Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party? (Vol. 2)
Discussion
President Merkin said:
This is about the 25th time you've said that since Friday, which makes the one dimensional slur amusing. For someone who by their own admission, has no skin in the game, you sure have been crying non stop. Are you ok?
Absolutely top-drawer today thanks. Sometimes it is necessary to explain something more than once when dealing with the hard of thinking (and they still don't join the dots)
Noted that that you have much to say about people that take a different view to yours but very little of any substance to put forward an alternative view.
Just more sneering "Suck it up" bks.
Wombat3 said:
Noted that that you have much to say about people that take a different view to yours but very little of any substance to put forward an alternative view.
Just more sneering "Suck it up" bks.
Matter of fact, I set out the arguments in detail on Friday. Also matter of fact, you are so blinded by your hatred for Labour, you simply chose to ignore them, That's a matter for you but noted once again you don't really walk in a straight line much if ever.Just more sneering "Suck it up" bks.
President Merkin said:
Combing through an IFS report at 11pm on a Thursday night belies your prior assertion that you don't have a dog in the fight, wouldn't you agree?
As ever with you, the slipperiness is off the charts. In this case, it's deployed in two ways. One is to latch on to the IFS's observation that their data is limited (well duh, the vat exemption has been in place for over 50 years) and use that to characterise it heavily as guesswork & then later to rely on it to make the same point again. Your sins of omission are amusing too, Cherry picking lines from a report you've denigrated as guessing is classic bad faith. Great example here:
"Our best judgement is that it would be reasonable to assume that an effective VAT rate of 15% would lead to a 3–7% reduction in private school attendance. This would likely generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending per year in the medium to long run."
Odd you should omit the last sentence, I can only assume you did so because it undermines the whole edifice of your own flowering, foundation free argument veering of into vague fluffery on social & economic impacts.
In the end, you're free to denigrate the IFS but it's typical of the right to do so. One observable manifestation of the populism wrecking this country is a freewheeling willingness to trash institutions. Doesn't matter who, judges, NHS, National Trust. the BBC, IFS, anyone contradicting the ideology is fair game. But if you're going to do it in this context, then it's for you to offer countervailing evidence which probably needs to be a little heftier than 'I'd stick it in my pension & claim tax relief'. And Tufton street stink tanks are a bad idea.
And floating above all of that is the reality that we're still talking about a complete non issue in the scheme of things. It's a tiny proportion of people affected, the electorate if it notices at all won't have it anywhere near their list of priorities & private schools remain an engine of discrimination,
Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.
Finland effectively abolished private education decades ago. It made the clearly correct assumption that, if the rich and powerful knew their own children were likely to attend state-maintained schools, they would be keen to ensure that such schools were well funded. Finland is among Europe’s most educationally successful countries. Therein lies a truism, you're either in society or you aren't. Perpetuating social division for personal advantage gives a clear answer where some stand.
As ever with you, the slipperiness is off the charts. In this case, it's deployed in two ways. One is to latch on to the IFS's observation that their data is limited (well duh, the vat exemption has been in place for over 50 years) and use that to characterise it heavily as guesswork & then later to rely on it to make the same point again. Your sins of omission are amusing too, Cherry picking lines from a report you've denigrated as guessing is classic bad faith. Great example here:
"Our best judgement is that it would be reasonable to assume that an effective VAT rate of 15% would lead to a 3–7% reduction in private school attendance. This would likely generate a need for about £100–300 million in extra school spending per year in the medium to long run."
Odd you should omit the last sentence, I can only assume you did so because it undermines the whole edifice of your own flowering, foundation free argument veering of into vague fluffery on social & economic impacts.
In the end, you're free to denigrate the IFS but it's typical of the right to do so. One observable manifestation of the populism wrecking this country is a freewheeling willingness to trash institutions. Doesn't matter who, judges, NHS, National Trust. the BBC, IFS, anyone contradicting the ideology is fair game. But if you're going to do it in this context, then it's for you to offer countervailing evidence which probably needs to be a little heftier than 'I'd stick it in my pension & claim tax relief'. And Tufton street stink tanks are a bad idea.
And floating above all of that is the reality that we're still talking about a complete non issue in the scheme of things. It's a tiny proportion of people affected, the electorate if it notices at all won't have it anywhere near their list of priorities & private schools remain an engine of discrimination,
Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.
