Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » NEW PB / Polling Matters podcast. Where do we go from here and

12467

Comments

  • DougSeal said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.

    polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
    You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).

    I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
    James says you did.

    For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2013/06/political-bettings-smithson-embarks-on.html
    No he doesn’t.

    Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.

    Then the penny might drop.
    That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
    I was, of course, aware that I was banned. And, being banned, I stopped visiting the site. Therefore, how would I ever know that the ban was lifted? Unless the site owner had the courtesy to inform me, by email for example. Which they didn’t. I found out in 2012/13 because James told me.

    I have been banned on PB at least four times. Only on the very first occasion did I get the courtesy of an email explaining why. Ironically, the given reason was that I had supplied an incorrect email address. Which begs the question: how did I receive the email informing me of the ban? Indeed, it is still that identical email address I am using for logging in right now.

    I was absent from PB for about five years until recently. I only discovered the ban was lifted by accident. Again.

    Does that make sense now?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Just to make my previous more readable



    Probably not a lot to do with the tories in my experience but more bureaucracy, indifference and in our case some horrible people.

    WE live in Essex and my son attended school in Suffolk.

    Forgive the phrase, but across county lines is not insurmountable.

    We had a long old journey getting my son to that school and back daily (more than 10 miles) but by god it was worth it.

    I dont know where you are but please consider speaking to Fiona in the attached link

    http://www.advocacyandmediation.co.uk/what-we-do-who-we-are/

    She does great work tirelessly for children who need extra help and are struggling to get it (she is a parent of a child with special needs too).


    I could not recommend her heartily enough.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
    Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
    Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
    Justin is right. The problem the LDs face is that in the strongly Remain Labour seats there is always a strongly Remain Labour MP. Zeichner's majority will fall, but he has over 50 per cent of the vote to start with. He won't lose Cambridge.

    You can tell the Labour seats that are likely to fall because the MPs are stepping down (Mann, Farrelly, de Piero).

    Labour will lose Leaver seats in the Midlands (and perhaps also some in the North & Wales).
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658

    Statistical draw for Swinson really, but you'd think she'd be romping ahead with les femmes, especially since Ruth the hearthrob of the centrists is wiv da angels now.

    https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1170744021544833024?s=20

    Young women were particularly hard hit by the Coalition and in 2015 are the most anti-Tory/pro-Labour demographic.

    Whether it is more loyalty to Labour, or anti-Coalition I'm not sure, but the strength of Labour support relative to the Lib Dems among women doesn't surprise me.
    From anecdotal experience (my mother) I suspect the hostility is more likely to come from older women. There appears to be something of an irrational hostility to young-ish female politicians. Note that most people will barely know anything of her at all, so it unlikely to represent a personal problem.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 11,059

    DougSeal said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Indeed there is. The polling average is probably still the best guide till the wonders in parliament decide it's time for an election though.

    polling average is about as reliable as Stuart Dickson's subsamples amalgamations for Scotland.
    You are confusing me with James Kelly, formerly of this parish (prior to excommunication).

    I have never gathered or published amalgamations.
    James says you did.

    For the uninitiated, Stuart Dickson was for many years PB's leading SNP poster (and indeed one of its leading posters, full stop). He was originally subject to an indefinite ban for - get this - posting the results of Scottish subsamples from UK-wide opinion polls, and calculating the percentage changes in each party's support from the previous general election, which is a format that Smithson disapproves of (as it happens I also disapprove of it, but I don't exactly regard it as a hanging offence). That ludicrous ban was eventually lifted after TWO YEARS, a development that unsurprisingly Stuart was oblivious to until I alerted him to it. Having got back

    http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/2013/06/political-bettings-smithson-embarks-on.html
    No he doesn’t.

    Read. Then read carefully. Then think a wee bit. Then read carefully again.

    Then the penny might drop.
    That doesn’t make any sense. How can you have been unaware you were banned? Or were you unaware the ban had been lifted. Sorry if I’m missing something obvious
    I was, of course, aware that I was banned. And, being banned, I stopped visiting the site. Therefore, how would I ever know that the ban was lifted? Unless the site owner had the courtesy to inform me, by email for example. Which they didn’t. I found out in 2012/13 because James told me.

