti Semitism long running saga has been priced in. It won’t make a blind bit of difference .
Given a choice between a deeply flawed Labour Party and the Tories having completely lost the plot and becoming the gold medal arse lickers of Trump I’ll still be choosing the former, reluctantly .
There is nothing to be guilty of in sending your child to a private school. There is a suggestion of hypocrisy however if you simultaneosly claim you want to abolish them. It's the old Labour mantra 'do as I say not as I do'.
I don't think it's at all hypocritical to say "The system loads the dice in favour of people whose families do X. Like everyone else I'll try to make sure my family doesn't lose out, but I think the system is wrong." The same applies to someone whose spouse is facing a 2-year waiting list for a hip replacement - they may (as Denis Healey did) say OK, I'll pay for you to go private, but that doesn't mean they suddenly think 2-year waiting lists are a good thing.
The case is a little stronger when it comes to oneself - I've declined to have private medical treatment when something arose for that reason. But I don't think we should ask our families in the present be hostage to what we believe the future ought to be like.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Your actually making the point for me that I tried to make by drawing that conclusion. He doesn’t want to nationalise private schools he wants to stop state schools being privatised through the academy route. The fact the mail can hang the fact that the daughter goes to a private school just adds meat to the bone.
Labour would love to have private schools abolished if only they could find a way to do so while sending their little darlings to them.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
I lean more to KInabalu's view than yours. One's own principles should come second to the welfare of one's children/family. Although I'm in favour of community schooling, we have grammar schools here and I was happy to apply for a place for our daughter.
Another example is veganism: vegans shouldn't stop their children eating meat.
But that's the problem: you can go against your principles because *reasons*, yet you want others (who may not share those principles) to suffer the effects of those principles and not to be able to make that choice.
In other words: you are putting your family first (and fair enough). But you want to stop others from making exactly the same choice. Because ... reasons.
Actually, it's because people who do this instinctively think they're better than other people, and are therefore worthy of it. After all., they have 'principles'.
(By 'you', I don't mean you specifically, but someone in that situation.)
Hm. In the here and now, anyone in the city can make the same choice, and I don't want them not to. Whether it'd be hypocritical if I campaigned for an end to selective education, I don't know. It's surely acceptable to have a view on what might be best for society as a whole that is different from one's view on what is best for one's family among the currently available options. For example, people who love their country are not hypocrites for emigrating.
As it happens, I'm ambivalent about the value of community schooling in cities like ours. Its convenience has various advantages, but it does maintain segregation/ghettoisation which might not be great for the development of community cohesion within the city as a whole. One advantage of the grammar school (and other specialised schools) is that there's a mix of kids from various parts of the city.
As far as principles are concerned, they are overvalued. Inconsistency is a virtue.
There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored.
I am not head of maths but a prof in maths, and I also avdise young adults to choose the subject that interests them.
In my years I haven't seen many students drop out because they find the course too hard, but I see large numbers of students drop out because they are not interested enough to put any work in. There are many many more students who get a degree lower than "their worth" because they do stick with their course but aren't enthused enough to do good work.
I was a bit that way myself. Law was and is boring. I wish I had studied economic history and intend to treat myself to a degree in that should I ever be able to retire.
What I am looking for is somewhere that he will be happy and fit in reasonably well. Enthusiasm for a course is a good but not necessarily sufficient basis for good performance. Cambridge (and Oxford) both seemed painfully posh with their "formals", their weird family structures and hundreds of year old architecture. Its a long way from Dundee.
I would say earn as much as your principles can stand as quickly as possible whilst retaining a modicum of a moral compass. When you have earned enough then do something more "useful" or spiritually rewarding. In other words, use your good fortune to help others. Problem is, earning large sums of money can easily become an addiction to spending equally large sums of money. Often to no particular purpose.
OT. Interesting news on Iran. It's seems the US are trying to provoke war but EU are dead against.and Britain is being caught in the middle. The commentator (a professor specialising in Middle Eastern affairs) suggested the UK under Johnson would have to choose between supporting John Bolton or the EU.
He suggested that Trump expects Johnson to line up behind the US.
So we once again find ourselves as America's favourite poodle and on the wrong side.
The US are trying to provoke war? What do you think Iran are up to, shooting down drones and trying to illegally seize vessels?
They signed a treaty as did the EU and have reneged on it. If the EU think reneging was wrong but Trump and Bolton are behind it I know where my support would go.
Sure although Iran has now reneged on the agreement they have with the E.U.
What are your thoughts on Iran trying to hijack a BP tanker yesterday?
That it's either irrelevant or wrong, because another poll somewhere (doesn't matter how long ago), or another line of another poll, or an interpretation of this poll or another poll (if you squint and don't think too hard) says what he wants it to say.
Which is that what he wants to happen will be what happens.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I think if someones says private schools are wrong, they shouldn't send their own children to one.
Imagine that I land a job as a City trader paying £750,000 per annum and I think it is deeply wrong that the job - which is a doddle - pays anything like this much.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
That would imo depend on the value you place on the principles you claim to believe in, and on your own integrity. There are plenty of City Traders who manage it.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
At the Oxford open day last week pretty much every speaker felt the need to apologise for the state of our politics. It was vaguely amusing the first couple of times.
:-o
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
To be honest they seemed pretty smug about that and quite a lot else. We also did LSE and Cambridge in a fun filled week. Cambridge seemed much more laid back in a "we know we are number 1 and we don't have to try that hard" kind of way.
LSE were fun. They have a course on Finance which only costs you your soul but promises enough material rewards to interest my son. There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored. He was also asked which of their various courses were most likely to allow the selling of said soul. His answer was that you will have a good degree from an excellent University in something that sounds hard. That will be enough.
Clearly LSE. But I am biased.
You think souls are overrated?
Seriously how did you find your time there? Mrs L is quite convinced that getting out of London with only 1 stabbing would be a result.
Since my LSE days 40 years ago I have lived in London. I am a big city person. So, for me, London is great. But it is for each to decide their own. Of course, Cambridge would be great too. But London is an education too apart from the academic part.
“I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one Leaver who repents than over 99 Remainers who have no need of repentance.”
More importantly, is this a teeny, weeny proto Remain bump ? Maybe, the salami slicing did something.
Yes, maybe. And more generally, yet more proof that being talked about is better than not being talked about. But I must admit I'm a bit surprised and will await another (non-YouGov) poll...
Survation had Labour on 24% and the Lib Dems on 12% for the European elections. They seem to have major sampling issues and are not producing useful data on the current realignment.
Having just expressed scepticism, I wouldn't go that far - it's always worth comparing polls with the previous poll from the same company.
Ah, that condescending lazy crap again. Quite why a handful of loonies believing such things gives licence to senior people to be so lazy and pretend it is the norm I don't know.
Ireland won’t look so clever after UK Corporation tax rates are below theirs once the EU have “harmonised” them....
The British public are not going to vote for a manifesto promising to slash corporation tax rates at the expense of our already crumbling public services.
First, UK Corporation tax rates are already low. Second, cutting rates can raise more revenue and third we may not need to cut much or at all if the EU forces Ireland up which they’ve been trying to do for years, with the UK robustly defending Ireland’s corner.
Re corporation tax, in the old days (say around 2000), Ireland had corporation tax of about 15%, while everyone else was between 25% and 40%. It was the massive outlier, and the result of this was that profits ended up flowing towards the Republic.
But the world has changed. Ireland no longer has the lowest rates in the EU*, and almost all countries are below 25% corporate rates now. The EU missed their chance to harmonise corporate tax rates simply because it's not just Ireland they're pushing around now; it's Ireland plus half a dozen others. (Plus harmonisation of corporate tax rates actually requires treaty change.)
It's also worth remembering that moving from 60% taxes to 50% means increases post tax profits by 25%. If, on the other hand, you halve taxes from 15% to 7.5%, then you only increase post tax profits by 9%.
A much bigger issue for the UK in a post-Brexit world is double taxation treaties and withholding taxes. Right now, dividends to parents inside the EU avoid withholding taxes, and subsidiary taxes can be offset against the parent**. In a No Deal scenario, this will have pretty severe impacts on international businesses based in the UK. Now, will it get sorted in time? Yes. But it requires primary legislation to be passed at an individual country level, so it will take time.
* Hungary is 9%, for example ** Yes, it's a little more complicated than that
I lean more to KInabalu's view than yours. One's own principles should come second to the welfare of one's children/family. Although I'm in favour of community schooling, we have grammar schools here and I was happy to apply for a place for our daughter.
Another example is veganism: vegans shouldn't stop their children eating meat.
A good general rule is not to push one's own views on any controversial issue onto one's family. My father, a Conservative, was carefully respectful of my communism as a teenager, contenting himself with saying "Many people share your view - I don't myself, but you mustn't let that influence you." 20 years later, when I was standing for Parliament in his constituency and he asked if I'd be upset if he voted for someone else, I was so pleased to be able to return the compliment and urge him to go with his beliefs.
I expect that if he'd earlier said "stupid boy, I forbid you to express such opinions in my presence", I'd have grown up more intolerant myself.
The economics are very sound. Top degrees is what people pay for. There is high demand. Increase the supply. QED.
Of course, as with currencies, there is a risk of the devaluation of the product but that's the next guy's problem.
The problem though is the clear impression that many students today who are being awarded First classhonours degrees would have fallen short of a 2.1 forty years ago for a given standard of work.
13 days ago Newcastle United had one of the best managers in the world and now we're struggling to agree compensation with Sheffield Wednesday for Steve Bruce, Stephen Clemence, and Steve Agnew. Seriously.
Comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/452184-acosta-out-as-trump-labor-secretary
In other words: you are putting your family first (and fair enough). But you want to stop others from making exactly the same choice. Because ... reasons.
Actually, it's because people who do this instinctively think they're better than other people, and are therefore worthy of it. After all., they have 'principles'.
(By 'you', I don't mean you specifically, but someone in that situation.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/12/northern-irish-civil-servant-paid-10000-claiming-offence-walking
You believe the private option should not exist because (IYO) it benefits a small minority at the expense of the majority. That is a political opinion. It does not mean you are claiming to have higher standards than you actually have. Not at all.
You are then (for example) faced with a choice between a bad state school and a good private one for your child.
(i) You go state, prioritizing your political views over the welfare of your child?
(ii) Or you go private, prioritizing your child's welfare over your politics?
The 1st might be very noble - although some would say it is not particularly admirable to sacrifice your child's welfare on the altar of your politics - but the 2nd cannot fairly or accurately be described as hypocritical.
Hypocritical is as per the example I gave. If you criticize others for going private but then do so yourself. THAT is hypocritical.
This also accords with your definition - since in that case you would indeed be claiming to be morally superior to others (via your criticism of them) whilst your actions give the lie to it.
Just saw this on the previous thread. For those who missed it it's a keeper.....
i.e. what is the nature of the principle.
It is clearly isn't a horrendously deep moral principle since in that case they wouldn't consider for a moment sending their child to private school.
Unless the child wanted to go to that school. Then we open a whole other barrel of issues.
What should I do to stay in your good books?
(As it happens, we're both privately educated (in my case, both private and state), and we're not planning to send the little 'un to a private school.)
In the case of Diane Abbott, for example, a hard left winger who you would have thought would have been all for a wealth tax, I could only make sense of her campaign against Ed Miliband's mansion tax policy on the grounds of her own personal political expediency (i.e. seeking favour with some constituents in a constituency with high property prices). I concluded that her own political principles are less deeply held than is apparent and would invariably be trumped by her self interest. Because of that, I am less sympathetic to the educational choices that she made for her children.
"there are no good state schools" is a way of justifying a desire to send your child to a fee paying school.
My view is that words are cheap, and actions are costly. So the latter are a far better basis for judging the worth of an individual than the former.
I find people who benefit from something, then choose to pull the ladder up behind themselves or their children, at best disappointing and perhaps in some ways contemptible.
On Indy Schools, I would love to see some real research into what they do for social mobility; I suspect they do far more than your typical state sector establishments.
But I think that the grip that Oxford Uni Alumni have on political / media power is far more pernicious. What is it - more than three quarters of PMs since the war?
What did they say they would do about it?
I don't think pandering to people wanting to demolish statues because of x y or z that happened in 1728 really counts.
I am always impressed with the number of highly intelligent stupid people who manage to make it from Oxford to the media.
What will HYUFD make out of this ?
Why should others be denied the choice? They won't be unless a policy of banning private schools is enacted. In which case it applies to everybody.
This is just a conflict between political view and private interest. It is only hypocrisy of you attack others for doing what you yourself do.
Similar example -
You do not believe in private healthcare but you discover that by paying a few thousand you can get your mother's hip done in 2 weeks rather than 2 years.
So you do it. Hypocritical? No.
However if you slag off others for doing the same - Hypocrite!
The reason that the Hypocrite charge is constantly thrown around by the Right against the Left is because the conflict between political view and private interest arises far more frequently on the Left (for obvious reasons).
But if the 'H' word is used correctly, it is usually a bum rap - for the reasons I have explained.
LSE were fun. They have a course on Finance which only costs you your soul but promises enough material rewards to interest my son. There was an excellent chap from Paisley who was head of Maths. He said choose what really interests you because you have the rest of your life to be bored. He was also asked which of their various courses were most likely to allow the selling of said soul. His answer was that you will have a good degree from an excellent University in something that sounds hard. That will be enough.
And quite well, I think.
Seriously how did you find your time there? Mrs L is quite convinced that getting out of London with only 1 stabbing would be a result.
OK.
Just having checked, I see that Independent Schools now spend £800m a year on scholarships, bursaries etc.
I wonder whether Independent Schools now do far more for social mobility than State ones.
I was born and brought up there and only ever got into two fights, both of which I started myself.
In my years I haven't seen many students drop out because they find the course too hard, but I see large numbers of students drop out because they are not interested enough to put any work in. There are many many more students who get a degree lower than "their worth" because they do stick with their course but aren't enthused enough to do good work.
In other words, use your good fortune to help others.
Problem is, earning large sums of money can easily become an addiction to spending equally large sums of money. Often to no particular purpose.
Given a choice between a deeply flawed Labour Party and the Tories having completely lost the plot and becoming the gold medal arse lickers of Trump I’ll still be choosing the former, reluctantly .
Labour would love to have private schools abolished if only they could find a way to do so while sending their little darlings to them.
As it happens, I'm ambivalent about the value of community schooling in cities like ours. Its convenience has various advantages, but it does maintain segregation/ghettoisation which might not be great for the development of community cohesion within the city as a whole. One advantage of the grammar school (and other specialised schools) is that there's a mix of kids from various parts of the city.
As far as principles are concerned, they are overvalued. Inconsistency is a virtue.
The great leader Bozos bounce seems a bit delayed .
What I am looking for is somewhere that he will be happy and fit in reasonably well. Enthusiasm for a course is a good but not necessarily sufficient basis for good performance. Cambridge (and Oxford) both seemed painfully posh with their "formals", their weird family structures and hundreds of year old architecture. Its a long way from Dundee.
https://order-order.com/2019/07/12/banks-formally-files-libel-proceedings-cadwalladr/
What are your thoughts on Iran trying to hijack a BP tanker yesterday?
Anyway, this is one of my absolute fave topics, and I so want to plough on - but it is Fed Nad, so to everyone's relief I'm sure ...
Which is that what he wants to happen will be what happens.
And that's enough.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/tennis/market/1.160326197
https://twitter.com/AdrianYalland/status/1149241831558995968
https://twitter.com/AdrianYalland/status/1149241824416079872
John Rentoul's average of polls.
Not much better for SLab: only Murray would survive.
https://twitter.com/steven_swinford/status/1149706724506513408?s=21
But the world has changed. Ireland no longer has the lowest rates in the EU*, and almost all countries are below 25% corporate rates now. The EU missed their chance to harmonise corporate tax rates simply because it's not just Ireland they're pushing around now; it's Ireland plus half a dozen others. (Plus harmonisation of corporate tax rates actually requires treaty change.)
It's also worth remembering that moving from 60% taxes to 50% means increases post tax profits by 25%. If, on the other hand, you halve taxes from 15% to 7.5%, then you only increase post tax profits by 9%.
A much bigger issue for the UK in a post-Brexit world is double taxation treaties and withholding taxes. Right now, dividends to parents inside the EU avoid withholding taxes, and subsidiary taxes can be offset against the parent**. In a No Deal scenario, this will have pretty severe impacts on international businesses based in the UK. Now, will it get sorted in time? Yes. But it requires primary legislation to be passed at an individual country level, so it will take time.
* Hungary is 9%, for example
** Yes, it's a little more complicated than that
I expect that if he'd earlier said "stupid boy, I forbid you to express such opinions in my presence", I'd have grown up more intolerant myself.
https://twitter.com/markstephenson2/status/1149431622258888705
That is just off the scale of daftness.