Finland effectively abolished private education decades ago. It made the clearly correct assumption that, if the rich and powerful knew their own children were likely to attend state-maintained schools, they would be keen to ensure that such schools were well funded. Finland is among Europe’s most educationally successful countries. Therein lies a truism, you're either in society or you aren't. Perpetuating social division for personal advantage gives a clear answer where some stand.
Tom8 said:
"Thick rich kids"? You realise private schools are selective don't you? The main reason the left hates them as not everyone wins a prize? You did know that though, you were just messing. I think.
IME the selective nature of them pretty much ends at "do you have £10k a term". President Merkin said:
....
And floating above all of that is the reality that we're still talking about a complete non issue in the scheme of things. It's a tiny proportion of people affected, the electorate if it notices at all won't have it anywhere near their list of priorities & private schools remain an engine of discrimination,
Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.
Finland effectively abolished private education decades ago. It made the clearly correct assumption that, if the rich and powerful knew their own children were likely to attend state-maintained schools, they would be keen to ensure that such schools were well funded. Finland is among Europe’s most educationally successful countries. Therein lies a truism, you're either in society or you aren't. Perpetuating social division for personal advantage gives a clear answer where some stand.
That seems to make the quite massive leap that going to private schools is what conveys the advantages that see kids ending up as judges, journalists or BAFTA award winners. And floating above all of that is the reality that we're still talking about a complete non issue in the scheme of things. It's a tiny proportion of people affected, the electorate if it notices at all won't have it anywhere near their list of priorities & private schools remain an engine of discrimination,
Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.
Finland effectively abolished private education decades ago. It made the clearly correct assumption that, if the rich and powerful knew their own children were likely to attend state-maintained schools, they would be keen to ensure that such schools were well funded. Finland is among Europe’s most educationally successful countries. Therein lies a truism, you're either in society or you aren't. Perpetuating social division for personal advantage gives a clear answer where some stand.
That is waaaaaaay too simplistic a view. Ban private education tomorrow people will still be "locked out".
As for Finland, it's a country whose population is half the size of London. It's simply not comparable to here in nigh on every respect.
MC Bodge said:
Isn't there another support group thread for school fee payers?
Why not just start a Justgiving crowd-funding account to help you achieve your human rights?
It is potentially one of Kiers money making ideas, so belongs in ‘his’ thread imo.Why not just start a Justgiving crowd-funding account to help you achieve your human rights?
No one is forcing you to take part.
119 said:
MC Bodge said:
Isn't there another support group thread for school fee payers?
Why not just start a Justgiving crowd-funding account to help you achieve your human rights?
It is potentially one of Kiers money making ideas, so belongs in ‘his’ thread imo.Why not just start a Justgiving crowd-funding account to help you achieve your human rights?
No one is forcing you to take part.
President Merkin said:
Wombat3 said:
Noted that that you have much to say about people that take a different view to yours but very little of any substance to put forward an alternative view.
Just more sneering "Suck it up" bks.
Matter of fact, I set out the arguments in detail on Friday. Also matter of fact, you are so blinded by your hatred for Labour, you simply chose to ignore them, That's a matter for you but noted once again you don't really walk in a straight line much if ever.Just more sneering "Suck it up" bks.
You quoted a report which itself said it was a bunch of estimates based on (dubious) assumptions. If you'd take something like that as Gospel (would you bet your house on it ? ) then that's a leap of faith that's way beyond "brave"
Then you based a comparison based on a country so small that its bordering on statistical irrelevance (No offence to the Finns who are great people).
As for your last little sneering ad-hom attempt to discredit (yet again) I am 100% consistent that this is stupid fkwittery based on nothing tangible and where the impacts from it have not been properly considered. If its indicative of other policy areas (and why would it not be) then its going to be a st-show.
You may not like the line, but its very straight/consistent
Done with you on this now. Despite countless opportunities to contribute something which might be in any way thought-provoking, you clearly have nothing relevant to say. The wider context is seemingly too wide for you.
Wombat3 said:
Nah, you really didn't.
You quoted a report which itself said it was a bunch of estimates based on (dubious) assumptions. If you'd take something like that as Gospel (would you bet your house on it ? ) then that's a leap of faith that's way beyond "brave"
Then you based a comparison based on a country so small that its bordering on statistical irrelevance (No offence to the Finns who are great people).
As for your last little sneering ad-hom attempt to discredit (yet again) I am 100% consistent that this is stupid fkwittery based on nothing tangible and where the impacts from it have not been properly considered. If its indicative of other policy areas (and why would it not be) then its going to be a st-show.
You may not like the line, but its very straight/consistent
Done with you on this now. Despite countless opportunities to contribute something which might be in any way thought-provoking, you clearly have nothing relevant to say. The wider context is seemingly too wide for you.
Good, it's gobsmacking how often you go out of your way to prove your lack of credibility. An absolutely shameless bad faith operator, worthy of no one's time. Shut the door on your way out pal. You quoted a report which itself said it was a bunch of estimates based on (dubious) assumptions. If you'd take something like that as Gospel (would you bet your house on it ? ) then that's a leap of faith that's way beyond "brave"
Then you based a comparison based on a country so small that its bordering on statistical irrelevance (No offence to the Finns who are great people).
As for your last little sneering ad-hom attempt to discredit (yet again) I am 100% consistent that this is stupid fkwittery based on nothing tangible and where the impacts from it have not been properly considered. If its indicative of other policy areas (and why would it not be) then its going to be a st-show.
You may not like the line, but its very straight/consistent
Done with you on this now. Despite countless opportunities to contribute something which might be in any way thought-provoking, you clearly have nothing relevant to say. The wider context is seemingly too wide for you.
President Merkin said:
Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.
President Merkin said:
Just 7% of children are privately educated but they make up 74% of judges, over 50% of print journalists, 80% of leading editors, 60% of senior civil servants, a majority of BAFTA winners. They act as a conveyor belt, creaming off the most sought after jobs to a tiny percentage of people, shutting out the majority who lack those disproportionately affluent advantages. That compunds negative outcomes for the majority & does it at a discount. It's wrong in principle that those schools should confer disproportionate benefit whilst accruing the tax benefits of charities.
Indeed and t is difficult to argue against that.Let us all move on and allow those who want to continue their angst to take it to the school fees thread.
MC Bodge said:
Indeed and t is difficult to argue against that.
Let us all move on and allow those who want to continue their angst to take it to the school fees thread.
This has every hallmark of a classic Labour policy - will raise nothing, is likely to have detrimental impacts across the board and most to those it is purported to protect....but do it anyway because there's a daft perception it will somehow "level things out".Let us all move on and allow those who want to continue their angst to take it to the school fees thread.
Levelling Up has been screwed up by the Conservatives. Let's see how Levelling Down goes
The education in this country has been messed about with and screwed up for a long time. This will do precisely nothing to reverse that.
Glimpses of 'good news' around the corner with food price inflation slowing and BoE saying room for 3 interest rate cuts this year. It shouldn't influence anything but I wonder if Keir is becoming a little concerned?
I always said I would never vote Tory again on pain of death, mainly over Covid response and net zero, but as an election looms and the reality of a Labour admin begins to come into view I wonder if many folk might just hold their nose?
...still undecided either way myself, it's certainly going to be very interesting.
I always said I would never vote Tory again on pain of death, mainly over Covid response and net zero, but as an election looms and the reality of a Labour admin begins to come into view I wonder if many folk might just hold their nose?
...still undecided either way myself, it's certainly going to be very interesting.
MC Bodge said:
768 said:
Reminded everyone that Labour is a party with an anti-Semitism problem.
Disagreeing with the Israeli government does not equal hating Jewish people, though.In UK law neither you nor me gets to decide if 768 has a point or not.
Any situation, event, happening, statement, utterance, including in tandem with another offence if one is committed, is racist in UK law if any single person perceives it as racist. That's in CPS documentation online. Hence neither you nor me nor anyone else gets to overrule another person, including 768, as UK law stands atm.
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 21st May 13:56
Murph7355 said:
Tom8 said:
"Thick rich kids"? You realise private schools are selective don't you? The main reason the left hates them as not everyone wins a prize? You did know that though, you were just messing. I think.
IME the selective nature of them pretty much ends at "do you have £10k a term". Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff