I suggest you watch the actual footage of that interview and not just read the skewed media coverage it got.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
No, you are little a rabbid little dog trying to go at everything that doesn't fit your view.
You never once asked me any question as to why I feel that way, you just went straight on the attack. You even tried to be condescending and when that failed, tried to bring up the fact I often talk about video games on here.
Basically you don't have a clue about me, and in fact I'd wager you have no clue about business either. Especially the situation I find myself in and wondering why I should do everything by the book yet have some angry child on the internet tell me I'm as fair game as the big corps your poster boy certainly won't be going after.
But hey, who am I and what do I know right? I've never voted Labour in my life and certainly never grew up poor and still live hand to mouth right? I don't have family members who need real help, I don't have a child with mental difficulties who I can't get help for, and I haven't recently lost a brother in law to cancer after shoddy treatment right?
I have no right to speak out about the fact Labour in my eyes are letting us down and that it's fecking clear as day they are dodging the big issues and making a mess of dragging these tory cnuts out of power. I have no right to voice my displeasure. I don't know anything about what I'm actually angry about.
No, I'm supposed to shut my mouth and just vote. And then when it fails again and we keep the Tories, I'm supposed to blame everything but myself and Labour for being blind and attack everything else.
You lot who act so pompous need to give your heads a wobble. You don't speak for everyone and you don't even bother to try to understand why a hell of a lot of us are so jaded. The issue isn't that I may vote Tory, as I did that once and once only in all the years I've been able to vote and I regret it. Deeply. It's that I don't blanket trust Labour or anyone else either.
I have my issues just like everyone else. I just don't seem to have anybody who represents them. And I certainly won't just do what I'm told because a few people who can't even seen they are in an echo chamber think it's clever to try to ridicule before even bothering to ask why.
Respond or not, I'm totally done with this thread now. Maybe when the next election is over and you wonder why the polls are so wrong again, maybe spare a thought about why people can't be arsed to justify themselves when all they get is childish labels thrown at them. And it's sad actually because I bet we agree on far more than disagree fundamentaly.
With that being said, a sincere all the best. I really hope things work out for us all. Maybe I'm just being pessamistic eh?
Quite the opposite.
I have.
But that's it isn't it? You kicked your toys out of the pram because I questioned how Labour was ever the party for you, given the views you've expressed, and you responded twice with the far worse accusation that everyone on the left of the party is an anti-semite (and presumably you meant to include me, too, because you were too lazy to look up my views on any of this). Yet you apparently seem unsure of why people who support Corbyn, which to reiterate is not me, feel as bitter towards your side of the party as you do to theirs.
Both of the factions are in the mud flinging shit at each other and both, apparently, lack the awareness to realise they're doing it.
You're also not free to flat out state or imply that that all lefties or Corbyn supporters are antisemitic which you frequently do.
Red Tory is a fairly innocent accusation and trivial compared to the levels you lot stoop.
Good convenient lie though.
Abolishing private schools may be a bit out there but I'd argue there's something to be said for the fact that we've got one of the main parties proposing some genuinely transformative measures in education at a time when it's fairly clear that a lot about our current politics isn't working.
I can understand a lot of the reservations for what it's worth. I've seen some fair points that attempts to equalise all state schools could see more families move into nicer areas near state schools, thereby pricing out poorer people in said areas by driving up house prices. And such a policy would undoubtedly take a lot of work - how it'd be implemented successfully would be another matter.
I'd also worry about potential complacency that could come afterwards. Abolishing state schools is ultimately for nothing if a Labour government doesn't - as a result of doing so - improve state education drastically as a whole. Otherwise all they've done is pull down the standard of overall education.
But there are some fairly compelling arguments for getting rid of private education. However much you aim to improve state education, private school where wealthy elites get privileges others don't are inevitably always going to have certain benefits and luxuries for pupils that state schools won't - in this sense you're probably always going to have a remaining equality barrier to a certain extent.
I could see it being one of those ambitious policies Labour struggle to pursue once they're in power, but if all it does is shift the Overton Window to the left a bit, then I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing. Irrespective of whether this (in the end) is a wise social and economic move I think the legitimacy of private schooling is something that warrants extensive discussion.
