Banquo wrote:
Well I did, so you can! I made them up obvs.
ISC website, Keir Starmer, cost per pupil is standard. Its quite simple really. The economics don't work, but Labour should be honest and say that's not the point (and fair enough, its a political question) and then how they will absorb a proportion of the 620000 kids ongoing.
I'm sure you've done some analysis but I can't see where those numbers are on the website, or which are the ones you calculated yourself, or what your calculations are. I don't have time to reinvent your wheel. (And it's too hot.)
plenty of sources, HMC, Baine Cutler analysis are just two.
OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.
IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.
Puja wrote:Truss vs Sunak in the vote, so it's basically PM Truss come September.
Could be better, but with the modern Conservative party, could've been a lot fucking worse.
Puja
It could have been worse; but I'm not sure it could have been "a lot" worse, certainly from those who managed to actually get nominated.
Badenoch would have been worse, then it was a toss up between Truss and Braverman for "worst of a bad bunch"
It's good for Labour that whichever candidate wins will be deeply stained by the Johnson regime and will be unable to claim to be any kind of 'clean break'. As I've said, although she would be worse in the short term Truss would be more likely to take the Conservatives to electoral defeat, so she'd get my vote.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
I'm sure you've done some analysis but I can't see where those numbers are on the website, or which are the ones you calculated yourself, or what your calculations are. I don't have time to reinvent your wheel. (And it's too hot.)
plenty of sources, HMC, Baine Cutler analysis are just two.
OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.
IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.
Yes, and SKS should be straight on that, rather than pretending that its a straight 'tax income' that can be reinvested in full.
(And you can find the data outside their report- though its possible these sourced the report; plus the VAT numbers equate to the savings that Labour claim will be made £1.6bn is from SKS's speech. I've also seen no counter argument to the ISC/HMC argument on the economics. If the figures were bollox, you'd think they'd have been challenged.)
Banquo wrote:
plenty of sources, HMC, Baine Cutler analysis are just two.
OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.
IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.
Yes, and SKS should be straight on that, rather than pretending that its a straight 'tax income' that can be reinvested in full.
(And you can find the data outside their report- though its possible these sourced the report; plus the VAT numbers equate to the savings that Labour claim will be made £1.6bn is from SKS's speech. I've also seen no counter argument to the ISC/HMC argument on the economics. If the figures were bollox, you'd think they'd have been challenged.)
Yeah, I like honesty too. It's a tricky choice to make for Labour though, when they will surely face a barrage of bare-faced lies from the Tories. How many new hospitals would you like?
Voting intentions latest - 43 / 30 / 11, so really does look like deck-chair shuffling excercise unless there's a big rabbit hidden in a large hat somewhere.
morepork wrote:Just cut the corporate tax rate. I mean, that strategy has worked so well in the past....
All the amateur supply side armchair economists sitting there saying, "Haven't you people ever heard of a Laffer curve? without realising that the level of tax where it starts to come into effect is so much higher than we currently have that it's not actually ever been seen in the wild.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
OK, all the VAT numbers are straight from the Baine Cutler analysis. A report commissioned by the Independent Schools Council with the purpose of contradicting the Labour 2017 manifesto, and written by a consultancy whose income stream depends on independent schools should be read with a little scepticism.
IF (despite the biases inherent in the creation of the report) it's true that there would be a net negative impact from the policy of applying VAT to school fees, then I agree with you, it's not the point. IMO the purpose of this policy is not to create an immediate benefit to revenue, it's to improve equality in the nation. And I would certainly go further and phase out the whole independent sector for the same reason. This would have immediate costs but over time would IMO have greater benefits due to the increase in equality that would result (see The Spirit Level). Obviously, considerably more would need to be spent on education, but that's clearly been the case for a long long time.
Yes, and SKS should be straight on that, rather than pretending that its a straight 'tax income' that can be reinvested in full.
(And you can find the data outside their report- though its possible these sourced the report; plus the VAT numbers equate to the savings that Labour claim will be made £1.6bn is from SKS's speech. I've also seen no counter argument to the ISC/HMC argument on the economics. If the figures were bollox, you'd think they'd have been challenged.)
Yeah, I like honesty too. It's a tricky choice to make for Labour though, when they will surely face a barrage of bare-faced lies from the Tories. How many new hospitals would you like?
I see Liz Truss' Grand Vizier and puppetmaster wants to show that he's down with the kids, so has released a portrait of himself with not one, but TWO packets of crisps.
That he doesn't seem to know what to do with...
But look behind him...
Now, is that a Ghostface costume? Is it for The Greater Good (the greater good)? Or is that the Klu Klux Clan's away kit?
(I wish I could claim credit for these, but alas)
Last edited by Which Tyler on Fri Jul 22, 2022 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Which Tyler wrote:I see Liz Truss' Grand Vizier and puppetmaster wants to show that he's down with the kids, so has released a portrait of himself with not one, but TWO packets of crisps.
That he doesn't seem to know what to do with...
But look behind him...
Now, is that a Ghostface costume? Is it for The Greater Good (the greater good)? Or is that the Klu Klux Clan's away kit?
morepork wrote:He looks like an inbred pedo. Did he actually post that?
Yes.
Remember, this is the same guy who still has his childhood nanny (nanny, not au pair), and yes, she's HIS nanny, not his kids' but also picks up after, and looks after Jacob himself, aged 46
Son of Mathonwy wrote:The only way I can see this making sense is that Starmer wants to woo the centre and not frighten the centre right, and - crucially - he assumes the left have no choice but to vote for him, so it doesn't matter too much if he treats us with contempt.
This is the crux of everything - it's the Joe Biden manouevre of trying to poach as many disgusted right voters as possible and daring the left not to vote and bring in another right wing government. It did kinda work for Biden, but you wonder whether he would've got an actual workable Senate majority if he'd done something, anything, to excite and energise his base instead of frantically reassuring the other side's base that he wouldn't dream of doing any of the cool shit that the Republicans were accusing him of.
Will it work at all in this country? Depends how terrible a leader the Conservatives elect and whether the manifesto contains even a glimmer of a tack to the left. There wouldn't be the same widespread horror over Sunak as there was over the prospect of more Trump, and if Starmer continues to drive right and dares the left not to vote for him, I think enough will take him up on it that he'll struggle to win.
Starmer has today come out against nationalising rail, energy, or water. Literally daring the left wing not to vote for him as he takes an economic political position somewhere around Kenneth Clarke in the face of the Tories abandoning the centre right in favour of Trump-esque lunacy.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:The only way I can see this making sense is that Starmer wants to woo the centre and not frighten the centre right, and - crucially - he assumes the left have no choice but to vote for him, so it doesn't matter too much if he treats us with contempt.
This is the crux of everything - it's the Joe Biden manouevre of trying to poach as many disgusted right voters as possible and daring the left not to vote and bring in another right wing government. It did kinda work for Biden, but you wonder whether he would've got an actual workable Senate majority if he'd done something, anything, to excite and energise his base instead of frantically reassuring the other side's base that he wouldn't dream of doing any of the cool shit that the Republicans were accusing him of.
Will it work at all in this country? Depends how terrible a leader the Conservatives elect and whether the manifesto contains even a glimmer of a tack to the left. There wouldn't be the same widespread horror over Sunak as there was over the prospect of more Trump, and if Starmer continues to drive right and dares the left not to vote for him, I think enough will take him up on it that he'll struggle to win.
Starmer has today come out against nationalising rail, energy, or water. Literally daring the left wing not to vote for him as he takes an economic political position somewhere around Kenneth Clarke in the face of the Tories abandoning the centre right in favour of Trump-esque lunacy.
Puja
Starmer is probably just saying what he thinks will get him elected, and then once in power, will not feel bound by it at all. A bit like Nick Clegg. It's what Starmer's approach was to win the Labour leadership elections. Promise healing and unifying the party, and maintaining policies from 2017 manifesto... and then once in power destroying the left's influence through purges etc.
