mosssideblue
Well-Known Member
Still digging
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
dobingsdobber
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 3,263
Doesn't the Nolan Directive,(aka."The Seven Principles of Public Life"),cover this gubbins?Agreed. Partygate is not comparable to this
These gifts though, like second jobs that MPs take, need stamping out.
law74
Well-Known Member
You quote the Tax Dodgers Alliance or any of the other Tufton Street scum and you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.I've really never got my head around why anyone would think that, other than that they are just horrible bitter individuals, resentful of anyone doing better than them. I hope that is not you.
The vast majority of people sending their kids to private school are not multi-millionaires, they are normal people, often 2 working parents who are making big personal sacrifices for the good of their children. And now thousands upon thousands just won't be able to afford it.
Is that really something to be proud of? Every kid NOT in state education is 1 less person for the state to fund educating. 1 less person in a crowded classroom. Sometimes 1 less kid with special needs that needs to be accommodated. More money per pupil for those in state schools, so they can have smaller classes and better education.
Other than bitter resentment, I can think of no reason why anyone would want to discourage this, with the aim of raising a few quid. Labour's own figures suggest that 65% of the VAT revenue will be lost on increased state education costs. The Treasury's own figures suggest it will actually COST more money than it saves.
BTW, I went to a state school, just for the record.
John O’Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said:
“VAT on private schools is a clear cut case of a policy gimmick that will do grievous harm to families with potentially pathetic results for revenues.
“Politicians may talk of a level-playing field, but taxpayers won’t be fooled by proposals that simply punish ambition without even achieving its own objectives.
“Labour should abandon this disastrous policy.”
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
I was 12 when i moved to a new school and on the first day the PE teacher asked me, 'What house are you in?' Three oh five bostocks lane sir.''Ha true. I was in house “xyz” at my last school, what houses do you have here? Mate we don’t have houses, we have gangs.
The other kids rolled around laughing and I didn't have a clue why.
law74
Well-Known Member
Far from being 100% Labour, much of Merseyside have been disenfranchised or kicked out of the Labour Party for being left wing in ideologyHaving their party conference in Liverpool; a smart move. 100% rock solid labour territory. Though I see there were some dissenters there, who were "persuaded" to leave the hall.
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
Sounds very much like the LotG as applied by PiGMOL's finest!Doesn't the Nolan Directive,(aka."The Seven Principles of Public Life"),cover this gubbins?
west didsblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 2 Oct 2011
- Messages
- 31,895
He will know exactly where he’s gone wrong and he will also know that doing a U turn on pretty much anything is worse than just letting the story die a death. Fairly sure he will get better at politics as time goes on. If he’s going to look bad he might as well do it in his first year in the job. In 2029 even those that give a shit now will have forgotten.No it doesn’t. You’ve got to ask yourself is Starmer being badly advised or is he ignoring advice. Both are fixable so I do expect it to get better.
I’d like to think if Starmer to could turn back the clock he’d do a couple of things differently. In that respect someone who (privately) can admit they got it wrong is better than someone who can’t. It tends to make you more considered and cautious going forward. We’ve all worked with people who know it all and don’t listen. They tend to be an accident waiting to happen.
metalblue
Well-Known Member
He will know exactly where he’s gone wrong and he will also know that doing a U turn on pretty much anything is worse than just letting the story die a death. Fairly sure he will get better at politics as time goes on. If he’s going to look bad he might as well do it in his first year in the job. In 2029 even those that give a shit now will have forgotten.
I’m sure they’d all love to reverse the decision on WFA but it’ll make them look weak so they’re going to have to front it out. I’d not be surprised if there is a little something in the budget to help soften the impacts on the most affected.
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
I agree. I think they will have to find a way to effectively reverse it, without reversing it. It's so patently obviously a diabolically bad policy decision, economically, morally and politically. I'd like to think that no future decisions can possibly be as terribly wrong as that one. But I am not convinced.I’m sure they’d all love to reverse the decision on WFA but it’ll make them look weak so they’re going to have to front it out. I’d not be surprised if there is a little something in the budget to help soften the impacts on the most affected.
So how would cutting the WFA be seen as appeasing the peasant scum? (Unless the peasant scum is "the market")That's only because it's not good form to say it out loud.
If you look at the last 15 years or even the last week then you really can't come to any other conclusion.