Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
MiniMan64 said:
It was all sound bites, repeated practiced answers and ignoring the question. My view and I’m sure it’s won’t be shared by some here, is that Kier came across as a much more honest personable blown this morning.
Having him cook live on Sunday Brunch while answering questions seemed like a lot to ask of anyone, people are so used to seeing polished TV chefs with presenting experience do this kind of thing and expect it be slick... and it usually is thanks to lots of experience and rehearsals. Anything he does now is going to be scrutinised and used against him and, while I thought he did a perfectly decent job of things, others will see "bumbling" or question if a wand blender was the best tool to use or that he couldn't open the oven immediately (most people would have struggled, I didn't even know you could get ovens with doors that opened at the touch of a button) and then turn that into him being unfit to run the country because he makes bad choices and needed help from others to deliver the end result. Even the suggestion he eats salmon and isn't just hoovering up dust from passing buses will no doubt be twisted as "elitist" by some outlets.
But the discussions all came across like a normal bloke just hoping he can make things better without promising the moon on a stick within a week of being elected and it's that kind of honesty, and general changes in honesty, standards and respect generally, that we'd all benefit from now surely?
thetapeworm said:
MiniMan64 said:
It was all sound bites, repeated practiced answers and ignoring the question. My view and I’m sure it’s won’t be shared by some here, is that Kier came across as a much more honest personable blown this morning.
Having him cook live on Sunday Brunch while answering questions seemed like a lot to ask of anyone, people are so used to seeing polished TV chefs with presenting experience do this kind of thing and expect it be slick... and it usually is thanks to lots of experience and rehearsals. Anything he does now is going to be scrutinised and used against him and, while I thought he did a perfectly decent job of things, others will see "bumbling" or question if a wand blender was the best tool to use or that he couldn't open the oven immediately (most people would have struggled, I didn't even know you could get ovens with doors that opened at the touch of a button) and then turn that into him being unfit to run the country because he makes bad choices and needed help from others to deliver the end result. Even the suggestion he eats salmon and isn't just hoovering up dust from passing buses will no doubt be twisted as "elitist" by some outlets.
But the discussions all came across like a normal bloke just hoping he can make things better without promising the moon on a stick within a week of being elected and it's that kind of honesty, and general changes in honesty, standards and respect generally, that we'd all benefit from now surely?
Some look more out of touch than others by doing it.
119 said:
It's all an act performed by all of the party leaders.
Some look more out of touch than others by doing it.
Have you very careful when choosing to do, what on the face of it, softball interviews. Leaders can be lulled into a false sense of security with an expectation of just answering fluffy questions when the interviewer suddenly goes all Victoria Derbyshire on them and they look lost or revert back to sound bites as they desperately try and run down the clock.Some look more out of touch than others by doing it.
Saw a bit of it with Rishi on Loosewomen and famously, Liz Truss on various BBC local radio shows where she got hammered continuously.
Very easy to trip up in these situations.
NerveAgent said:
tangerine_sedge said:
turbobloke said:
Labour has made itself the Party fixated on independent education, their ideas will fix nothing worthwhile but the law of unintended consequences is waiting for them as usual.
The only people fixated on this are the usual blow-hards on PH, literally no one outside of PH is talking about this.We could be talking about the number of teachers leaving state education every day (newly qualified teachers leaving after a couple of years and going to work in Aldi because they're paid better), or the recent announcement by SKS to replace those teachers and re-invigorate state education, but PH seems fixated on a relatively small number of people having to pay appropriate taxes.
I suspect it’s just a small bubble of people that think it’s a bigger deal than it is. Hardly anyone cares. Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
119 said:
It's all an act performed by all of the party leaders.
Some look more out of touch than others by doing it.
At what point is it not? When do you stop being cynical and try and judge politicians without the goggles? Some look more out of touch than others by doing it.
I thought he spoke fairly reasonably this morning, the only “talking point/sound bite” comment I detected was mentioning by his wife and the NHS. But then she does work there and it’s a mess so it’s a reasonable point to reference.
MC Bodge said:
I have made this point myself a number of times.
Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
People who struggle to make the fees are the ones who have already set their priorities in favour of getting the best education they can for their kids rather than spanking new Range Rovers and holibobs in Barbidross. It's a lot of money, nobody does it if they don't find value in it.Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
VAT exemption for education is just there and always has been. Doesn't make it wrong. This is just the imposition of a tax to try and stop people using it..which will actually just make it more elitist, raise little money and disrupt the education of an unknown number of children.
