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.
F-Red said:
If you're paying £15k a year for education, an additional £3k isn't going to cause the meltdown you seem to be inferring will happen in terms of moving kids to state school. Even the IFS states that it has a relatively low responsiveness, whereby that 20-40k fall in pupils will be spread out over time rather than overnight. Even on a crass calculation/weighting we're talking 1 student per every state school.

On scholarships there's been enough research done to highlight that a lot of what they do is overstated - https://www.britsoc.co.uk/media-cen...-schools-more-socially-inclusive-study-finds/
Click to expand...

Especially when he’s advocating those same people easily paying £XXk in stamp duty and legal costs to move home and take a great state school space.

It’s utterly bollocks. All of the justification and posturing. All of it. Anyone that believes it is daft or arguing in bad faith.
 
ZupZup said:
Do you genuinely believe if he reinstated Abbott it would make any significant impact on Labour's electoral hopes?
Click to expand...

Yes, because she would become a target for the anti-Labour press, everything she said and did during the GE would be scrutinised and then the next question would be to Starmer for his comments. It would become a 'Punch & Judy' show taking attention away from where Labour needs it to be, on how disastrous the Tories have been and how Starmer has changed the Labour Party and how he intends to lead.

It's a risk in the sense that many prospective MP's in the party have sympathy and empathy with Abbott, but are they willing to risk their own political futures to stand by her and if necessary step down themselves, when in all honesty she has dropped herself in it, time and time again?
 
Vidyoyo said:
I'm sure it would for lower earners putting their kids through private school already at the threshold of what they can afford.

As an example, I dated a girl whose mum did this for her sister. I'm not entirely sure why but she was working secondary jobs to pay tuition which included cleaning and doing bar work. We talked about it a few times because I always found it a little barmy she was sending her sister to private school despite not having a huge amount of money. She said her mum was adamant she wanted her to have the head-start in life that she didn't get (admirable, I suppose).

My immediate ex also went to private school, as did her siblings, so that would have been an extra 9k a year for the family but in all honesty I'm less sympathetic with this one as they were loaded and probably could have afforded it :)
Click to expand...
My neighbours growing up scrimped to put their bright son into private school, but couldn't afford to send his less intelligent sister to one. He ended up a high-flier at Ford and other blue chips, while she dated losers and did menial work. Dunno how their lives would've panned out with the same education.
 
Jippy said:
My neighbours growing up scrimped to put their bright son into private school, but couldn't afford to send his less intelligent sister to one. He ended up a high-flier at Ford and other blue chips, while she dated losers and did menial work. Dunno how their lives would've panned out with the same education.
Click to expand...

That's what I mean. I think the stories of how people afford it are a lot more mundane than we realise.

It's the same with mortgage costs. Imagine baulking at the idea that if you can afford a mortgage then you should be fine with the additional 3k you're paying when you renew. Most are sympathetic about it for good reason.
 
Vidyoyo said:
That's what I mean. I think the stories of how people afford it are a lot more mundane than we realise.

It's the same with mortgage costs. Imagine baulking at the idea that if you can afford a mortgage then you should be fine with the additional 3k you're paying when you renew. Most are sympathetic about it for good reason.
Click to expand...

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/tax-private-school-fees-and-state-school-spending

Considering affected families, Anders et al. (2020) show that school fees account for about 15–20% of household income for those choosing private education. Adding an effective VAT rate of 15% on private school fees may therefore amount to 2–3% in extra costs for such families.

I'm sure there will be isolated stories of those earning minimum wage and sending their children to private school, but they are probably less than 1% of the total pupil number (going back as far as 2017) largely the data suggests that most of the pupils attending are from the top brackets of both income and wealth.

Edit - Graph below highlighting income ladder vs percentage of pupils, back from 2017 but I don't expect a huge difference to today's figures.

Figure2.png


https://www.pepf.co.uk/fact-finder/facts-and-figures/#link2
 
Rolandofgilead said:
Do you have examples?

Have any of the politicians that have said racist things and been reinstated had anywhere near as much stick as Abbott gets?

And again, is it not sensible to not upset the tories or right wing BEFORE you go into an election? You can't do anything in opposition, you have to win ti be able to actually do anything at all.

So, the question is, does reinstating Diane Abbott become more problematic to a victory than excluding her and her sit as an independent?
Click to expand...
They need to take the Tory approach. Quiet word with her to stand down as an MP and then give her a seat in the Lords.
 
11101 said:
There isn't one. They aren't operated as businesses but that's not the story that plays well to the Green Eyed Monster.

They do receive public funding but for specific reasons:
- mainly its giving free and subsidised places to bright and special requirements kids who couldn't afford to go otherwise.
- boarding places for military and diplomatic kids whose parents move home so often it would mean new schools every year otherwise.
- investment in facilities that are used for free by state schools and communities.

All of those things will disappear if the VAT rise comes in. Honestly I'm shocked Labour is already going down this route but you can see from the vitriol in this thread it works with their voter base. I dont have so you must not either, but when youre arguing to take away opportunities for children you can never be in the right.
Click to expand...

Private Education... the arguments are still raging I see.

I believe parents have a right to chose the education they want for their off spring, but private education should only be paid for by those who use it.

There should be no tax breaks, charity allowances etc. nor other government support from the general tax payer, and VAT should be payable if the government believes/defines that private education falls under the VAT rules.

Every parent wants the best (of everything) for their children and there is nothing wrong with that. Those who are wealthy enough, or who make sacrifices to do so, should be allowed to use private education methods. However the full costs must lie where they fall....and that is not the taxpayer.
 
Vidyoyo said:
That's what I mean. I think the stories of how people afford it are a lot more mundane than we realise.

It's the same with mortgage costs. Imagine baulking at the idea that if you can afford a mortgage then you should be fine with the additional 3k you're paying when you renew. Most are sympathetic about it for good reason.
Click to expand...
Yeah I do have some sympathy, particularly with seeing how my in-laws scrimped and saved to get their daughters a better education. Saying that, the big problem at the heart of it is obviously the relative shiteness of state schools.
 
Sweet Square said:
GOrITalXIAANjcE
Click to expand...
You suspect the 'no form of wealth tax' is the price of getting this party endorsed by The Times and then likely The Sun, which - as predicted - is exactly what's now happening. Look where this letter signed by the business chiefs endorsing Labour was printed... The Times! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckvv8qwl4y4o

Colour me shocked. This is the price of power now. I would still take a Starmer/Reeves gvt. over these disgusting tories 99 times out of 100. Once they are in though, the pressure for electoral reform needs to mount, so we can't be held to ransom anymore by our centuries-outdated shitshow of a system.
 
InspiRED said:
You suspect the 'no form of wealth tax' is the price of getting this party endorsed by The Times and then likely The Sun, which - as predicted - is exactly what's now happening. Look where this letter signed by the business chiefs endorsing Labour was printed... The Times! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckvv8qwl4y4o

Colour me shocked. This is the price of power now. I would still take a Starmer/Reeves gvt. over these disgusting tories 99 times out of 100. Once they are in though, the pressure for electoral reform needs to mount, so we can't be held to ransom anymore by our centuries-outdated shitshow of a system.
Click to expand...

100%. Day 1. My vote is being leant to this version of Labour.

It’s a nightmare if they win by a landslide. The Tories need to be obliterated, but a strong Lib Dem showing to do that, helps.

From Day 1, Labour need to know that a left wing party, needs to be left wing. Enable a solid 10 terms of governments that represent the majority of the country. Labour need to see potential coalition governments with the Lib Dems and a viable Green Party, as a way to hold left wing governments for decades.

It’s entirely achievable. But it involves accepting that you hold more coalitions from 2032 onwards. It’s unpalatable. But sensible.
 
Maticmaker said:
Private Education... the arguments are still raging I see.

I believe parents have a right to chose the education they want for their off spring, but private education should only be paid for by those who use it.

There should be no tax breaks, charity allowances etc. nor other government support from the general tax payer, and VAT should be payable if the government believes/defines that private education falls under the VAT rules.

Every parent wants the best (of everything) for their children and there is nothing wrong with that. Those who are wealthy enough, or who make sacrifices to do so, should be allowed to use private education methods. However the full costs must lie where they fall....and that is not the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

No arguments there. However the addition of VAT reduces social mobility for all kids. We have seen it with the above inflation rise in fees as both private and state schools have felt the effects. In an ideal world the state sector can provide for all and a private sector is not needed but that's not the case. Making it harder to access better education is never the answer.

We should be looking for ways to improve outcomes for all, not considering how we can hold some back. Nobody moves forward that way.


I appreciate that reason doesn't matter when it's purely a case of trying to stop somebody having what you can't have but let's not pretend it's about equality or fairness. Those people should just own the bitterness and envy.
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
Yes, because she would become a target for the anti-Labour press, everything she said and did during the GE would be scrutinised and then the next question would be to Starmer for his comments. It would become a 'Punch & Judy' show taking attention away from where Labour needs it to be, on how disastrous the Tories have been and how Starmer has changed the Labour Party and how he intends to lead.
Click to expand...

This is so detached from reality. I am pretty sure Starmer has recently done the one thing that will ensure a huge amount of attention is taken away from the Tories when he forced Corbyn to stand in Islington North against Labour as an independent. Do you not realise how much media attention that is going to get? It’s going to be a massive sideshow and all because of a political decision Starmer chose to make… the media attention surrounding anything Abbott does won’t even be a drop in the ocean compared to what Starmer has just unleashed himself.
 
11101 said:
No arguments there. However the addition of VAT reduces social mobility for all kids. We have seen it with the above inflation rise in fees as both private and state schools have felt the effects. In an ideal world the state sector can provide for all and a private sector is not needed but that's not the case. Making it harder to access better education is never the answer.

We should be looking for ways to improve outcomes for all, not considering how we can hold some back. Nobody moves forward that way.


I appreciate that reason doesn't matter when it's purely a case of trying to stop somebody having what you can't have but let's not pretend it's about equality or fairness. Own the bitterness and envy please.
Click to expand...

‘All kids’. Utter unmitigated Horseshit. You’re just wrong. Yes I’m like a dog with a bone.

Your ‘politics of envy’ is just nonsensical too. Yes, some argue from that point of principle. But I don’t, and plenty of affluent and like minded people (sic) don’t either.

Do you honestly not understand that Private schools CAN make cost savings of 20%? They don’t have to pass on those costs to all children/parents enrolled.

Many of these schools are buying expensive paper and exercise books. Glossy covers and hardbacks. Library refreshing. They could lower costs beyond 20% by using cheaper paper. Or Doubling the length of time they use sports equipment for. Buying some equipment second hand. Cancelling a turn of IT replacement. And and and.

Yes it flys in the face of expectation. But it doesn’t dilute the learning experience.

The state schools have underpaid teachers buying supplies out of their own pockets. Because they are good people that value society and education. Let’s push private school educators to the same financial crossroads. Let’s let them return to the state system if their employer doesn’t provide the pay/output gap that exists.

You don’t even realise that it’s YOU that are arguing for holding children back. You’re arguing that it’s ok to hold back the majority because the parents of a few hundred or a thousand, can’t pay a bit more and still retain multiple holidays and extravagances . It’s utterly disgusting.

This kind of shit that gets me so mad. I have a mother that’s a state school teacher, a child that went to a great state school and a niece that is in a private school because the local schools were underfunded and ruined from 2015 onwards. I’m not myopic. I have principles but an understanding too.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
‘All kids’. Utter unmitigated Horseshit. You’re just wrong. Yes I’m like a dog with a bone.

Your ‘politics of envy’ is just nonsensical too. Yes, some argue from that point of principle. But I don’t, and plenty of affluent and like minded people (sic) don’t either.

Do you honestly not understand that Private schools CAN make cost savings of 20%? They don’t have to pass on those costs to all children/parents enrolled.

Many of these schools are buying expensive paper and exercise books. Glossy covers and hardbacks. Library refreshing. They could lower costs beyond 20% by using cheaper paper. Or Doubling the length of time they use sports equipment for. Buying some equipment second hand. Cancelling a turn of IT replacement. And and and.

Yes it flys in the face of expectation. But it doesn’t dilute the learning experience.

The state schools have underpaid teachers buying supplies out of their own pockets. Because they are good people that value society and education. Let’s push private school educators to the same financial crossroads. Let’s let them return to the state system if their employer doesn’t provide the pay/output gap that exists.

You don’t even realise that it’s YOU that are arguing for holding children back. You’re arguing that it’s ok to hold back the majority because the parents of a few hundred or a thousand, can’t pay a bit more and still retain multiple holidays and extravagances . It’s utterly disgusting.

This kind of shit that gets me so mad. I have a mother that’s a state school teacher, a child that went to a great state school and a niece that is in a private school because the local schools were underfunded and ruined from 2015 onwards. I’m not myopic. I have principles but an understanding too.
Click to expand...

Like I've already said, we have seen in small scale the effect increasing private school fees beyond inflation has on children from both systems. Some private school children have to move to state schools. Scholarships and bursaries reduce. Kids from state schools get pushed out from good schools into worse schools. You can't see that the decline of British schooling has been in part because of this exact scenario.

This is not discussion or opinion. This has happened. Increasing the fees further in a short space will exasperate the issue far further. And yes they will need to increase fees, or increase class sizes, or bring kids in from overseas (that's a whole other can of worms we would do better to avoid).

I get you have a personal connection to this but you cant see its clouding your judgment here.
 
ZupZup said:
This is so detached from reality. I am pretty sure Starmer has recently done the one thing that will ensure a huge amount of attention is taken away from the Tories when he forced Corbyn to stand in Islington North against Labour as an independent. Do you not realise how much media attention that is going to get? It’s going to be a massive sideshow and all because of a political decision Starmer chose to make… the media attention surrounding anything Abbott does won’t even be a drop in the ocean compared to what Starmer has just unleashed himself.
Click to expand...
It was 100% the right thing to do. In fact, even though I actually like Jeremy Corbyn, removing him from the Labour party would have been my very first act as leader. Why? Because this is politics and the only result that matters is to win.

I think it's a real shame that the country said no to Corbyn (twice) but they did, once in 2017 when he still fell short despite an awful Tory campaign and once in 2019 where the majority of the electorate gave Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority.

People need to understand that of Starmer continues with the same policies and the same rhetoric as Corbyn he will lose. So he promotes change, removes corbyn and Abbott removing a stick to beat him with and he likely wins.

In PMQs every week, Sunak mentions security and shouts you can't trust a man who tried to get Jeremy corbyn into number 10 twice, Mr speaker. So by removing that person gives his opponants one less thing to criticise.

I like to sit and listen to podcasts or interviews from every side of the political spectrum. People STILL say that Labour are associated with terrorist sympathisers. That is why corbyn was removed and its why Abbott will likely be removed.

The media shitstorm over Corbyn is only shit-storming in the left wing press and People such as purkiss and blakely. In as much the same way that corbyns votes never gathered enough momentum to get over the line, I very much suspect that this won't cost starmer anything at all. Labour might well lose Islington North, but they'll gain elsewhere to more than make up for it.
 
InspiRED said:
Once they are in though, the pressure for electoral reform needs to mount, so we can't be held to ransom anymore by our centuries-outdated shitshow of a system.
Click to expand...
:lol:

What pressure are you going to mount that will outweigh the amount of lobbying money they'll lose when they're one of half a dozen parties that can 'win' power? They'll even have proof that folks like you will vote for them regardless when they flat out tell you PR isn't happening. You've got nothing else to threaten them with.
 
Rolandofgilead said:
It was 100% the right thing to do. In fact, even though I actually like Jeremy Corbyn, removing him from the Labour party would have been my very first act as leader. Why? Because this is politics and the only result that matters is to win.

I think it's a real shame that the country said no to Corbyn (twice) but they did, once in 2017 when he still fell short despite an awful Tory campaign and once in 2019 where the majority of the electorate gave Boris Johnson an 80 seat majority.

People need to understand that of Starmer continues with the same policies and the same rhetoric as Corbyn he will lose. So he promotes change, removes corbyn and Abbott removing a stick to beat him with and he likely wins.

In PMQs every week, Sunak mentions security and shouts you can't trust a man who tried to get Jeremy corbyn into number 10 twice, Mr speaker. So by removing that person gives his opponants one less thing to criticise.

I like to sit and listen to podcasts or interviews from every side of the political spectrum. People STILL say that Labour are associated with terrorist sympathisers. That is why corbyn was removed and its why Abbott will likely be removed.

The media shitstorm over Corbyn is only shit-storming in the left wing press and People such as purkiss and blakely. In as much the same way that corbyns votes never gathered enough momentum to get over the line, I very much suspect that this won't cost starmer anything at all. Labour might well lose Islington North, but they'll gain elsewhere to more than make up for it.
Click to expand...

Removing Corbyn might have removed a stick to beat him with, but I would say you massively overestimate the impact of that. Yes, there are a lot of people who dislike him but it’s extremely clear that Starmer has dropped Corbynite policies and marginalised the left in the Labour Party. Tory attack lines for Starmer around Corbyn are not remotely effective now, nor would they be whether Corbyn was still in the Labour Party or not. It’s not like anyone could believably accuse Starmer of being a Corbyn ally given how he has led the party.

I find the argument that it’s the right thing to do because only winning matters also a little odd when Starmer has also made many decisions and taken stances which clearly don’t improve his chances of winning. Did endorsing Israeli war crimes improve Starmer’s chances?

Ultimately none of what happens with Corbyn or Abbott will have any significant impact on Labour’s chances because the Tories are a busted flush. Labour are far ahead in the polls not because Starmer is playing a blinder… it’s because the Tory tenure has been an absolute failure of epic proportions. There’s no way back for them in this election.
 
11101 said:
Like I've already said, we have seen in small scale the effect increasing private school fees beyond inflation has on children from both systems. Some private school children have to move to state schools. Scholarships and bursaries reduce. Kids from state schools get pushed out from good schools into worse schools. You can't see that the decline of British schooling has been in part because of this exact scenario.

This is not discussion or opinion. This has happened. Increasing the fees further in a short space will exasperate the issue far further. And yes they will need to increase fees, or increase class sizes, or bring kids in from overseas (that's a whole other can of worms we would do better to avoid).

I get you have a personal connection to this but you cant see its clouding your judgment here.
Click to expand...

No mate. I don’t have a personal connection that clouds my judgement. I have personal experience that sees me not be dogmatic.

The bold - Again, that is a choice. It should be the last cut. Not the first.

The italics - No. underfunded schools is the only reason that British schooling is declining. The rise of the ‘just about affordable’ private school system has exacerbated the problem. It’s been a concious and deliberate choice by the Tories for 14 years. This after Labour changes opened the door, sadly.

Overseas enrolments in Junior-Secondary school is largely an irrelevance. You could double those fees and see no drop off in enrollment.

I really don’t understand your point of position. Fair go if you don’t want to discuss personal matters, but you’re not really outlining who this affects, how many, and why that matters.
 
Dobba said:
:lol:

What pressure are you going to mount that will outweigh the amount of lobbying money they'll lose when they're one of half a dozen parties that can 'win' power? They'll even have proof that folks like you will vote for them regardless when they flat out tell you PR isn't happening. You've got nothing else to threaten them with.
Click to expand...
I am going to exert a homeopathic dilution level of pressure myself. A focused campaign run through all interested parties, i.e. majority of minority parties, might have an effect, however. What are the great alternatives? 5 more years of the IEA setting government policy? There aren't easy solutions to this nightmare.
 
InspiRED said:
I am going to exert a homeopathic dilution level of pressure myself. A focused campaign run through all interested parties, i.e. majority of minority parties, might have an effect, however. What are the great alternatives? 5 more years of the IEA setting government policy? There aren't easy solutions to this nightmare.
Click to expand...
That would be something is that 'pressure' wasn't followed by voting for them anyway a few weeks later.

The only things they care about are votes and lobbyist money. If they get both when they don't bring in PR and flat out tell you it isn't going to happen, why would they threaten the latter by doing something that'll dilute the lobbying pool overnight?
 
Dobba said:
That would be something is that 'pressure' wasn't followed by voting for them anyway a few weeks later.

The only things they care about are votes and lobbyist money. If they get both when they don't bring in PR, why would they threaten the latter by doing something that'll dilute the lobbying pool overnight?
Click to expand...
The argument would be that the terrain on which campaigns are fought for election and re-election could well be different. We hear barely a whimper about PR now, but there is a chance to bring it onto the agenda over 5 years, especially in the context of a possibly Farage-led force threatening to take office.
 
InspiRED said:
The argument would be that the terrain on which campaigns are fought for election and re-election could well be different. We hear barely a whimper about PR now, but there is a chance to bring it onto the agenda over 5 years, especially in the context of a possibly Farage-led force threatening to take office.
Click to expand...
And when Starmer goes "You need to vote for me to keep Farage out" what will differentiate this election, where your campaigning stops just in time to vote for him, from that one?.
 
Dobba said:
And when Starmer goes "You need to vote for me to keep Farage out" what will differentiate this election, where your campaigning stops just in time to vote for him, from that one?.
Click to expand...
The hypothetical difference would be that a campaign to push PR would have had 5 years in which to make the case to the public that "PR will keep Farage out in perpetuity".
 
Just want to say Farage is a racist dog. If he kicked the bucket today, no one would miss him.
 
InspiRED said:
The hypothetical difference would be that a campaign to push PR would have had 5 years in which to make the case to the public that "PR will keep Farage out in perpetuity".
Click to expand...
What difference would that make? The public back nationalised utilities everytime they're polled about it, which party has been moved by that?

As long as the answer to both 'Will they vote for us anyway?' and 'Do we lose shitloads of lobbyist money if we do this?" is yes, they don't give a toss what you want on PR, nationalised utilities or the mass slaughter in Gaza.
 
Adisa said:
Just want to say Farage is a racist dog. If he kicked the bucket today, no one would miss him.
Click to expand...

bigots. narrow minded people. racists. loads would miss him.
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
No mate. I don’t have a personal connection that clouds my judgement. I have personal experience that sees me not be dogmatic.

The bold - Again, that is a choice. It should be the last cut. Not the first.

The italics - No. underfunded schools is the only reason that British schooling is declining. The rise of the ‘just about affordable’ private school system has exacerbated the problem. It’s been a concious and deliberate choice by the Tories for 14 years. This after Labour changes opened the door, sadly.

Overseas enrolments in Junior-Secondary school is largely an irrelevance. You could double those fees and see no drop off in enrollment.

I really don’t understand your point of position. Fair go if you don’t want to discuss personal matters, but you’re not really outlining who this affects, how many, and why that matters.
Click to expand...

What you are failing to see if that the underfunding of state schools is not caused by or related to private schools. The two can coexist happily but they never will because it's too easy to cry 'the rich' and use it to stoke division.

Anyway, we will never convince each other so best to leave it alone now. Starmer will most likely win and introduce the policy so we will see how it goes.
 
11101 said:
What you are failing to see if that the underfunding of state schools is not caused by or related to private schools. The two can coexist happily but they never will because it's too easy to cry 'the rich' and use it to stoke division.

Anyway, we will never convince each other so best to leave it alone now. Starmer will most likely win and introduce the policy so we will see how it goes.
Click to expand...

It’s all good man. While we disagree, I do respect your responses, regardless of how snippy I may sound. It’s cool to not all think the same thing.

I do think that underfunding schools and them turning to shit, causes more people to pay for private schools.

I honestly don’t care if Eton et al exist forever. Rich people want to exist outside the system and that desire will always be met.

It’s free market capitalists not being able to make a school work outside of tax breaks that angers me. If a school that’s stuffed to the gills with money can’t make it work, the answer isn’t to not charge them VAT. It’s to realise that the state school system is broken and we need to throw money at it.

Most of the complaining about VAT increases come from people that are paying for kids to go to a school that they don’t belong in. The vast majority of parents of kids in those schools will just swallow the cost. It’s the ‘poorest’ in the school that we’re hearing from. It’s irrelevant.

But thanks for indulging me. I know I can sound insufferable on some topics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.