The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
And you see that in May's government? Brexit has destroyed all of that - business has provided detailed analysis of hard Brexit contrary to cakeist Tory fantasies only to be told "fuck business". With the understandable continuation of lack of business investment. R&D is what bits are begged by government - such as the cash given to Dyson only for manufacturing to be announced elsewhere. Then we have the governments cuts to physical infrastructure etc etc.
What you will get with a Corbyn investment is Capitalism 101. Borrow. Invest in projects which deliver a return on that investment. Receive more income. Repeat the cycle to drive further growth. Slashing investment and services to the bone - what the Tories do - is reverse capitalism.
Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
That's a meaningless deal. When the deal goes down in flames she'll be gone soon enough anyway.
Thanks for the header, Nick, which seems fair enough from a Labour loyalist perspective. However, I’m expecting the Conservatives to crawl all the way to 2022.
What happens after that is currently unknowable.
Not expecting much legislation passed in that time I imagine. Deal or no deal some pissed off Tories will use every excuse to rebel.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
May resigning only after she has forced through her shit deal is kinda missing the point. Her successor, the activists, the members, the voters - they don't want us tied to a permanent shit deal in the first place.
Plus, these same MPs she is "bargaining" with can boot her out tomorrow, if they are so minded. She doesn't exactly have security of tenure.
The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
The belief that the state can tax pretty much anything it can measure without needing to own it is pretty standard market economics, and has made all the countries that are currently rich rich.
And there was me thinking that rich countries were those that encouraged private enterprise, business investment, R&D and set tax rates accordingly. Don’t see anything recognisably Corbynite in any of those.
And you see that in May's government? Brexit has destroyed all of that - business has provided detailed analysis of hard Brexit contrary to cakeist Tory fantasies only to be told "fuck business". With the understandable continuation of lack of business investment. R&D is what bits are begged by government - such as the cash given to Dyson only for manufacturing to be announced elsewhere. Then we have the governments cuts to physical infrastructure etc etc.
What you will get with a Corbyn investment is Capitalism 101. Borrow. Invest in projects which deliver a return on that investment. Receive more income. Repeat the cycle to drive further growth. Slashing investment and services to the bone - what the Tories do - is reverse capitalism.
Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.
So Corbynomics is to make our over-reliant on internal consumption even more so ?
Blimey.
Heh. Well, I said whether you agree with it or not it's a convincing way of explaining a keynesian POV to people who aren't economists and just wonder why they haven't had a pay rise in ten years.
FWIW I think brexitism and Corbynism both have a whiff of autarky about them.
A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.
The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.
A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
I think the state owns all land in Hong Kong and has substantially relied on leases for revenue. Hong Kong is a notably prosperous as well as a somewhat right wing libertarian kind of place.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
You are suggesting children in boarding schools should not be permitted to eat? That strikes me as a strange position.
Have a good morning.
What i mean is that the schools would find some other way to get food to children that doesn't meet the definition of whatever "private school meals" is. Maybe they'd all be given an allowance to go and purchase food from a "nearby restaurant".
Good article Nick, although I still don't see how Corbyn can become PM this side of an election.
Well quite. The Tories may be hopelessly split on Brexit but they're united in fear of a socialist Government. Now, it is just about possible that any Conservative MPs who defected to the Liberal Democrats would then follow a whipped decision by their new party leader to put Corbyn into bat, but it's very unlikely that there would be enough defections to tip the scales decisively in favour of a leftist rainbow coalition. And nobody intending to run on any flavour of right-wing platform is ever going to countenance voting Corbyn into office - even if the Conservative Party splits. The DUP also loathe him.
Consequently, unless things get really complicated and both major parties split over Brexit, the Parliamentary mathematics surrounding the fall of the Conservative Government point inexorably toward an immediate General Election. This is also why the prospect of No Deal seems so high: May has run out of road, the chances of her successor being a more committed Brexiteer are excellent, and the Pro-EU wing of the Tory Party would most likely be all but wiped out if they marched off in disgust. Regardless of the exact course of events there would be a General Election soon after, most of the Conservative vote are Leavers and could presumably be relied upon to back the Brexiteer platform, and anyway the space in British politics for a mushy, soft centrist, Europhile alternative is already occupied by the Liberal Democrats. All they would achieve would be to end up collecting their first dole payments from a socialist Government.
Remember, however awful or anticlimactic a No Deal Brexit might turn out to be, the prize for all of this for the Conservative Party (and for so many of us in the country who are sick to death of arguments about Europe dominating all else) is that it would finally put the issue to bed. There'd be precious little appetite in the country, after everything that's happened, for trying to get back into the club again, and the other members probably wouldn't want us anyway.
This is, ultimately, why very passionate Remainers are so utterly desperate to stop us leaving at any cost: because once we've gone, we've gone. It is reasonable to conclude that re-joining, as a political position, would be very much like republicanism: theoretically appealing to a quarter or even a third of the electorate when asked about it by opinion pollsters, but in practice a niche obsession for a small handful and a total irrelevance for the overwhelming majority.
And it's why the remainers will win. They care more for it than leavers. Or rather leavers are split on what they care for, providing an opening to the remainers.
Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.
Capitalism (the working example not the Marx definition) used to operate on these cycles. And what's more the big players in capitalism understood that in order to sell their product/service they needed not just a product that people wanted to but but also consumers with the wherewithal to buy. That means leaving people with surplus income where the cost of living is lower than wages so that they can consume.
When consumption wasn't enough for the quarterly stock exchange reporting cycle (having been perfectly fine on the old longer cycles of not having everything floated) a way was found to give people more money- credit. After the crash credit has been tighter and we had a decade of wage stagnation and soaring living costs. Which is how we have so many people working and just about managing.
How to break the cycle? Invest. The Tories have burned through a trillion quid without investing as austerity slowly braked economic performance. Let the government borrow at near zero interest rates, slam the money into economy driving infrastructure projects, offer business incentive to invest* and we breathe life back into an economy that actually works for most people
Personal debt has increased for several years. Consumer credit, student debt and mortgage debt have all increased.
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
Some have made the suggestion Tory mps fear that if the deal succeeds may will lead them into the next election. I think that is a needless fear (unless the DUP do bring down the gov and there's no time for a new leader) I think she was always going in March, a new leader for the next phase. But as you say the deal is the deal. If someone would vote for it they just don't want may they are incredibly dumb and reckless.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.
Capitalism (the working example not the Marx definition) used to operate on these cycles. And what's more the big players in capitalism understood that in order to sell their product/service they needed not just a product that people wanted to but but also consumers with the wherewithal to buy. That means leaving people with surplus income where the cost of living is lower than wages so that they can consume.
When consumption wasn't enough for the quarterly stock exchange reporting cycle (having been perfectly fine on the old longer cycles of not having everything floated) a way was found to give people more money- credit. After the crash credit has been tighter and we had a decade of wage stagnation and soaring living costs. Which is how we have so many people working and just about managing.
How to break the cycle? Invest. The Tories have burned through a trillion quid without investing as austerity slowly braked economic performance. Let the government borrow at near zero interest rates, slam the money into economy driving infrastructure projects, offer business incentive to invest* and we breathe life back into an economy that actually works for most people
What I think that most people recognise is that the system is broken. I don't know whether a Keynesian solution would be better or worse than what we have now, but I do know that the reality of life post global financial crisis for a signifiant number of people has been one of grinding poverty with no hope of improvement, while at the same time people with the ability to leverage their existing capital by borrowing at historically low interest rates has led to the rich getting richer while the poor get left behind.
My personal guess is that a Corbyn government would raise taxes to a point where the economy would suffer, tax income would fall, capital would flee and a brain drain would happen, making things much worse. But I can also understand the opposing viewpoint. And I am someone who has done well out of the last ten years. If I hadn't had a pay rise in the best part of a decade I might think very differently.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
He already mentioned removing the VAT exemption, this was an extra policy ydoethur imagined.
The advantage of making stuff up is it is a lot harder to find that something isn't there!
He says bitterly having wasted at least 3 minutes looking for this policy...
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
That's a meaningless deal. When the deal goes down in flames she'll be gone soon enough anyway.
Yes, but we might be on a path to a referendum and risk remain as the new leader gets no new concessions. This theory is secure leave and promises she won't stick around.
But it makes no sense as no way most of the objectors are willing to vote for it were it not may.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
Kwasi Kwarteng on Sky News refuses to rule out resigning if the Deal fails and is replaced by the Norway option as it requires free movement. Says No Deal would lead to deep uncertainty
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
I share your concerns about the likely effects of a Corbyn Government - as poor as the current Government is, I don't trust a populist Left alternative not to wreck the economy - but the idea that the Tories are willing or able to stand on a low tax platform anymore is questionable to put it mildly.
The Conservatives are the party of the old, and the old adore taxation - so long as it doesn't affect their property. They expect to be paid gold-plated pensions and to have their joints replaced and their bottoms wiped for free when they become infirm, and they are quite happy to see the rest of us taxed into the ground to pay for it.
If that sounds like a despairing call to inter-generational warfare then it isn't meant as such. What is actually required is some relief from ever-higher taxes for the working age population, more investment in the interests of the young, and for better-off older people to accept that they may have to pass on a nest egg rather than a fortune to their offspring after they have died, in order that the country may continue to be a fit place to live in the present time.
The Conservatives cannot offer a low-tax platform because there are too many people who are dependent on the state, and most of those are older people who also form their core vote. This also means that, faced with the need to levy hefty taxation (and I believe that the total tax burden is the highest it has been for half-a-century,) they tax the wrong things and cut the wrong things.
What is desperately needed is a Government that will operate just a bit less in the interest of the old and a bit more in the interest of the young, to put the public finances on a genuinely sustainable footing. Tragically, what we're liable to get with Labour is a Government that uses yet more borrowing and short-sighted impositions on business in a vain attempt to dodge all the difficult decisions.
That's our problem as a country. Everyone expects everyone else to pay for loads of stuff for them, the politicians respond with unrealistic and myopic ideas, they keep on failing, and so we lurch from left to right to left to right to left to right, with society growing progressively more stressed with the passing of each electoral cycle.
And one thing of which I'm as certain as I can be is that Boris Johnson as Prime Minister does not represent much of a solution to anything. Clueless professional politicians are bad enough; God defend us from Government by journalists.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
Kwasi Kwarteng refuses to rule out resigning if the Deal fails and is replaced by the Norway option as it requires free movement. Says No Deal would lead to deep uncertainty
So if he doesn't want free movement or no deal what will those like him do after the deal fails? He's ruled out no deal, remain and the most talked about alternative. Since he has to do something what is left? Surely only a referendum?
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.
Kwasi Kwarteng refuses to rule out resigning if the Deal fails and is replaced by the Norway option as it requires free movement. Says No Deal would lead to deep uncertainty
So if he doesn't want free movement or no deal what will those like him do after the deal fails? He's ruled out no deal, remain and the most talked about alternative. Since he has to do something what is left? Surely only a referendum?
Thanks for the header, Nick, which seems fair enough from a Labour loyalist perspective. However, I’m expecting the Conservatives to crawl all the way to 2022.
What happens after that is currently unknowable.
Not expecting much legislation passed in that time I imagine. Deal or no deal some pissed off Tories will use every excuse to rebel.
I’m expecting it to be a placeholder government, dismal, degraded and enervated.
Someone imaginative as Prime Minister in that time could use it to put forward a string of populist policies that Parliament would vote down, as an extended trailer for their next manifesto. The Conservatives don’t seem long on imaginative senior politicians.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
A Corbyn Gov will mean economic amageddon. Businesses who can leave the U.K., will. McDonnell will impose his manifesto land tax proposals effectively charging people extortionate rents for living in their own homes; we’ll see a plethora of strikes and the lack of investment we are seeing now will get worse. There will be an huge outflow of capital before he takes office. There will be a ton of money chucked at public services and it won’t make bit of difference to them. Renationalisation will be expensive and pointless achieving nothing. Inflation will be back with a vengeance forcing interest rates up and there will be a run on the £.
The Tories will have no one to blame but themselves for sticking with May for so long and making Corbyn so appealing to so many.
A land tax is good neo-liberal economics. I don't doubt that the voters would hate it, but it's definitely not the kind of thing that would cause capital flight.
The belief that all land ultimately belongs to the state and tax policy is levied accordingly is bad economics. It’s impoverished every country where it’s been tried.
Hmmm.
Just in case you were unaware of this, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066 all land in the country *does* technically belong to the Crown.
That is why the title deeds of a property refer to 'freehold.' You hold it free of any third party directly from the King or in this case, queen.
And it can be taken away - most commonly in the Middle Ages by Bill of Attainder.
How many bills of attainder have there been since say the last 100 or 200 years and council tax is not the wealth tax included in Labour’s last manifesto.
None since 1870 when it was officially abolished.
However, it is part of the basis of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which has been used more than once.
That is curious. The US, whose constitutions, both federal and state, ban bills of attainder, has similar legislation without recourse to them.
I believe Churchill considered their use against captured Nazis during WWII as a means of executing them without trial, but was dissuaded.
So long as you tax land *instead* of income amd consumption. Somehow I don’t think that’s John McDonnell’s plan.
Well, where we're heading is that regardless of what John McDonnell *wants* to tax, a lot of the traditional revenue sources can be evaded by shifting assets into different jurisdictions, so unless you want to radically reduce the size of the state, land (and other immobile property) and consumption are going to have to take more of the burden.
I don't disagree that in a more globalised world there's going to be a shift towards taxing things like land and property, I was simply saying that McDonnell would add extra property taxes while keeping income tax and NI no lower than they are now.
Changing areas of taxation while keeping the overall burden constant is fine, a massive tax grab on property while keeping other things constant results in significant capital flight and a likely property crash.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
Thanks for the header, Nick, which seems fair enough from a Labour loyalist perspective. However, I’m expecting the Conservatives to crawl all the way to 2022.
What happens after that is currently unknowable.
Not expecting much legislation passed in that time I imagine. Deal or no deal some pissed off Tories will use every excuse to rebel.
I’m expecting it to be a placeholder government, dismal, degraded and enervated.
Someone imaginative as Prime Minister in that time could use it to put forward a string of populist policies that Parliament would vote down, as an extended trailer for their next manifesto. The Conservatives don’t seem long on imaginative senior politicians.
Indeed. But could such a dismal government drag on for 3 years?
I think if they can get through the next 6 months they might go the distance, I'm just not certain they can manage that. The procedural problems in calling an election is the only thing keeping them there.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Thanks for the header, Nick, which seems fair enough from a Labour loyalist perspective. However, I’m expecting the Conservatives to crawl all the way to 2022.
What happens after that is currently unknowable.
Not expecting much legislation passed in that time I imagine. Deal or no deal some pissed off Tories will use every excuse to rebel.
I’m expecting it to be a placeholder government, dismal, degraded and enervated.
Someone imaginative as Prime Minister in that time could use it to put forward a string of populist policies that Parliament would vote down, as an extended trailer for their next manifesto. The Conservatives don’t seem long on imaginative senior politicians.
Indeed. But could such a dismal government drag on for 3 years?
I think if they can get through the next 6 months they might go the distance, I'm just not certain they can manage that. The procedural problems in calling an election is the only thing keeping them there.
When I have time I have a thread header to write on this subject. My hunch is that we’re as likely to see two new Prime Ministers before the general election as as we are to see a general election next year.
On topic: the focus of Corbyn's 1st term is going to be the repeal of the trade union laws. He is union owned and operated.
Get your flares and oil drum braziers ready lads. Everybody out!
One thing worth remembering about this is that with the exception of a tiny number of anarcho-syndicalists the reason for being of a trade unionist leader is to reach a deal with the other side in negotiations.
Ideally from their perspective any change in the law would simply lead to a change in the balance of power of those negotiations which was recognised by the other side. Instinctively they are deal-makers not strike leaders.
Kwasi Kwarteng refuses to rule out resigning if the Deal fails and is replaced by the Norway option as it requires free movement. Says No Deal would lead to deep uncertainty
So if he doesn't want free movement or no deal what will those like him do after the deal fails? He's ruled out no deal, remain and the most talked about alternative. Since he has to do something what is left? Surely only a referendum?
Anyway the EU know how important the Freedom of Movement thing in the whole Brexit debate. Even if a British Govt try to brush over it in the desperation to secure an alternative deal, i would suspect that the EU would think twice. They know that it won't pass the HoC once the public get to know about it.
What, we've gone through this whole brexit thing because the EU won't provide concessions on Freedom of Movement and then our ultimate Brexit deal has no limitations on Freedom of movement? It obviously won't wash.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
We will drift into a planning-free No Deal whilst MPs fight about the various multiple referendum questions.
With Corbyn's acquiesence. He will be happy enough with the Tories getting the blame for a No Deal Brexit (which he could have stopped) whilst Brexit gets delivered.
I've got to say I've got concerns about Mr Rock's analysis. As grandparents Mrs C and I are VERY concerned about our grandchildren's prospects, and they're likely to be much better if Britain's IN the EU than out. Although three are in another (non-EU) country so different considerations apply.
Which is why I think this is such a clever attack video. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the economics of it all, it explains the point you have just made in a way the layman will find easy to understand and agree with.
Capitalism (the working example not the Marx definition) used to operate on these cycles. And what's more the big players in capitalism understood that in order to sell their product/service they needed not just a product that people wanted to but but also consumers with the wherewithal to buy. That means leaving people with surplus income where the cost of living is lower than wages so that they can consume.
When consumption wasn't enough for the quarterly stock exchange reporting cycle (having been perfectly fine on the old longer cycles of not having everything floated) a way was found to give people more money- credit. After the crash credit has been tighter and we had a decade of wage stagnation and soaring living costs. Which is how we have so many people working and just about managing.
How to break the cycle? Invest. The Tories have burned through a trillion quid without investing as austerity slowly braked economic performance. Let the government borrow at near zero interest rates, slam the money into economy driving infrastructure projects, offer business incentive to invest* and we breathe life back into an economy that actually works for most people
You're contradicting yourself.
You say credit has been tighter then say the government has burned through a trillion quid.
Where do you think most of that trillion quid went ?
Imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
Now if you want more infrastructure and business investment then that's fine with me - but it will come at a cost of reduced consumer spending as the balance in the economy changes.
Time to forget all this nonsense and return the UK to sanity . Time to put Brexit out of its misery !
Remains insisting of framing it as sanity vs insanity undermine the call for a vote which risks insanity being confirmed. Either it's not insane to offer people the choice in which case the remain case is overblown, or it is insane and Mps should man up and stop it even at the cost of public outrage.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Many people many times answer it. They just don't all agree.
'Scottish independence would be better than a no-deal Brexit, say 59%, with 41% disagreeing. While 53% say independence would benefit the country more than staying in the UK but outside the EU under a negotiated Brexit deal, 47% take the opposite view.
But there is still a hesitancy to actually vote for independence. Now backed by 47%' 53% No
I see that the notion of a Labour government has got the blinkered right wing ideologues out in force this morning.
For the many, not the few, comrades.
The Tories were the most popular party of the many at the last three elections and remain, bizarrely, about as popular with the many as the alternative.
I don't think Corbyn could do much worse than the Tories now, but the Tories were and possibly still are the most popularly supported political party in the country.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
Corbyn is a real danger to education if he thinks that private school fees are an easy hit.
The number of parents taking their children out of the private school sector would dwarf the VAT income, as it would be substantially less, the private school sector would be crippled, and thousands of children would suddenly have to be accommodated into the education system.
However, this is only one example of how the hard left have no idea of the effect that their policies would have on the wider economy
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
We will drift into a planning-free No Deal whilst MPs fight about the various multiple referendum questions.
With Corbyn's acquiesence. He will be happy enough with the Tories getting the blame for a No Deal Brexit (which he could have stopped) whilst Brexit gets delivered.
Except it won't if say May went and Lidington took over as he would immediately prepare for EUref2 with Parliament's support over No Deal if May's Deal failed
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.
I doubt that will penetrate the unionist ideology thinking.
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win it
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..
Kwasi Kwarteng refuses to rule out resigning if the Deal fails and is replaced by the Norway option as it requires free movement. Says No Deal would lead to deep uncertainty
So if he doesn't want free movement or no deal what will those like him do after the deal fails? He's ruled out no deal, remain and the most talked about alternative. Since he has to do something what is left? Surely only a referendum?
Quite likely, I think many who back the Deal will back a referendum as the voters prefer it to MPs, certainly head to head with Remain or No Deal
Time to forget all this nonsense and return the UK to sanity . Time to put Brexit out of its misery !
Remains insisting of framing it as sanity vs insanity undermine the call for a vote which risks insanity being confirmed. Either it's not insane to offer people the choice in which case the remain case is overblown, or it is insane and Mps should man up and stop it even at the cost of public outrage.
I disagree.
Even if you think it is insane no deal has a lot of support. If you are arguing for a second referendum on the principle of giving people the final say then no deal is what a lot of peoples final say would be.
Although my political preferences would prefer deal vs remain I can see a strong argument for no deal being an option in a referendum.
I can also see a lot of problems with it, ideally it would be defined by its proponents in some way at least.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
Corbyn is a real danger to education if he thinks that private school fees are an easy hit.
The number of parents taking their children out of the private school sector would dwarf the VAT income, as it would be substantially less, the private school sector would be crippled, and thousands of children would suddenly have to be accommodated into the education system.
However, this is only one example of how the hard left have no idea of the effect that their policies would have on the wider economy
Morning G, yes and they do not care either, pure ideology and for sure it will not affect the politburo. They will be well looked after.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
I share your concerns about the likely effects of a Corbyn Government - as poor as the current Government is, I don't trust a populist Left alternative not to wreck the economy - but the idea that the Tories are willing or able to stand on a low tax platform anymore is questionable to put it mildly.
The Conservatives are the party of the old, and the old adore taxation - so long as it doesn't affect their property. They expect to be paid gold-plated pensions and to have their joints replaced and their bot
What is desperately needed is a Government that will operate just a bit less in the interest of the old and a bit more in the interest of the young, to put the public finances on a genuinely sustainable footing. Tragically, what we're liable to get with Labour is a Government that uses yet more borrowing and short-sighted impositions on business in a vain attempt to dodge all the difficult decisions.
That's our problem as a country. Everyone expects everyone else to pay for loads of stuff for them, the politicians respond with unrealistic and myopic ideas, they keep on failing, and so we lurch from left to right to left to right to left to right, with society growing progressively more stressed with the passing of each electoral cycle.
And one thing of which I'm as certain as I can be is that Boris Johnson as Prime Minister does not represent much of a solution to anything. Clueless professional politicians are bad enough; God defend us from Government by journalists.
Boris would go full Berlusconi, prizes for everyone, tax cuts for the middle aged and young, inheritance tax abolished, higher pensions for the old, a brilliant Brexit out of the EU and the single market and customs union but able to get some sort of trade deal. As leader of the opposition he can promise whatever he wants exactly as Corbyn has and if Corbyn has to deliver his unicorns as PM Boris can pounce when it goes wrong
At first I thought I was reading a header by David Herdson until I got to 30-35% 'who really like him' at which point I looked. A good balanced header though I think you over-estimate Corbyn's popularity.
Assuming as you have done no imminent General Election or one where Labour depends on other parties the time might have arrived when a new centrist grouping emerges.
It's a pity that at this time of national emergency Labour have the leadership they have. Not just Corbyn but Abbott McDonnell McClusky and some of the least impressive shadow cabinet members ever assembled.
With a Blair or a Brown or a Milliband or a Cooper or even a Thornberry Labour could be on course for a '97 type victory and it could have killed off this bonkers Tory Party and their anachronistic ideas of empire for at least a decade.
I do not understand this admiration for Cooper. She did not lay a finger on Theresa May when she was shadowing her at the the Home Office.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..
Yeah I can see the logic in (mostly) adding highly motivated parents and children from nice backgrounds to the schooling system dumbing it down.... Presumably these are the bad behaving kids who bring others down?
Well thought out.
Of course PFI is front and centre of our plans... about 2 decades ago. Not sure if you have been missing out on the news in Scotland but the current Labour leadership aren't big fans...
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't be as Sturgeon and Blackford have made quite clear they will only call indyref2 if they do not get their 'compromise Brexit' of permanent single market and customs union or EUref2. If Corbyn essentially agrees the former hence in the SNP's own words no need for indyref2
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win it
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
Corbyn is a real danger to education if he thinks that private school fees are an easy hit.
The number of parents taking their children out of the private school sector would dwarf the VAT income, as it would be substantially less, the private school sector would be crippled, and thousands of children would suddenly have to be accommodated into the education system.
However, this is only one example of how the hard left have no idea of the effect that their policies would have on the wider economy
We should not sacrifice the education of poorer children for the state to subsidise private education. There is a longer term economic benefit to giving those from poorer backgrounds a good start, as well as moral reasons not to subsidise private education for the wealthier ahead of it.
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
If people want to send their children to private school they will have to pay the fees to keep the place running, those that don't will pressure their representatives into improving school standards for everyone as their children will have to go to such schools. The state shouldn't subsidise better education for the wealthy.
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
All it will do is dumb it down for more people. Where are they going to get the cash to pay for all the extra pupils. How many billions do we still owe from Labour's last PFI shambles, paying a fortune for schools that are substandard..
Yes, the it will “improve the educati9nal system for everyone else” smacks of magical thinking.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
Exactly , every private pupil means extra money into the state system for remaining pupils as it reduces numbers. Far better they tried to emulate the private schools and concentrate on educating the children.
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
MPs don't accept the result of the first referendum - why would they accept the result of a second referenedum?
Time to forget all this nonsense and return the UK to sanity . Time to put Brexit out of its misery !
Remains insisting of framing it as sanity vs insanity undermine the call for a vote which risks insanity being confirmed. Either it's not insane to offer people the choice in which case the remain case is overblown, or it is insane and Mps should man up and stop it even at the cost of public outrage.
I disagree.
Even if you think it is insane no deal has a lot of support. If you are arguing for a second referendum on the principle of giving people the final say then no deal is what a lot of peoples final say would be.
Although my political preferences would prefer deal vs remain I can see a strong argument for no deal being an option in a referendum.
I can also see a lot of problems with it, ideally it would be defined by its proponents in some way at least.
I agree with you on this, though I think no deal has been pretty well defined as a leap into the dark, and if its proponents have other ideas, then it is up to them to make a credible case if they can.
I don’t see how you can credibly have a referendum which excludes the strong preference of around a quarter of the electorate. Of course that argues even more strongly for having remain on the ballot - a Deal vs No Deal referendum would be even more absurd democratically.
Rebecca Long-Bailey confirms on Marr Labour's only real difference with May's Deal is on the backstop which they want to deal with via a permanent customs union rather than a temporary one
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
An option that has been rejected by Parliament vs an option that has been rejected by the people.
If Corbyn gets in it will likely be reliant on SNP and even LD votes. That means it would effectively be a BINO Brexit with not only permanent Customs Union as Corbyn wants but thanks to the SNP permanent Single Market too.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Plus a second Scottish Referendum
Actually far less likely under PM Corbyn than under No Deal, after all the only polls which have Yes ahead in Scotland are under a hard Brexit No Deal scenario. If Corbyn becomes PM and we get permanent Customs Union and Single Market anyway, which would be likely due to his reliance on the SNP, the SNP would have far less grounds to call a referendum as Brexit would be based on the SNP's core policy
There will be no PM Corbyn then , that will be minimum for SNP to support the idiot.
It won't
The need for one is never the point it's the desire for one.
If the SNP lose again they lose it for a generation, they only have a desire for one if they do not get EUref2 and Remain or Scotland leaves the Single Market and Customs Union as those are the only circumstances they may win it
Rubbish, the people will not support the SNP forever if they are not pushing very very hard for a referendum. I am already hacked off with them increasing my taxes , mucking about with drinks prices and generally poking their beaks into ordinary people's lives rather than less interference and getting on with the job they are there for.
Sturgeon is like May, a ditherer, if you want full speed to nationalism you need a Salmond but as Brexiteers need Boris
Surely they'd move to renationalise the railways? Big headlines, lots of political weight behind it and plays well to the gallery...
And then they'll find out why it was privatised, when the government receives all the blame for every delay.
People expect delays whoever runs the service, what they hate is (over)paying for the privilege.
If rail companies are nationalised the rail unions will just strike until they get what they want because the government will not go bust whereas private companies do.
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
Whichever of those won that would lead to a third of voters disenfranchised and would be a huge boost to UKIP/Tommy Robinson or Farage's new party
He also intended to fund free school meals by a huge levy on private school meals, and charge business rates for all schools including charities.
Was that in the manifesto???
Yes.
What the hell is a "levy on Private School Meals"? It wouldn't shut private schools, it would just stop private school meals!
Struggling to find it in the manifesto tbh... wondering if Ydoethur is trolling us...
Indeed @ydoethur is mistaken. Presume he was thinking of this (p38):
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
His main theme is correct , Corbyn would bankrupt most of the private schools and put a huge burden on the state to pick up the bill, the man is a moron.
Corbyn is a real danger to education if he thinks that private school fees are an easy hit.
The number of parents taking their children out of the private school sector would dwarf the VAT income, as it would be substantially less, the private school sector would be crippled, and thousands of children would suddenly have to be accommodated into the education system.
However, this is only one example of how the hard left have no idea of the effect that their policies would have on the wider economy
We should not sacrifice the education of poorer children for the state to subsidise private education. There is a longer term economic benefit to giving those from poorer backgrounds a good start, as well as moral reasons not to subsidise private education for the wealthier ahead of it.
The state doesn’t subsidise private education to any great extent. It would be very different if there were personal tax breaks for those who don’t use the state education system, but there aren’t.
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
I see that the notion of a Labour government has got the blinkered right wing ideologues out in force this morning.
For the many, not the few, comrades.
The Tories were the most popular party of the many at the last three elections and remain, bizarrely, about as popular with the many as the alternative.
I don't think Corbyn could do much worse than the Tories now, but the Tories were and possibly still are the most popularly supported political party in the country.
Pathetic if true. Firstly, why would they believe anything she says? Secondly, how does her leaving after the Deal is rammed through change any of the things they hate about it? Thirdly, how does throwing around petty threats about Christmas do anything to foster good will?
The Deal is the ONLY one on the table, it does not matter whether May or anyone else is PM there is no alternative without the backstop. There is no majority in the Commons for leaving without No Deal so a likely alternative would be PM Rudd or Lidington by some sort of coronation and Norway+ and permanent Customs Union for which there is likely a majority in the Commons
There is no polling on Norway+. It is likely that when spelt out to them, a significant majority will say "fuck that....". Certainly amongst Tory voters.
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
Marr reports Lidington now believes a second referendum is the most likely alternative if the Deal is voted down with the highest number of potential votes in Parliament
WHAT IS THE QUESTION????? Does nobody ever answer this?
Most likely a 3 way, Deal, No Deal, Remain either head to head of the former then the latter or under AV
Most likely Deal versus Remain.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
MPs don't accept the result of the first referendum - why would they accept the result of a second referenedum?
Because it will give the right answer. Seriously, it will be accepted and will be the last referendum ever.
You would expect the 200 no dealers and 200 dealers to cooperate because they are mostly in the same party but there is a bigger division between them than between Dealers and Remainers.
At first I thought I was reading a header by David Herdson until I got to 30-35% 'who really like him' at which point I looked. A good balanced header though I think you over-estimate Corbyn's popularity.
Assuming as you have done no imminent General Election or one where Labour depends on other parties the time might have arrived when a new centrist grouping emerges.
It's a pity that at this time of national emergency Labour have the leadership they have. Not just Corbyn but Abbott McDonnell McClusky and some of the least impressive shadow cabinet members ever assembled.
With a Blair or a Brown or a Milliband or a Cooper or even a Thornberry Labour could be on course for a '97 type victory and it could have killed off this bonkers Tory Party and their anachronistic ideas of empire for at least a decade.
I do not understand this admiration for Cooper. She did not lay a finger on Theresa May when she was shadowing her at the the Home Office.
I think it’s very hard for labour to shadow the home office - the obvious attacks are often things that play badly to the public at large so you actually have to wait until the scandal erupts.
The Windrush scandel is just an example you couldn’t explain it in detail via a question based approach until the details were discovered and published.
Comments
Blimey.
Meanwhile as Labour slams higher taxes on the rich and wealthy there will start to be a 'brain drain' of our most talented to the likes of Monaco and Singapore and Switzerland much as there was when Hollande was elected and he set on his initial course of high taxes. Nationalisations will also move forward starting with the Royal Mail, key utilities like gas, water and electricity and rail and moving on from there.
Once in office without the burden of responsibility the Tories can offer clear blue water with Corbyn Labour, probably under Leader of the Opposition Boris Johnson, on a pure Brexit, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, low tax populist agenda. If the evidence of the Hollande administration is anything to go by the Tories could have a double-digit lead within a year
Anyway, I have to go. Have a good morning.
Have a good morning.
Plus, these same MPs she is "bargaining" with can boot her out tomorrow, if they are so minded. She doesn't exactly have security of tenure.
Get your flares and oil drum braziers ready lads. Everybody out!
FWIW I think brexitism and Corbynism both have a whiff of autarky about them.
"To aid attainment, we will introduce free school meals for all primary school children, paid for by removing the VAT exemption on private school fees."
My personal guess is that a Corbyn government would raise taxes to a point where the economy would suffer, tax income would fall, capital would flee and a brain drain would happen, making things much worse. But I can also understand the opposing viewpoint. And I am someone who has done well out of the last ten years. If I hadn't had a pay rise in the best part of a decade I might think very differently.
The advantage of making stuff up is it is a lot harder to find that something isn't there!
He says bitterly having wasted at least 3 minutes looking for this policy...
But it makes no sense as no way most of the objectors are willing to vote for it were it not may.
The Conservatives are the party of the old, and the old adore taxation - so long as it doesn't affect their property. They expect to be paid gold-plated pensions and to have their joints replaced and their bottoms wiped for free when they become infirm, and they are quite happy to see the rest of us taxed into the ground to pay for it.
If that sounds like a despairing call to inter-generational warfare then it isn't meant as such. What is actually required is some relief from ever-higher taxes for the working age population, more investment in the interests of the young, and for better-off older people to accept that they may have to pass on a nest egg rather than a fortune to their offspring after they have died, in order that the country may continue to be a fit place to live in the present time.
The Conservatives cannot offer a low-tax platform because there are too many people who are dependent on the state, and most of those are older people who also form their core vote. This also means that, faced with the need to levy hefty taxation (and I believe that the total tax burden is the highest it has been for half-a-century,) they tax the wrong things and cut the wrong things.
What is desperately needed is a Government that will operate just a bit less in the interest of the old and a bit more in the interest of the young, to put the public finances on a genuinely sustainable footing. Tragically, what we're liable to get with Labour is a Government that uses yet more borrowing and short-sighted impositions on business in a vain attempt to dodge all the difficult decisions.
That's our problem as a country. Everyone expects everyone else to pay for loads of stuff for them, the politicians respond with unrealistic and myopic ideas, they keep on failing, and so we lurch from left to right to left to right to left to right, with society growing progressively more stressed with the passing of each electoral cycle.
And one thing of which I'm as certain as I can be is that Boris Johnson as Prime Minister does not represent much of a solution to anything. Clueless professional politicians are bad enough; God defend us from Government by journalists.
Someone imaginative as Prime Minister in that time could use it to put forward a string of populist policies that Parliament would vote down, as an extended trailer for their next manifesto. The Conservatives don’t seem long on imaginative senior politicians.
Quite frankly even if it works out economically neutral (and I'll question ydoethurs assessment of Labour policies given his track record on them) it is worth it to improve the education system for everyone else.
I believe Churchill considered their use against captured Nazis during WWII as a means of executing them without trial, but was dissuaded.
Changing areas of taxation while keeping the overall burden constant is fine, a massive tax grab on property while keeping other things constant results in significant capital flight and a likely property crash.
I think if they can get through the next 6 months they might go the distance, I'm just not certain they can manage that. The procedural problems in calling an election is the only thing keeping them there.
Ah, that's referring to a 'Brexit Betrayal' march.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46495595
Ideally from their perspective any change in the law would simply lead to a change in the balance of power of those negotiations which was recognised by the other side. Instinctively they are deal-makers not strike leaders.
I imagine most actual Brexit supporters are annoyed having these people involved.
What, we've gone through this whole brexit thing because the EU won't provide concessions on Freedom of Movement and then our ultimate Brexit deal has no limitations on Freedom of movement? It obviously won't wash.
For the many, not the few, comrades.
With Corbyn's acquiesence. He will be happy enough with the Tories getting the blame for a No Deal Brexit (which he could have stopped) whilst Brexit gets delivered.
Although three are in another (non-EU) country so different considerations apply.
You say credit has been tighter then say the government has burned through a trillion quid.
Where do you think most of that trillion quid went ?
Imported consumer tat and foreign holidays.
Now if you want more infrastructure and business investment then that's fine with me - but it will come at a cost of reduced consumer spending as the balance in the economy changes.
But there is still a hesitancy to actually vote for independence. Now backed by 47%' 53% No
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scottish-independence-better-than-brexit-htt8lbwvc
https://twitter.com/nicholas_mairs/status/1071704479479812098?s=21
There seems to be a general assumption that the Ayes can only rise. That assumption seems dangerous to me.
I don't think Corbyn could do much worse than the Tories now, but the Tories were and possibly still are the most popularly supported political party in the country.
The number of parents taking their children out of the private school sector would dwarf the VAT income, as it would be substantially less, the private school sector would be crippled, and thousands of children would suddenly have to be accommodated into the education system.
However, this is only one example of how the hard left have no idea of the effect that their policies would have on the wider economy
Except it won't if say May went and Lidington took over as he would immediately prepare for EUref2 with Parliament's support over No Deal if May's Deal failed
As ICM has shown it is No Deal that is the least popular outcome of all with a -33% rating to +7% for Norway
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/libleave_brexit_spectrum.html
Even if you think it is insane no deal has a lot of support. If you are arguing for a second referendum on the principle of giving people the final say then no deal is what a lot of peoples final say would be.
Although my political preferences would prefer deal vs remain I can see a strong argument for no deal being an option in a referendum.
I can also see a lot of problems with it, ideally it would be defined by its proponents in some way at least.
I’m not a particular fan of private education, but destroying the bulk of the sector would be highly disruptive in the short to medium term.
Well thought out.
Of course PFI is front and centre of our plans... about 2 decades ago. Not sure if you have been missing out on the news in Scotland but the current Labour leadership aren't big fans...
Well thought out.
Over 400 MPs will not allow No Deal on the ballot. 200 Dealers and 200 Remainers will cooperate to agree to a second referendum and agree it will be Deal versus Remain.
To be or not to be. That is the question.
You don't think the world might have moved on since this was posted?
And virtually nobody knows what "Norway+" means. Many here don't know. And if the Geekocracy don't know.....
I don’t see how you can credibly have a referendum which excludes the strong preference of around a quarter of the electorate. Of course that argues even more strongly for having remain on the ballot - a Deal vs No Deal referendum would be even more absurd democratically.
Genius!
How frequently would we have referendums on Remain/Leave the EU?
You would expect the 200 no dealers and 200 dealers to cooperate because they are mostly in the same party but there is a bigger division between them than between Dealers and Remainers.
The Windrush scandel is just an example you couldn’t explain it in detail via a question based approach until the details were discovered and published.