Pareto ie the 80: 20 rule is what should be front and centre....80% of results come from 20% of your actions. This should not even be looked at before the last 5%, never mind in the first 20%
Wombat3 said:
MC Bodge said:
I have made this point myself a number of times.
Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
People who struggle to make the fees are the ones who have already set their priorities in favour of getting the best education they can for their kids rather than spanking new Range Rovers and holibobs in Barbidross. It's a lot of money, nobody does it if they don't find value in it.Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
VAT exemption for education is just there and always has been. Doesn't make it wrong. This is just the imposition of a tax to try and stop people using it..which will actually just make it more elitist, raise little money and disrupt the education of an unknown number of children.
Pareto ie the 80: 20 rule is what should be front and centre....80% of results come from 20% of your actions. This should not even be looked at before the last 5%, never mind in the first 20%
MC Bodge said:
I have made this point myself a number of times.
Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
You clearly don't know much about the logic most parents have for choosing private schools. It isn't about making "great contacts" with the offspring of "oligarchs". Its mostly about smaller class sizes, motivated teachers, good facilities and, above all, a culture when each child is encouraged to achieve their full potential.Very few people will be aware of the intention to add tax to school fees and even fewer will care.
If somebody chooses to spend £10,000s per year on school fees -as they believe that it will give their children an advantage in life-, then they cannot reasonably expect the school to be considered wholly a charity. The suggestion that it is a philanthropic gesture to free-up state school places for the less fortunate is cringe-worthy.
If people are struggling/"scrimping and saving" to find the fees, I would suggest that they have a good think about their priorities and whether or not it was really worth it (especially for a school that is not attended by the offspring of the world's monarchs and oligarchs, at which great contacts might be made).
It is somewhat amusing that some people on here believe that it is almost the only differentiator between The Tories and Labour.
Get a grip and move along.
That should be the aim of the state system, but the reality is that many parents just don't care that much, which is why many state schools develop a bad culture. In my children's school, the students are striving to get the best results they can. The parents are all focused on that goal too. It's the children who don't try their best who will get teased, rather than the ones who are pushing to get to the top of the class.
I remember when I went to (state) school - most children were bored, they thought school was pointless, and for most kids, the aim was to scrape through doing the least amount of work. It was 'cool' to mess around, whilst trying to back-chat the weaker teachers. And the bad attitude of those children is directly descended from the bad attitude of their parents imo.
In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
Also, I don't think anyone talking about VAT on school fees is asking for sympathy. It's more that, in the longer term, I doubt it will raise much money. And whilst the top performing children will be fine either way, there will be plenty of children of more normal ability who won't achieve their full potential, as they will be dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools.
EddieSteadyGo said:
You clearly don't know much about the logic most parents have for choosing private schools. It isn't about making "great contacts" with the offspring of "oligarchs". Its mostly about smaller class sizes, motivated teachers, good facilities and, above all, a culture when each child is encouraged to achieve their full potential.
That should be the aim of the state system, but the reality is that many parents just don't care that much, which is why many state schools develop a bad culture. In my children's school, the students are striving to get the best results they can. The parents are all focused on that goal too. It's the children who don't try their best who will get teased, rather than the ones who are pushing to get to the top of the class.
I remember when I went to (state) school - most children were bored, they thought school was pointless, and for most kids, the aim was to scrape through doing the least amount of work. It was 'cool' to mess around, whilst trying to back-chat the weaker teachers. And the bad attitude of those children is directly descended from the bad attitude of their parents imo.
In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
Also, I don't think anyone talking about VAT on school fees is asking for sympathy. It's more that, in the longer term, I doubt it will raise much money. And whilst the top performing children will be fine either way, there will be plenty of children of more normal ability who won't achieve their full potential, as they will be dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools.
I think parental attitudes do matter, but the biggest difference between public and private is money. That should be the aim of the state system, but the reality is that many parents just don't care that much, which is why many state schools develop a bad culture. In my children's school, the students are striving to get the best results they can. The parents are all focused on that goal too. It's the children who don't try their best who will get teased, rather than the ones who are pushing to get to the top of the class.
I remember when I went to (state) school - most children were bored, they thought school was pointless, and for most kids, the aim was to scrape through doing the least amount of work. It was 'cool' to mess around, whilst trying to back-chat the weaker teachers. And the bad attitude of those children is directly descended from the bad attitude of their parents imo.
In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
Also, I don't think anyone talking about VAT on school fees is asking for sympathy. It's more that, in the longer term, I doubt it will raise much money. And whilst the top performing children will be fine either way, there will be plenty of children of more normal ability who won't achieve their full potential, as they will be dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools.
Much easier to focus on kids potential when you've multiples of money more per child.
Of course depending on your politics that could be good or bad but I'd say its the biggest help in terms of teaching.
Edited by borcy on Sunday 19th May 12:42
borcy said:
I think parental attitudes do matter, but the biggest difference between public and private is money.
Much easier to focus on kids potential when you've multiples of money more per child.
Of course depending on your politics that could be good or bad but I'd say its the biggest help in terms of teaching.
If as a society we really wanted to improve the state system, we should do it through general taxation, like increasing the basic rate of income tax by the necessary amount. But Labour won't do that, because it would be unpopular. Much better to try and get "someone else" to pay instead... Much easier to focus on kids potential when you've multiples of money more per child.
Of course depending on your politics that could be good or bad but I'd say its the biggest help in terms of teaching.
EddieSteadyGo said:
borcy said:
I think parental attitudes do matter, but the biggest difference between public and private is money.
Much easier to focus on kids potential when you've multiples of money more per child.
Of course depending on your politics that could be good or bad but I'd say its the biggest help in terms of teaching.
If as a society we really wanted to improve the state system, we should do it through general taxation, like increasing the basic rate of income tax by the necessary amount. But Labour won't do that, because it would be unpopular. Much better to try and get "someone else" to pay instead... Much easier to focus on kids potential when you've multiples of money more per child.
Of course depending on your politics that could be good or bad but I'd say its the biggest help in terms of teaching.
EddieSteadyGo said:
I remember when I went to (state) school - most children were bored, they thought school was pointless, and for most kids, the aim was to scrape through doing the least amount of work. It was 'cool' to mess around, whilst trying to back-chat the weaker teachers. And the bad attitude of those children is directly descended from the bad attitude of their parents imo.
In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
I also remember my state comprehensive school, in the late 80s-mid 90s. There was a wide range of ability (many at the lower end academically) and attitude amongst the pupils. We were set for ability in academic subjects. Sport (and the school played sport against independent schools most weekends), science, drama etc were well supprted. Many of us did quite well and the exposure to different sorts of people was actually a bonus as far as I am concerned. I may be fortunate, but I am equally comfortable with trades and manual workers as I am with directors of corporations. People are people.In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
Parents definitely have a big influence. I am grateful to mine (and they were not at all wealthy).
My children go to a state grammar school. It sounds similar to what you are describing for an independent school. I don't actually agree with the selective schools system, but the pupils from the top sets in the area are effectively corralled into a different site to the other pupils, so if they are capable it makes sense for them to be with their peers -albeit with an unfortunate segregation, a lot of focus on exam results and some odd decisions.
If we lived in a different borough, my children would be at a comprehensive school. I would not be shelling-out £1000s for school fees.
Edited by MC Bodge on Sunday 19th May 13:08
borcy said:
Well that's one view point. It's not that far away from labours policy, both want more money schools, both agree it should be through taxation. But disagree on which tax to increase.
It's nothing like Labour's policy. Their policy won't raise much money (long term) imo, and even if it did, it wouldn't be anything like enough to fix the structural funding issues, but it will damage some children (who get dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools). I also have a problem with politicians (and people who support them) who always want 'someone else' to pay for their services.
EddieSteadyGo said:
borcy said:
Well that's one view point. It's not that far away from labours policy, both want more money schools, both agree it should be through taxation. But disagree on which tax to increase.
It's nothing like Labour's policy. Their policy won't raise much money (long term) imo, and even if it did, it wouldn't be anything like enough to fix the structural funding issues, but it will damage some children (who get dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools). I also have a problem with politicians (and people who support them) who always want 'someone else' to pay for their services.
People should pay for their own services, a user pays type of set up?
borcy said:
It looks quite similar to me, more a disagreement on detail.
People should pay for their own services, a user pays type of set up?
If a policy is designed to achieve a completely different objective, then it is not similar. People should pay for their own services, a user pays type of set up?
Re paying for services, you know full well that plenty of people like the idea of "better public services" provided they don't actually have to pay anything extra themselves. It just encourages freeloading. This policy is a classic case. Much better, as I was saying earlier, would be to explain to the public what the state education system needs, and then make the case for it to be paid from general taxation. But your average Labour voter isn't going to support that, because it would involve them paying 'a bit more'. So they try and find someone else to pay on their behalf.
MC Bodge said:
...
My children go to a state grammar school. It sounds similar to what you are describing for an independent school.....
It's very similar to that. Except the private system doesn't just provide that for the proportion of children who can pass the 11+; they provide it to every pupil they teach. So your more average student, still gets to learn in an environment where attainment is encouraged, and hard work is recognised, and which means they aren't being dragged down by the bad culture which is prevalent in many state schools.My children go to a state grammar school. It sounds similar to what you are describing for an independent school.....
EddieSteadyGo said:
You clearly don't know much about the logic most parents have for choosing private schools. It isn't about making "great contacts" with the offspring of "oligarchs". Its mostly about smaller class sizes, motivated teachers, good facilities and, above all, a culture when each child is encouraged to achieve their full potential.
That should be the aim of the state system, but the reality is that many parents just don't care that much, which is why many state schools develop a bad culture. In my children's school, the students are striving to get the best results they can. The parents are all focused on that goal too. It's the children who don't try their best who will get teased, rather than the ones who are pushing to get to the top of the class.
I remember when I went to (state) school - most children were bored, they thought school was pointless, and for most kids, the aim was to scrape through doing the least amount of work. It was 'cool' to mess around, whilst trying to back-chat the weaker teachers. And the bad attitude of those children is directly descended from the bad attitude of their parents imo.
In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
Also, I don't think anyone talking about VAT on school fees is asking for sympathy. It's more that, in the longer term, I doubt it will raise much money. And whilst the top performing children will be fine either way, there will be plenty of children of more normal ability who won't achieve their full potential, as they will be dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools.
That’s exactly how it is for my boy, even the nursery in the private school compared to the public one he was in before are worlds apart. He’s in a smaller class and is getting dedicated teaching. It comes to something when he teachers in the local state schools are saying If you can afford to send your child elsewhere then do it as where I am is horrendous. That should be the aim of the state system, but the reality is that many parents just don't care that much, which is why many state schools develop a bad culture. In my children's school, the students are striving to get the best results they can. The parents are all focused on that goal too. It's the children who don't try their best who will get teased, rather than the ones who are pushing to get to the top of the class.
I remember when I went to (state) school - most children were bored, they thought school was pointless, and for most kids, the aim was to scrape through doing the least amount of work. It was 'cool' to mess around, whilst trying to back-chat the weaker teachers. And the bad attitude of those children is directly descended from the bad attitude of their parents imo.
In fact, I think that parental attitudes is the biggest difference between the state and private system. And I think that also probably accounts for the differences in attainment in later life.
Also, I don't think anyone talking about VAT on school fees is asking for sympathy. It's more that, in the longer term, I doubt it will raise much money. And whilst the top performing children will be fine either way, there will be plenty of children of more normal ability who won't achieve their full potential, as they will be dragged down by the bad culture in many state schools.
And as for the financial benefit in labour doing this there isn’t really one. Those who can will simply get the grandparents to pay via a trust or you can set up a property business for example make your children shareholders and pay them dividends to pay for the school fees using their tax free allowance.
This is a pointless exercise as much as the Tories Rwanda plan is
EddieSteadyGo said:
borcy said:
It looks quite similar to me, more a disagreement on detail.
People should pay for their own services, a user pays type of set up?
If a policy is designed to achieve a completely different objective, then it is not similar. People should pay for their own services, a user pays type of set up?
Re paying for services, you know full well that plenty of people like the idea of "better public services" provided they don't actually have to pay anything extra themselves. It just encourages freeloading. This policy is a classic case. Much better, as I was saying earlier, would be to explain to the public what the state education system needs, and then make the case for it to be paid from general taxation. But your average Labour voter isn't going to support that, because it would involve them paying 'a bit more'. So they try and find someone else to pay on their behalf.
Why general taxation though, why not vat on something else or vat in general or one of the many other taxes?
There's a more general point about reducing indirect taxes and putting more on income tax. Which is an idea. You won't get much traction on here i wouldn't have thought. But who knows.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff