General Election 2024

Who got your vote?

  • Labour

    Votes: 147 54.2%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Lib Dem

    Votes: 25 9.2%

  • Green

    Votes: 48 17.7%

  • Reform

    Votes: 11 4.1%

  • SNP

    Votes: 5 1.8%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Independent

    Votes: 8 3.0%

  • UK resident but not voting

    Votes: 18 6.6%

  • Spoiled my ballot

    Votes: 3 1.1%
  • Total voters
    271
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this their attempt to win the reform votes back? It’s such a stupid policy.

Another thing that will need to be managed, funded and implemented. The army will have to deal with a bunch of conscripts - great, what will they do? Is it Duke of Edinburgh with guns? Glorified cadets (CCF)?

How about just funding Sure Start, reintroducing the EMA, or increasing opportunities for 18 year olds whether in work experience or to go travelling?

This will be like May’s pledge to repeal fox hunting in 2017. Stupid.
 
Spark said:
Is this their attempt to win the reform votes back? It’s such a stupid policy.
Click to expand...
It's tantamount to an admission of defeat. They must know it's not going to affect results in the marginals, they're just hoping to save a few more of the seats they would once have considered safe.
 
The national service idea will obviously never make it onto the statute books as Rishi will be in California in six weeks but is this a sign of things to come for the post-election remnants of the Conservative Party? A further lurch to far right populism with calls to bring back birching and hanging?
 
Looks like this so-called plan has been scribbled on that proverbial cigarette packet back again!
 
Vidyoyo said:
Apparently it's this. 30k military placements by choice or volunteering once a month doing non-military duties. I don't quite think it's quite as bad as people are making out.

--

Twelve months of mandatory national service would be reintroduced by the Conservatives if they win the general election.

Eighteen-year-olds would be able to apply for one of 30,000 full-time military placements or volunteering one weekend a month carrying out a community service.

Non-military volunteering would involve 25 days with organisations such as the fire service, the police and the NHS.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpddxy9r4mdo
Click to expand...

Compulsary volunteering?
 
Dobba said:
The exclusive on the front of tomorrow's issue of i is that Starmer is going to do PFI on steroids.
Click to expand...

FFS. These people are so fecking worthless. "We're great business people, we give all our assets away in perpetuity for peanuts".
 
Dobba said:
The exclusive on the front of tomorrow's issue of i is that Starmer is going to do PFI on steroids.
Click to expand...

Really? Ffs. The first two things I've seen him say since the election announcement are the braindead attack on private schools and now this, because PFI went so well last time. Are these two parties really the best the country can offer?
 
Totalitarianism. Tyranny.

They're willing to go to extreme lengths to compete with the control China and Russia have over the state.

We need to all wake up and put a stop to this bullshit. We all have a power within and a collective consciousness can change things for the better.
 
11101 said:
Really? Ffs. The first two things I've seen him say since the election announcement are the braindead attack on private schools and now this, because PFI went so well last time. Are these two parties really the best the country can offer?
Click to expand...

What is wrong with attacking private schools? They are leeches on society, funded largely by the rest of us. Let them exist by all means but they shouldn't get $1 of our tax dollar.
 
Wibble said:
Conscription.

No wonder they don't want younger people to vote.
Click to expand...

That's what they'll tell the people who have adult children on the doorstep. "It's just voluntary, community driven etc" will be told to anyone that doesn't want to see their children drafted.

As it stands today, at 18 you can choose to join the Army if you want. You can also choose to go and do some unpaid work somewhere if you want.

This "policy" seems to be join the army for a year or be forced/coerced to do unpaid work if you refuse. There is nothing voluntary involved in that.

And if you decide not to join the Army, and you aren't forced into unpaid work as a consequence, then how is that any different to what it is now?

It's incoherent nonsense. Without "Get Brexit Done" as a campaign slogan, they have nothing.
 
Wibble said:
What is wrong with attacking private schools? They are leeches on society, funded largely by the rest of us. Let them exist by all means but they shouldn't get $1 of our tax dollar.
Click to expand...

The government will raise 3k of VAT for every private school kid. For every private school kid that leaves (I know of one that has already gone bust as parents withdraw kids in anticipation) it costs the government 8k to put them through state school. It will cost the taxpayer more. Then who will teach them? In what classrooms?

The genuinely rich won't care, the middle earners will move house to put their kids in the best state schools, pushing house prices in those areas up and forcing the poor out into the shitter state schools. The scholarships and bursaries will end depriving the bright but poorer kids a better education. The facilities will be off limits to the state system and community. The elite become even more elite as everybody else takes a step down. Contrary to popular belief the Etons of the world are not the norm. The norm is wage earners making sacrifices to give their kids the best start. You should never implement policies to hold children back ffs.

Much in the same way university tuition fees have reduced social mobility, so will this. It's another ill thought through soundbite policy designed to tell the mouth breathers they're sticking it to 'the rich'.
 
Last edited:
11101 said:
The government will raise 3k of VAT for every private school kid. For every private school kid that leaves (I know of one that has already gone bust as parents withdraw kids in anticipation) it costs the government 8k to put them through state school. It will cost the taxpayer more. Then who will teach them? In what classrooms?

The genuinely rich won't care, the middle earners will move house to put their kids in the best state schools, pushing house prices in those areas up and forcing the poor out into the shitter state schools. The scholarships and bursaries will end depriving the bright but poorer kids a better education. The facilities will be off limits to the state system and community. The elite become even more elite as everybody else takes a step down. Contrary to popular belief the Etons of the world are not the norm. The norm is wage earners making sacrifices to give their kids the best start. You should never implement policies to hold children back ffs.

Much in the same way university tuition fees have reduced social mobility, so will this. It's another ill thought through soundbite policy designed to tell the mouth breathers they're sticking it to 'the rich'.
Click to expand...

Private schools destroy social and economic mobility in the same way Uni fees do. And I'm sure a few lost VAT $ will easily be offset by the 200 million quid of annual direct subsidies, 2.5 billion (yes billion) of tax breaks plus and costs of other "hidden" funding like the 100 million+ per year that they get to educate military and diplomat's kids that we can repurpose. All of which can be spent to improve the woefully underfunded public system.

The other "benefits that you list are either dubious at best or a direct result of bleeding public education dry, largely to fund private schools. Tory class war 101.
 
11101 said:
The genuinely rich won't care, the middle earners will move house to put their kids in the best state schools, pushing house prices in those areas up and forcing the poor out into the shitter state schools.
Click to expand...
That’s the main consequence of the comprehensive system that’s rarely discussed. In other words, the removal of academic selection brought in de facto selection by wealth and postcode.
 
Kinsella said:
That’s the main consequence of the comprehensive system that’s rarely discussed. In other words, the removal of academic selection brought in de facto selection by wealth and postcode.
Click to expand...

So we should make moves to remove selection by wealth/postcodes.

Getting rid of private schools immediately helps to address some of the wealth bit at least. Then we can address the postcode issue.
 
Kinsella said:
That’s the main consequence of the comprehensive system that’s rarely discussed. In other words, the removal of academic selection brought in de facto selection by wealth and postcode.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who passed 'academic selection' I can say it was mostly a sham. Success depended more on which primary school you went to, the attitude of parents, and how they prepared you, rather than the actual potential of the child. To then cement a child's future based on a snapshot of what happened when they were ten or eleven is not just unfair it's a dumb thing to do for a country if it wants to make the most of it's human resources
 
Bert_ said:
So we should make moves to remove selection by wealth/postcodes.
Click to expand...
How would you do it? The wealth that’s being referred to here is the further ‘gentrification’ of areas which had the best schools (i.e. grammar schools) prior to the roll out of the comprehensive system.

Bert_ said:
Getting rid of private schools immediately helps to address some of the wealth bit at least. Then we can address the postcode issue.
Click to expand...
One of the other main by-products of the comprehensive system was the reinvigoration of private schools. As I understand it their prominence and influence had been significantly diminished by the grammar schools.
 
Sweet Square said:
Another update -



This is a all timer of bad policy ideas.
Click to expand...


Of all the policy ideas though, how in God's name did they pick one that would piss off their base this much? Tory voting parents in affluent areas already consider it a form of communist oppression if they are fined for taking their kids out of school for a holiday.
 
711 said:
Speaking as someone who passed 'academic selection' I can say it was mostly a sham. Success depended more on which primary school you went to, the attitude of parents, and how they prepared you, rather than the actual potential of the child. To then cement a child's future based on a snapshot of what happened when they were ten or eleven is not just unfair it's a dumb thing to do for a country if it wants to make the most of it's human resources
Click to expand...
Taking your description at face value, is that worse than the incremental ‘gentrification’ of areas with better schools and de facto selection by wealth? Is a system that promotes more interest and investment by parents in their child’s future (even if it’s for just a snapshot in time) not better than one that doesn’t?

When you examine it…most people don’t actually have an issue with academic selection per se - the mass selection process for university at 18 for example passes by without much comment. So the issue is really the age at which it occurs, and I agree with you that 11 is too young an age to determine a future, and that’s based wholly on an intuitive feeling.

All in all it’s an interesting subject, and one which I took a fair bit of interest in years ago because it’s an ever-present debate in NI for reasons other than just the academic element.
 
Last edited:
Kinsella said:
Taking your description at face value, is that worse than the incremental ‘gentrification’ of areas with better schools and de facto selection by wealth? Is a system that promotes more interest and investment by parents in their child’s future (even if it’s for just a snapshot in time) not better than one that doesn’t?

When you examine it…most people don’t actually have an issue with academic selection - the mass selection process for university at 18 for example passes by without much comment. So the issue is really the age at which it occurs, and I agree with you that 11 is too young an age to determine a future, and that’s based wholly on an intuitive feeling.

It’s an interesting subject and one which I took a fair bit of interest in years ago because it’s an ever-present debate in NI for reasons other than just the academic element.
Click to expand...
Yes, the grammar school system was worse because it immediately limited the opportunities available to the 90% of children that weren't selected. Without it resources can be planned and applied to help the majority of children wherever they live, which grammar and private schools too have no interest in doing. That would not just be fairer to the children it would maximise the human potential of the country, which would be better for everyone.

With regards to post 18 education, there are many routes to university nowadays with help for those with all sorts of disadvantages and problems, much more so than in my day thankfully.
 
11101 said:
The government will raise 3k of VAT for every private school kid. For every private school kid that leaves (I know of one that has already gone bust as parents withdraw kids in anticipation) it costs the government 8k to put them through state school. It will cost the taxpayer more. Then who will teach them? In what classrooms?

The genuinely rich won't care, the middle earners will move house to put their kids in the best state schools, pushing house prices in those areas up and forcing the poor out into the shitter state schools. The scholarships and bursaries will end depriving the bright but poorer kids a better education. The facilities will be off limits to the state system and community. The elite become even more elite as everybody else takes a step down. Contrary to popular belief the Etons of the world are not the norm. The norm is wage earners making sacrifices to give their kids the best start. You should never implement policies to hold children back ffs.

Much in the same way university tuition fees have reduced social mobility, so will this. It's another ill thought through soundbite policy designed to tell the mouth breathers they're sticking it to 'the rich'.
Click to expand...

Yep it's a terrible policy from Labour. Short-sighted and done for soundbites.

The best policy would be to increase funding for schools to improve them for everyone and ergo pull the bottom rung up to the point where private schoolers are. But tax.
 
Kinsella said:
How would you do it? The wealth that’s being referred to here is the further ‘gentrification’ of areas which had the best schools (i.e. grammar schools) prior to the roll out of the comprehensive system.

One of the other main by-products of the comprehensive system was the reinvigoration of private schools. As I understand it their prominence and influence had been significantly diminished by the grammar schools.
Click to expand...

More schools and more teachers, and build them in areas with the poorest outcomes. Generally decrease the teacher to pupil ratio, but decrease it even further in schools that need it. Even if that requires a tax hike to fund all these extra teachers.
 
buchansleftleg said:
Sadly I think the UK parliament is becoming a partisan culture war playground rather than a place where effective legislation happens.
Click to expand...

With the FPTP system it has always been a playground for 'opportunists' on both sides.

The fact that so many Tory's are leaving parliament and not seeking re-election maybe a sign of its lurch to the right, but it is also bit like when some of Labour's moderates did not seek re-election when Corbyn took over as leader. It will be interesting to see how many left wingers do not seek re-election under Starmer.

I suspect apart from those leaving because of age or health reasons, many Tories know they are likely to be out of power for at least two parliamentary terms... unless Labour make a mess of it or face other 'events' that blow them off course.
 
Last edited:
Kinsella said:
Taking your description at face value, is that worse than the incremental ‘gentrification’ of areas with better schools and de facto selection by wealth? Is a system that promotes more interest and investment by parents in their child’s future (even if it’s for just a snapshot in time) not better than one that doesn’t?

When you examine it…most people don’t actually have an issue with academic selection per se - the mass selection process for university at 18 for example passes by without much comment. So the issue is really the age at which it occurs, and I agree with you that 11 is too young an age to determine a future, and that’s based wholly on an intuitive feeling.

All in all it’s an interesting subject, and one which I took a fair bit of interest in years ago because it’s an ever-present debate in NI for reasons other than just the academic element.
Click to expand...

On the bolded bit, that completely different. Any adult can go to university at any age if they have the means. You can't re-do an 11+ and have another go at secondary school.
 
Wibble said:
Private schools destroy social and economic mobility in the same way Uni fees do. And I'm sure a few lost VAT $ will easily be offset by the 200 million quid of annual direct subsidies, 2.5 billion (yes billion) of tax breaks plus and costs of other "hidden" funding like the 100 million+ per year that they get to educate military and diplomat's kids that we can repurpose. All of which can be spent to improve the woefully underfunded public system.

The other "benefits that you list are either dubious at best or a direct result of bleeding public education dry, largely to fund private schools. Tory class war 101.
Click to expand...

Do you even know what the subsidies are for? They're so that disadvantaged but bright kids can go to a good school where they might excel. Or kids with special learning needs can go to a school that can better cater to them. Or so that those military and diplomatic children can board at the same school the whole time rather than be uprooted as their parents move around the globe with their jobs.

The state system has long been unable to support the needs of the variety and number of kids in the country and the private system helps take up the slack. For every Rupert at Eton there are 100 normal kids who are thriving in a better learning environment than they would otherwise have access to, and becoming productive taxpayers at the end of it. Adding VAT to fees changes nothing for the truly wealthy and will in no way improve the outcomes of state schools, but it will push many kids into tougher learning environments and completely remove access to better schooling for disadvantaged children. Nobody wins and depending on your views some or all lose.

Its one of those policies born out of hate and jealousy and when you're advocating for a policy that directly holds back children's futures you should take a long hard look at yourself.

F-Red said:
Which school is this?
Click to expand...

Alton. They weren't doing brilliantly anyway and too many parents withdrawing their kids and getting them enrolled in nearby state schools ahead of the fee increase has tipped them over the edge.
 
Last edited:
11101 said:
Do you even know what the subsidies are for? They're so that disadvantaged but bright kids can go to a good school where they might excel. Or kids with special learning needs can go to a school that can better cater to them. Or so that those military and diplomatic children can board at the same school the whole time rather than be uprooted as their parents move around the globe with their jobs.

The state system has long been unable to support the needs of the variety and number of kids in the country and the private system helps take up the slack. For every Rupert at Eton there are 100 normal kids who are thriving in a better learning environment than they would otherwise have access to, and becoming productive taxpayers at the end of it. Adding VAT to fees changes nothing for the truly wealthy and will in no way improve the outcomes of state schools, but it will push many kids into tougher learning environments and completely remove access to better schooling for disadvantaged children. Nobody wins and depending on your views some or all lose.

Its one of those policies born out of hate and jealousy and when you're advocating for a policy that directly holds back children's futures you should take a long hard look at yourself.



Alton. They weren't doing brilliantly anyway and too many parents getting their kids enrolled in nearby state schools ahead of the fee increase has tipped them over the edge.
Click to expand...

All bullshit excuses to defend private education.

It is nothing to do with hate or jealousy. If you want to pay for a private school go for it. Expect me to put my tax dollar towards it? Just no.

And any lack of capacity in the public system is down to decades of defunding of public education and zero to do any inherent benefit from private schools. Tory class war bullshit personified.
 
11101 said:
Alton. They weren't doing brilliantly anyway and too many parents withdrawing their kids and getting them enrolled in nearby state schools ahead of the fee increase has tipped them over the edge.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that just a Telepgraph headline, if you look into the detail it showed that the fee increase was just a convenient excuse for what was poor management of Alton.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.