    I have been banned on PB at least four times. Only on the very first occasion did I get the courtesy of an email explaining why. Ironically, the given reason was that I had supplied an incorrect email address. Which begs the question: how did I receive the email informing me of the ban? Indeed, it is still that identical email address I am using for logging in right now.

    I was absent from PB for about five years until recently. I only discovered the ban was lifted by accident. Again.

    Does that make sense now?
    Someone explained to me the difference between amalgamations and sub samples. I was getting the wrong end of the stick.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    Absolutely - I grew up on a council estate and was lucky enough to go to Grammar School - another chance that some want to deny kids nowadays.
  • blueblue said:

    nico67 said:

    More desperation from Bozo and his Puppet Master.

    They really are delusional.
    Oh yeah?

    “If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."

    --- John Bercow
    Using the Civil Contingencies Act isn't going against precedent. It is going against the law. That is a totally different matter.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Scott_P said:

    Although I quite like the optics of BoZo making the argument that Brexit is a National Emergency.

    So, maybe we should cancel it perhaps?

    It's a NATIONAL EMERGENCY!!! But no big deal, we are ready for it. And the EU will blink to avoid CATASTROPHE!!!

    Is this triplethink?
  • Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
  • blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.

    If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 12,745



    I repeat - the rule book has been torn up

    I don't think Stephen Timms will lose here in East Ham. His wafer thin 39,883 majority may come under some threat or it may not?

    One for the anoraks on here - Stephen Timms polled 47,124 votes in 2017. John Major polled 48,662 in 1992 in Huntingdon.

    Has anyone polled a larger individual vote in any constituency in any election?
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225
    edited September 2019
    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month.
    Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7440711/Labour-chairman-plans-abolish-fee-paying-schools-tackle-elitism.html

    Their class oing costs, and is idiotic
    Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
    The abolition is pure marxism

    Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolccur to some extent at present

    There is not one advantage by abolishing them
    Surely ifth the same cost to the public purse
    How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools

    Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
    Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
    Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.

    M

    Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
    Driving rich pushy parents into the state sector is inherently a good thing. They will raise the game of state schools. Do it.

    I also see no reason why I, as a taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
    I'm intrigued. How do you subsidise them?
    Because I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax not paid by Eton College
    Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.

    Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.

    There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
  • blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.

    If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
    One nation includes encouraging ambition and success but looking after those less fortunate

    Parental wealth will always open doors but confiscating it only leads to one destination, Venezeula
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Remainers are being trolled with these rumours of how to get around the Brexit bill.

    Hope their stockpiles of froth and splutter are ready for weeks of this.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.

    If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
    Even in the state system parental wealth may have a part to play.

    Catchment areas anyone?

    What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.

    I prefer to aspire for myself and my kids thanks.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    stodge said:



    I repeat - the rule book has been torn up

    I don't think Stephen Timms will lose here in East Ham. His wafer thin 39,883 majority may come under some threat or it may not?

    One for the anoraks on here - Stephen Timms polled 47,124 votes in 2017. John Major polled 48,662 in 1992 in Huntingdon.

    Has anyone polled a larger individual vote in any constituency in any election?
    Hendon 1935 was 69k for the winner apparently in a single seat ward
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    TGOHF said:

    Remainers are being trolled with these rumours of how to get around the Brexit bill.

    Hope their stockpiles of froth and splutter are ready for weeks of this.

    If you have nothing nice to say, don’t say anything at all.
  • TGOHF said:

    Remainers are being trolled with these rumours of how to get around the Brexit bill.

    Hope their stockpiles of froth and splutter are ready for weeks of this.

    I particularly enjoy the hypocrisy of supporting remainer MPs in parliament taking liberties with centuries of convention because it suits there desired outcome.

    But then having a meltdown when leavers play them at their own game.
  • It was a private education that turned a working class kid like me, the grandson of immigrants, into the success I am today.

    It allowed me to attend the finest university in the world then a wonderful career.

    If I had my way I’d abolish the Department for Education and give parents the money as vouchers.
  • I'm exiting this education debate. In more pressing matters I've just remembered that I've still got washing hanging outside.

  • timmotimmo Posts: 1,469

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    Loyalty is not an issue for me here - particularly in respect of an election at which I will effectively abstain by spoiling my ballot paper. In London the only Labour seat at all likely to be at risk to the LDs is Southwark & Bermondsey, but in realty that has become unlikely due to Simon Hughes not standing again.Labour is not doing well at present , but 3 of last night's polls only show a 3% Tory lead implying very few losses to the Tories even before taking account of first time incumbency in several of the seats concerned.Labour is far better placed than at the outset of the 2017 campaign when it faced Tory leads of 20% - 25%.
    You have such a belief in first term incumbency and that history will repeat itself

    I do not believe either will happen in these extraordinary times.

    The rule book has been torn up

    First term incumbency is pretty well established - indeed we saw clear evidence of if as far back as the 1964 election when the Tories managed to hang on to quite a few of the seats gained in 1959 despite a national pro-Labour swing of 3.5%. More recently its influence was very evident at the 2015 and 2017 elections. Seats gained by the Tories - against the tiny pro-Labour national swing - in 2015 such as Telford and Morley & Outwood were not recaptured by Labour in 2017 despite the 2% swing to Labour.
    I repeat - the rule book has been torn up
    Agreed. With the disgust at MPs incumbency is likely to be a drawback
    It depends who they are...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.

    Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.

    There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.

    You can't reclaim tax where you are getting a benefit. School fees cannot therefore be gift aided.

    Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.

    TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
  • FenmanFenman Posts: 1,047

    It was a private education that turned a working class kid like me, the grandson of immigrants, into the success I am today.

    It allowed me to attend the finest university in the world then a wonderful career.

    If I had my way I’d abolish the Department for Education and give parents the money as vouchers.

    Hull?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Your success in life being dependent on your parents' wealth is the opposite of ambition. You can't aspire to be born rich.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.
  • Floater said:

    blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    Absolutely - I grew up on a council estate and was lucky enough to go to Grammar School - another chance that some want to deny kids nowadays.
    Grammar schools are a useful compromise within the State Sector.
  • It was a private education that turned a working class kid like me, the grandson of immigrants, into the success I am today.

    It allowed me to attend the finest university in the world then a wonderful career.

    If I had my way I’d abolish the Department for Education and give parents the money as vouchers.

    If you'd had vouchers, you'd have spent them on shoes instead. :)
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Floater said:

    blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.

    If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
    Even in the state system parental wealth may have a part to play.

    Catchment areas anyone?

    What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.

    I prefer to aspire for myself and my kids thanks.
    I'm sure your kids will thank you for trapping them in an underclass by cheerleading for wealth to be ever more concentrated in a tiny elite. But hey, at least you aspired, right?
  • Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
    This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.

    So you've taken the HYUFD route of allowing your politics to be entirely defined by the people you hate?
  • It was a private education that turned a working class kid like me, the grandson of immigrants, into the success I am today.

    It allowed me to attend the finest university in the world then a wonderful career.

    If I had my way I’d abolish the Department for Education and give parents the money as vouchers.

    If you'd had vouchers, you'd have spent them on shoes instead. :)
    Vouchers are solely for buying school fees.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited September 2019
    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.

    Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the EU.

    Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.
  • TGOHF said:

    Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.

    Why was it an illegal war?

    What laws were broken?

    I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites.
  • Floater said:

    Just to make my previous more readable



    Probably not a lot to do with the tories in my experience but more bureaucracy, indifference and in our case some horrible people.

    WE live in Essex and my son attended school in Suffolk.

    Forgive the phrase, but across county lines is not insurmountable.

    We had a long old journey getting my son to that school and back daily (more than 10 miles) but by god it was worth it.

    I dont know where you are but please consider speaking to Fiona in the attached link

    http://www.advocacyandmediation.co.uk/what-we-do-who-we-are/

    She does great work tirelessly for children who need extra help and are struggling to get it (she is a parent of a child with special needs too).


    I could not recommend her heartily enough.

    Thanks for the link
  • blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Your success in life being dependent on your parents' wealth is the opposite of ambition. You can't aspire to be born rich.
    Mine wasn't nor is most peoples

  • Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the UK.

    Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.

    Didn't realize we were leaving the UK.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.

    Why was it an illegal war?

    What laws were broken?

    I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites.
    Boris hasn’t broken any laws but every remainer lawyer south of Finsbury Park is copying UN into their tweets.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.

    Didn't take too long.
  • ydoethur said:

    Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.

    Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.

    There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.

    You can't reclaim tax where you are getting a benefit. School fees cannot therefore be gift aided.

    Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.

    TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
    It's the School that gets the refund, because it has charitable status and is tax exempt. It thus claims back the tax 'carried' by the Deed.

    What happens on the donor/payer side is more complex and depends on the the tax position of the individual.

  • This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.

    I am sorry but this a complete load of bollocks.

  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.

    Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the UK.

    Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.

    Wish you would rejoin the UK - the thin air on Planet Remainer is addling your faculties.
  • I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.

    What laws have been broken / ignored ?

  • TGOHF said:

    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.

    Plenty of Leavers have realised sustained No Deal means we rejoin the UK.

    Didn't have you down as a Rejoiner.

    Wish you would rejoin the UK - the thin air on Planet Remainer is addling your faculties.
    Auto-correct is a pain.
  • Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
    This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
    I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.

    The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.

    The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse

    Let the country decide in a GE
  • TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.

    Why was it an illegal war?

    What laws were broken?

    I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites.
    Boris hasn’t broken any laws but every remainer lawyer south of Finsbury Park is copying UN into their tweets.
    So like a Corbynite you're talking bollocks, thanks for confirming.
  • I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.

    I can see John McDonnell emoting now: "The level of human suffering is a real emergency. We have no choice."
  • I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.

    I can see John McDonnell emoting now: "The level of human suffering is a real emergency. We have no choice."
    Indeed, then watch the No Dealers moan like whores.

  • Indeed, then watch the No Dealers moan like whores.

    I suspect the forum will defer to your obvious experience.

  • CatManCatMan Posts: 2,722


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
    Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
    Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
    On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
  • TGOHF said:

    Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.

    Why was it an illegal war?

    What laws were broken?

    I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites.
    I support JC. He was right in opposing the war on principle.
    It was not illegal, despite some people still claiming it was.

  • Indeed, then watch the No Dealers moan like whores.

    I suspect the forum will defer to your obvious experience.

    No, there was one PBer who was quite the expert in this area, I only know what he told us.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Floater said:

    blueblue said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No.

    Academic excellence and the right of parents to choose how to educate their own children = Good

    Ham-fisted levelling-down and contempt for excellence = Bad
    Please explain how my parents had the same choices open to David Cameron's folks.
    So your answer is to confiscate weath and ambition
    Oh, so sorry. I forgot that us working class folks aren't allowed to have ambition. That is the preserve of our betters.

    I must apologise for having the temerity to pass my A Levels and go to a Russell Group university. Should have gone down the pit.
    With respect - grow up
    If you believe in 'one nation' then you must surely believe that every child should have the same rights to education.

    If you defend a system where parental wealth is instrumental in opening up educational opportunities for their children then I fail to see how that represents 'one nation'.
    Even in the state system parental wealth may have a part to play.

    Catchment areas anyone?

    What you really mean is that you are happy to level down.

    I prefer to aspire for myself and my kids thanks.
    I'm sure your kids will thank you for trapping them in an underclass by cheerleading for wealth to be ever more concentrated in a tiny elite. But hey, at least you aspired, right?
    You trap them in an underclass by making every school rubbish
  • CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
  • Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
    This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
    I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.

    The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.

    The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse

    Let the country decide in a GE
    Come off it, the idea that the government has been doing anything to establish a deal with the EU has been comprehensively exposed as false.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
    Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
    Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
    On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
    If the euros translated to a GE, the Tories would be reduced to zero seats
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Byronic said:

    ydoethur said:

    Byronic said:

    Byronic said:

    HYUFD said:

    'Labour's chairman is backing a campaign to abolish all private schools, with party delegates set to consider the policy at their annual conference this month.
    Ian Lavery has thrown his weight behind the Labour Against Private Schools movement which wants all fee-paying schools brought into the state sector.'

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7440711/Labour-chairman-plans-abolish-fee-paying-schools-tackle-elitism.html

    Their class oing costs, and is idiotic
    Againstols dominates entry to politics (all parties), the media, the professions and even sport.
    The abolition is pure marxism

    Are you aware how much private schools save the public purse and the cost of abolccur to some extent at present

    There is not one advantage by abolishing them
    Surely ifth the same cost to the public purse
    How much do you think it will cost to prohibit private schools

    Ten of billions of new money from the taxpayer just to satisfy marxist dogma
    Abolishing them is absurd and punitive. There is, however, a good case to be made for stripping private schools of their charitable status, and giving the proceeds to the state sector. I can certainly see a Labour govt doing THAT.
    Why? Those who pay for private education are already paying twice - once for the state system they never use and then again for the private system they do.

    M

    Net result for the taxpayer and society? Zero.
    Driving rich pushy parents taxpayer, should subsidise Eton, Westminster and Harrow.
    I'm intrigued. How do you subsidise them?
    Because I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax not paid by Eton College
    Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.

    Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.

    There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.
    Assisted places and charitable status helps private schools both offer more scholarships and bursaries and share facilities with state schools
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,009

    Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
    This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
    I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.

    The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.

    The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse
    The opposition have "stopped all discussions with the EU"?

    You're deranged.
  • FPT

    My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.

    It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.

    At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...

    It depends what you're looking for.

    There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.

    I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2019

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/corbyn-ditch-social-mobility
    Monarchy = Socialism!
    Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, indeed on a side note when I was at school I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew, how are we going to continue our international reputation for elite education if we close down our top schools and attack our elite universities?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
    Why not? @Catman is right... it's a possibility.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
    Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
    Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
    On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
    None of those seats will be won by the LDs at a GE.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/corbyn-ditch-social-mobility
    Monarchy = Socialism!
    Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, indeed on a side note when I was at school I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew, how are we going to continue our reputation for elite education if we close down our top schools and attack our elite universities?
    Won't the next monarch be more of a Green than a Conservative?
  • In the 1975 world cup final Gordon Greenidge took 61 deliveries to score 13:

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/65049/australia-vs-west-indies-final-prudential-world-cup-1975

    I wonder how many current batsman could bat that patiently to save a Test.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/corbyn-ditch-social-mobility
    Monarchy = Socialism!
    Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism, indeed on a side note when I was at school I once played tennis with the Sultan of Brunei's nephew, how are we going to continue our reputation for elite education if we close down our top schools and attack our elite universities?
    Won't the next monarch be more of a Green than a Conservative?
    He will be an organic Green One Nation Conservative, a cross between Disraeli and Zac Goldsmith
  • Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
    This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
    I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.

    The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.

    The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse

    Let the country decide in a GE
    Come off it, the idea that the government has been doing anything to establish a deal with the EU has been comprehensively exposed as false.
    I agree but the HOC finished off any chance of an acceptable deal in a premature strike

    They could have done this following the EU Council meeting when we had answers either way, after all they did it in a day and there are 12 days to the 31st from the council meeting
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2019

    FPT

    My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.

    It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.

    At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...

    It depends what you're looking for.

    There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.

    I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
    I have a friend who was a lawyer in London and now works as a lawyer in New York, that is what London is competing with jobs wise and is why it is so expensive to live there (certainly in central London).

    However if you want to be a little less ambitious and are happy being a solicitor in Hull I suspect you could buy a nice detached house in the city or in rural Yorkshire by your mid 40s
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2019

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
    Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
    Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
    On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
    If the euros translated to a GE, the Tories would be reduced to zero seats
    They may well have been had May stayed put and extended again, with Farage sweeping the board in Tory Leave seats and the LDs picking up the Tory Remain seats as the Brexit Party also took most of the Tory Leave vote
  • CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
    Why not? @Catman is right... it's a possibility.
    If it happens it is the will of the people under our electoral system

    You cannot gerrymander GE to suit your political view

    If Corbyn won he becomes PM and so be it
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469
    GIN1138 said:
    Ironically, I am becoming fond of the FTPA 2011. However, I would prefer preset days like, say, the first Thursday of May. It should not be an instrument of political advantage for a government. Other countries have fixed terms - so why can't the UK. In fact, in the UK, Mayors , Councils etc. also have fixed terms.
    If a government loses the confidence, Parliament has to find another government, including a minority government.
  • blueblue said:

    nico67 said:

    More desperation from Bozo and his Puppet Master.

    They really are delusional.
    Oh yeah?

    “If we only went by precedent, manifestly nothing would ever change."

    --- John Bercow
    Using the Civil Contingencies Act isn't going against precedent. It is going against the law. That is a totally different matter.
    but we wouldn't know that unless it was challenged - many of the excuses written into the Act are very widely drawn ('disruption of a communcations network for example) - if Dr Nicholl is right and no-deal threatens people's lives and all the claims for armageddon are to be believed (including from the EU) it seems arguable and not at all clear that it is prima facie illegal - stupid, awful etc etc but that's the CCA all over.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633

    TGOHF said:

    TGOHF said:

    Boris hasn’t got anything to worry about - a recent PM started and illegal war based on lies and didn’t even get fined.

    Why was it an illegal war?

    What laws were broken?

    I suspect I'll get the same answer when I ask these questions of the Corbynites
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    timmo said:

    I was at a family day today around 60 people there nearly all natural Tories in and around south London and also Surrey.
    Over 40 of them.are.now not going to vote Tory and will.vote LD.
    I have had this feeling for.ahile that we are in for a political.earthquake in the south and the LDs are going to make massive inroads.
    Unfortunately they are still no.spread most on GE seats up..
    If LDs are 48-53 they are a huge buy in my opinion.

    I am sure you are right and it will not just be conservatives taking a hit, I would expect labour to suffer greatly as well
    Very few Labour seats obviously at risk to LDs - indeed Sheffield Hallam is possibly the only likely loss.
    Justin.

    I admire your blind loyalty but the fact is labour will lose some London seats to the lib dems and leave voting seats to the conservatives. And most all of their Scottish seats to the SNP and some Welsh seats

    Labour are in a very grim place at present
    No Big G. Labour will not lose a single seat to the LDs in London. Maybe Hallam but I am not that sure. Bermondsey was a throwback to 1983 and a vicious by-election between Hughes and Tatchell. But Hughes majority progressively fell and finally he lost thanks to the coalition. By the way, Coyle, the current MP, supported Owen Smith in the 2017 leadership election.
    Cambridge and Leeds NW will also go LD, as may Oxford East and Kensington and Battersea
    Cambridge is probably safe now for Labour - particularly with such a pro- Remain MP as Zeichner. Leeds NW is less at risk than it appears because Greg Mulholland is not standing again. Oxford East is now safe for Labour - and will not be a LD target. If Labour loses Kensington or Battersea , it will be to the Tories - certainly not the LDs.
    On the latest polls Cambridge and Leeds NW would certainly go LD and Oxford, Kensington and Chelsea and Wandsworth all went LD in the European elections
    Zeichner has been a crap MP for the city.

    Huppert was far better - wonder if he will stand again.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    ydoethur said:

    Not quite. Rich parent makes payment to Posh College under Deed of Covenant. College is tax exempt and can therefore claim back from the Exchequer the tax attributable to the payment. We are therefore all contributing to the refund.

    Abolish the rules under which this is done and all private schools would have to increase charges by a huge amount or go under.

    There is no reason to ban private schools except for political dogma, but equally there is no reason why the general public should subsidise them in this way.

    You can't reclaim tax where you are getting a benefit. School fees cannot therefore be gift aided.

    Of course, rich parents or alumni may also make donations, which can be gift aided, but that's a different issue.

    TBH, if Labour are serious about improving education one massive, simple and relatively cheap difference they could make is to allow FE colleges to become VAT exempt. That would make a very considerable difference to lifelong learning.
    It's the School that gets the refund, because it has charitable status and is tax exempt. It thus claims back the tax 'carried' by the Deed.

    What happens on the donor/payer side is more complex and depends on the the tax position of the individual.
    Just doesn't happen. Trust me on this.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.

    Well if we have a general election on 14th/15th October there would be no need for any of this bullshit and we'd have a chance of sorting this out properly.
  • surbiton19surbiton19 Posts: 1,469

    In the 1975 world cup final Gordon Greenidge took 61 deliveries to score 13:

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8039/scorecard/65049/australia-vs-west-indies-final-prudential-world-cup-1975

    I wonder how many current batsman could bat that patiently to save a Test.

    I remember the Australians were totally naïve about this format of the game. They had a very strong side though. 5 run outs did it for them.
  • GIN1138 said:

    I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.

    Well if we have a general election on 14th/15th October there would be no need for any of this bullshit and we'd have a chance of sorting this out properly.
    Unlikely, we could have another hung Parliament, and what happens if a majority of the votes are for No Deal parties but the anti No Deal Parties win a majority of the seats, or the opposite could happen.

    It would be a bloody mess.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    Scott_P said:
    Whats the point

    Boris will just ignore it

    Boris is a very very loose cannon and those trying to bind him are dealing with someone the like of which we have not seen - and it does appear the more he challenges this parliament the more popular he gets

    If you think of that, the public are furious with all mps at present and continuing playing games rather tban facing the public in a GE is not going to end well
    This isn't 'playing games'. I am a basically healthy 56 year old, but I have an irregular heartbeat, and have to take beta blockers every day to prevent heart problems. No deal - and the possibility that I won't be supplied with the medicine I need terrifies me. I'm really grateful that finally parliamentarians are taking action to prevent no deal in the face of this appalling and irresponsible government.
    I too depend on beta blockers and want a deal.

    The point is the rebel alliance are a mixture of dealers, those wanting a referendum and those wanting to block brexit.

    The problem is they have collectively stopped all discussions with the EU and actually provoked the reaction we now see and made matters worse, much worse

    Let the country decide in a GE
    Come off it, the idea that the government has been doing anything to establish a deal with the EU has been comprehensively exposed as false.
    Quite obviously so.

    No proposals for "alternative arrangements" have been received by the EU. There are no discussions.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
    Why not? @Catman is right... it's a possibility.
    If it happens it is the will of the people under our electoral system

    You cannot gerrymander GE to suit your political view

    If Corbyn won he becomes PM and so be it
    If that happens it will be the will of just 35% of the voters, so maybe 25% of the adult population.

    Now I know that's they way the voting system works but that doesn't make it great.

    I can imaging how the hard leavers will scream blue murder if Corbyn wins a majority on 35% and opts for a BINO.
  • MaxPB said:

    Honestly, I'm rapidly becoming part of team Bozza. Didn't think it would happen but the opposition are so awful it's made this deal supporter into a no deal voter.

    Didn't take too long.
    When the commies start openly planning their bans and confiscations, conservatives sprint to the polling-booths :smile:
  • GIN1138 said:

    I love the precedents that Boris and the Brexiteers are setting for Corbyn and McDonell and their ilk if they get in to government.

    Want to ignore a law the against the mass seizure of assets?

    Ignore the law and use the Civil Contingencies Act instead.

    Well if we have a general election on 14th/15th October there would be no need for any of this bullshit and we'd have a chance of sorting this out properly.
    Unlikely, we could have another hung Parliament, and what happens if a majority of the votes are for No Deal parties but the anti No Deal Parties win a majority of the seats, or the opposite could happen.

    It would be a bloody mess.
    With respect it cannot be worse than we have now
  • Good news everybody, a thread about AV should be going up in the next few days.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Operation 'screw the DUP' actually viable? We can only hope.

    In fairness the DUP have been uncharacteristically keeping their heads down for quite some time.
  • CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
    Why not? @Catman is right... it's a possibility.
    If it happens it is the will of the people under our electoral system

    You cannot gerrymander GE to suit your political view

    If Corbyn won he becomes PM and so be it
    If that happens it will be the will of just 35% of the voters, so maybe 25% of the adult population.

    Now I know that's they way the voting system works but that doesn't make it great.

    I can imaging how the hard leavers will scream blue murder if Corbyn wins a majority on 35% and opts for a BINO.
    But I would accept the decision even though I do not like it
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Does anyone know what's planned for the HoC for tomorrow?

    Benn Bill passed? Another FTPA election vote?

    When does the prorogation kick in?
  • HYUFD said:

    FPT

    My point about London is that it is too expensive to deliver a “traditional middle class” lifestyle to all but global kleptocrats and those born into it.

    It’s no good saying, “well move to Hull”, because London is precisely where those upwardly mobile jobs are - in finance; tech; and law.

    At 40, I got in just before the ladder was pulled away...

    It depends what you're looking for.

    There's not much opportunity to be a 'mover and shaker' in Hull but its a lot easier to get the 'traditional middle class' lifestyle.

    I can also point out those people who voted Conservative in 2015 and Remain in 2016 were supporting the system which makes it so difficult for young graduates and the aspirational in London.
    I have a friend who was a lawyer in London and now works as a lawyer in New York, that is what London is competing with jobs wise and is why it is so expensive to live there (certainly in central London).

    However if you want to be a little less ambitious and are happy being a solicitor in Hull I suspect you could buy a nice detached house in the city or in rural Yorkshire by your mid 40s
    Not every lawyer in London is some international high-flyer, many will be involved in housing transactions, will writing, divorce cases and such like just as they are elsewhere.

    And when you say 'mid 40s' do you mean get a mortgage by mid 40s or own outright by mid 40s ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
    Why not? @Catman is right... it's a possibility.
    If it happens it is the will of the people under our electoral system

    You cannot gerrymander GE to suit your political view

    If Corbyn won he becomes PM and so be it
    If that happens it will be the will of just 35% of the voters, so maybe 25% of the adult population.

    Now I know that's they way the voting system works but that doesn't make it great.

    I can imaging how the hard leavers will scream blue murder if Corbyn wins a majority on 35% and opts for a BINO.
    Given Boris is more likely to win a majority on just 31 to 35% himself on current polling so be it. You have to take risks some times to win.

    If we had PR the GE would be a foregone conclusion, Jo Swinson would have the balance of power which would mean no Brexit and no Corbyn
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    ydoethur said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charitable status helps private schools fund bursaries and scholarships.

    However the motion to be put to the Labour conference this month is for private schools to be abolished and taken over completely by the state, not just ending their charitable status

    You've got that back to front. They are obliged to offer bursaries and scholarships in order to retain their charitable status. Nothing to do with 'charity'.
    Actually, you're both wrong. Private schools offer bursaries and scholarships to very able students to drive up results and make themselves more attractive to parents. And that applies to both charitable AND corporate foundations.
    The lack of knowledge from those envious of public schools is unsurprising

    Public sector good

    Private sector bad (no very bad)
    No.

    Social justice and equality of opportunity good

    Buying an advantage and entrenching privilege bad
    No equality of opportunity and social mobility bad according to Corbyn Labour, equality of outcome better so the good has to be closed to ensuring everything is equally bad

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/11/corbyn-ditch-social-mobility
    Monarchy = Socialism!
    Support for the monarchy is the essence of British conservatism
    I can never tell what you think is the essence of British conservatism, because you seem pretty happy to toss it all out of the window in pursuit of single objectives decided by the leader of the moment.
  • NooNoo Posts: 2,380

    Good news everybody, a thread about AV should be going up in the next few days.

    I'd have preferred one about PR, but this is my second preference ;)
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    CatMan said:


    Let the country decide in a GE

    But thanks to our moronic voting system, Johnson could win a majority on 35% (or maybe even less), and then say "See, the public want no deal!", ignoring the majority who don't (even taking into account Brexit Party voters).
    That is not how GE works.
    Why not? @Catman is right... it's a possibility.
    If it happens it is the will of the people under our electoral system

    You cannot gerrymander GE to suit your political view

    If Corbyn won he becomes PM and so be it
    If that happens it will be the will of just 35% of the voters, so maybe 25% of the adult population.

    Now I know that's they way the voting system works but that doesn't make it great.

    I can imaging how the hard leavers will scream blue murder if Corbyn wins a majority on 35% and opts for a BINO.
    But I would accept the decision even though I do not like it
    Of course, so would I, we have no choice. But such an outcome (either way) is going to do nothing to bring the nation together.
This discussion has been closed.