I can understand a lot of the reservations for what it's worth. I've seen some fair points that attempts to equalise all state schools could see more families move into nicer areas near state schools, thereby pricing out poorer people in said areas by driving up house prices. And such a policy would undoubtedly take a lot of work - how it'd be implemented successfully would be another matter.
I'd also worry about potential complacency that could come afterwards. Abolishing state schools is ultimately for nothing if a Labour government doesn't - as a result of doing so - improve state education drastically as a whole. Otherwise all they've done is pull down the standard of overall education.
But there are some fairly compelling arguments for getting rid of private education. However much you aim to improve state education, private school where wealthy elites get privileges others don't are inevitably always going to have certain benefits and luxuries for pupils that state schools won't - in this sense you're probably always going to have a remaining equality barrier to a certain extent.
I could see it being one of those ambitious policies Labour struggle to pursue once they're in power, but if all it does is shift the Overton Window to the left a bit, then I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing. Irrespective of whether this (in the end) is a wise social and economic move I think the legitimacy of private schooling is something that warrants extensive discussion.
I didn't...
I said some would Blame Blairites
Some would maintain a superior attitude and blame the public for being too thick to see jezbollah / comrade Corbyn / the dear leader MK2 for the hero he is
Some will blame the media
Some will blame Israel / jews
Who knows some may even admit Corbyn was unelectable and his brexit fudge is a mess
So evidently I'm not saying all are antesemitic and will blame Jews either by implication or directly... I'm saying there will be a number of reasons though I believe most will blame external factors than accept that standing over on the left and basically pointing to anybody on your right and accusing them of being selfish cnuts is never going to either win people over to your arguments and therefore is electoral suicide
The fact that the ehrc have a formal investigation though is literally independent proof that there is a big problem with antisemitism
The only 2 parties that there has been enough evidence to trigger said formal investigations are the bnp and labour.
It’s not just that they are abolishing them, it is the way they are proposing to do it with what look like asset seizures. That makes me extremely uncomfortable.
I should add, we already have selection by wealth (and religion) in the state system and that strikes me as deeply wrong.
And I’m not sure that removing private schools stops another Cameron or Johnson. It’ll be someone else with wealthy parents who can buy better access through the State system (although interestingly Johnson went to Eton on a scholarship as his parents weren’t rich enough to pay by themselves).
Last edited:
About 10% of Eton students are on scholarship but I believe this ranges from a few essentially fully funded to some with around a 10% reduction in fees
I would suggest if labour win the election Eton etc would simply transfer all assets outside of UK jurisdiction... I'm pretty sure labour couldn't take the assets the and set up in Switzerland or china or the middle east and await the implosion of labour before transfering back to the UK
Simply a musing on my part but do you extend the abolition of private schools to include private tuition? If not it seems to me that potentially as one door is closed another is left open.
Home schooling as well... Would seem potential for exploitation there
Equally international schools teaching non UK curriculums will these still exist? If so then that's another easy way around it
Probably those that can afford it simply send kids to Switzerland etc ... And I guess that would also circumvent the 7% criteria on unis as well
As for taking assets I think offshoring any investments / land ownership would be a very easy way to avoid that.
Sounds like a lot of the current Labour policies. Pie in the sky and completely unworkable populist rhetoric, to be implemented in an unworkable and divisive fashion; with the obvious dose of hypocrisy.
Personally i don't see an issue with private tuition or really private schools that serve in addition to state schools. These are paid replacements for the additional teaching a parent may do.
It's the institutions that are the problem, even the lesser private schools are pay for grades where they get spoon fed far more than state pupils which is why the difference plateaus at university. It's the paid for entry into university and the elitist class it creates i have issue with.
Saying that i really don't think it's that important of a policy and I'd drop it if it didn't poll well.
What time is the votes today?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49789938
looks like there is going to be more disunity over brexit - wonder if any other unions will join with unison... suspect the majority of members will vote to back remain... even momentum breaking with corbyn over this one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49789938
looks like there is going to be more disunity over brexit - wonder if any other unions will join with unison... suspect the majority of members will vote to back remain... even momentum breaking with corbyn over this one
How does he wriggle out of this?
He can't this will be the chosen direction. Not sure it changes too much beyond now allowing Boris to paint remain as a Corbyn ploy to stop brexit, which has a bigger influence on the GE than Labour backing remain would have on a referendum (in my opinion).
Let's say Labour win they'll still have to negotiate whatever changes they can get which may not be a lot. Then we have a referendum and say the best deal is remain but here's your alternative. Which is what really would have been said in essence anyway.
They were onto a winner with their pledges to remove charity status and tax reliefs for private schools. Rich got money for fancy private schools? Use their tax money to better the state school system. Few would disagree with it. But that's too simplistic for the purists. Gotta follow it up promises of private asset seizures and the like.
The problem is you wouldn't get any (net) tax money from removing charitable status and adding VAT to private schools. The extra costs involved would reduce the amount of people going to private school and put more pressure on state schools which would outweigh the VAT/CT paid.
However you're correct in that at least that would be a workable and not so hypocritical nonsensical policy.
Last edited:
If he's referring to the decision on himself then there was a meeting he just never turns up to them. Not that I'd wish to take sides i find them both negative influences.
yup
Lets see how effective Corbyn is at performing policy U turns then...
electorally its 100% the right move I think - better to bleed out support on one side than both... and better to pick the side with less support to loose to start with
Yeah that's my take on private education, tax it so that as well as buying extra privilege for their own children they are buying extra resources other people's too
The net increase or decrease would depend on the levels chosen, but none of us would know for sure until it was tried.
There should be economic modeling before announcing a policy such as this though surely?
Even just thinking about this logically it sounds like it wouldn't come close to paying for itself. Increasing the price of private school education by (presumably) 20% VAT plus maybe 5% on top to account for Corporation Tax would eviscerate a huge number of private schools, most of which are attended by middle class families who have tightened their belts in other areas to provide the best for their children (despite what you'd be lead to believe that all private schools are attended by the offspring of multi millionaires)
It's merely a populist stunt of a policy, similar to Bojo with his 20,000 bobbies.
I'm getting the impression that you're happy for the success of a child to be tied to the wealth of a parent?
If it was politically palatable obviously a better approach would be to increase income tax and use it to fund state schools so there's less of a gap but that would just be attacked from a different angle.
I don't disagree with the concept of economic modelling, but you could also make a lot of businesses profitable if you get them VAT and corporation tax exemptions. It's partly a question of whether it's the ethical thing to be doing to be tax-protecting certain non-essential businesses. Should private healthcare also not have to pay taxes too, while we have the NHS? What about security firms, while we have a Police?
Secondly, a lot of these schools have built massive private assets over time. They could swallow the majority of the tax costs while protecting the net fees paid by the parents, if they were so inclined. Like I said, I agree with doing modelling but I somehow really doubt that modelling would show net drop in tax receipts.
In the sense that he's only promising to return to the numbers there were before Cameron decimated them you mean?
Pity crime and detection levels have swung the wrong way in between really.
If you want access to the best state schools in say the SE of England, you need a house worth a million or certainly well on the way. In the state system! A lot of left wing people get very agitated about private schools while ignoring a massive unfairness at the heart of the system they prefer.
They already do. If you send your child to a private school, assuming you are a UK taxpayer, you are paying into the state schooling system as well. Arguably, by paying for resources they aren't using, they are buying extra resources for other people too.
You'll always get variations in performance that's not something that can be absolutely prevented but they do attempt at levelling it and at least funding is roughly even.
Besides you'll always have kids from better areas getting better results as their parents on average assist more in their children's education. There's a correlation causation argument here.
Less "happy" and more willing to accept that this is an inevitable situation and always will be.
My view is we're already being taxed the maximum of what the UK populace will accept, which is backed up by historic tax to GDP data; so again that isn't really an option (increasing tax from where we are will decrease tax take).
Truthfully I believe private education should be accessible to more people and that the competition of private education if it were accessible to more would drive public education to be better.
For example let's say that it costs £11k per annum to send a child to state school. Imagine a situation where the government offered an education credit of £8k (would have to be calculated to benefit the Exchequer) for parents to send their child wherever they wanted with state schools "costing" the £8k credit. Parents could use that £8k credit and top it up themselves if they wanted to add an extra £5-10k to send privately.
I'd also in tandem allow a low interest non secure loan scheme for parents who couldn't afford it but wanted to invest in education over and above the £8k state school level.
It would be modelled to be a "win-win" for the government. If an extra million students chose private school education the government is "saving" £3k per pupil which would mean a large increase in per pupil spend for those who remain in state education (straight away it would ensure smaller state class sizes)
I don't mean a specific drop in tax receipts. I mean any increase would be more than swallowed by the extra cost of paying for those children to be educated in the state system. Intuitively to me it seems the teachers, support staff etc of teaching those previously privately educated children would outweigh the tax on those who remained in private education.
In terms of charitable status I think both private education and private healthcare save the Exchequer billions. People who pay for state services and also don't use them are fantastic for the country and allow greater spending per patient/pupil for poorer families. In fact I'd go so far as to say if you can afford to relieve this burden on the state then morally you absolutely should.
It's populist not because we don't need more money investing in crime prevention... but because 20,000 Police officers is not the best way of achieving a reduction in crime.
If Johnson would have said "we're giving an extra £1.5b per annum to the police to spend how they see fit" that would be fair enough. However forcing them to use it to recruit 20,000 officers, just so he can say at the next election that he's returning to previous policing numbers is... Populist.
funnily enough I think college and university fees are exempt from VAT aren't they?
Unintended consequences etc but will be interesting to see how a tax law is crafted that makes a clear enough delineation as revoke the tax exempt status of private schools yet maintain that of universities - especially one that is free of loopholes and would stand up to close scrutiny in a legal challenge... or perhaps charging VAT on uni fees and nationalizing them is a longer term ambition?
My wife was brought up in Maidenhead and had state school class sizes of 16. I was brought up in Staffs and had state school sizes of 34. That's the difference.
Parents often "donated" to her state school as it was far cheaper than private school and allowed the school to run with those class sizes and so was a de facto private school subsidised by the tax payer.
A defence of selection by wealth / class that you wouldn't make for other state services... right?
No need, schools and universities are uniform in this. There's private and state schools as there's private and state universities. The different between state schools and state universities is that state schools are fully tax funded whereas state unis are part-tax, part-fee funded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Private_universities_in_the_United_Kingdom
I would argue that state unis should be free for undergrad degrees, like in much of Europe, since having a skilled debt-free workforce is extremely important for an increasingly skill-based economy. And any profits generated from master's degrees, should feed back into the cost of funding undergrads. Whereas private unis should be paying full corporation taxes, much like private schools.
Not sure thats correct under current VAT rules... there is differences in how unis and state schools operate
As there are additional fees charged to students (paid by a third party) don't they use partial exempt status as education is supposed to be exempt rated for VAT?
https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2006-08-10-4306-tuition-fees-and-vat
And here education is exempt from VAT - not education at certain institutions so this would need to be changed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax_in_the_United_Kingdom
so it really would require some changes in VAT rules - and in my experience most changes brought on in a hurry through HMRC have huge loopholes that accountants and lawyers find very quickly
In Finland they used to have a similar sort of school system to ours and they decided to abolish private schools. The changes were very successful there and they've massively narrowed the attainment gap between the rich and the poor. The school system in Finland is now seen as one of the best in the world.
We're not going to fix a very broken system by tinkering around the edges with things like taxation. I don't understand the mindset of things being too tricky or complicated to make big changes... not when it has been done before... and very successfully at that.
We're not going to fix a very broken system by tinkering around the edges with things like taxation. I don't understand the mindset of things being too tricky or complicated to make big changes... not when it has been done before... and very successfully at that.
Obviously. I tried to word it so I was meaning extra on top of that, but apologies if that wasn't clear.
I’m by no means an expert on education but no article I’ve ever read explicitly links the success of the Finnish school system with banning privatised schools.
The most quoted reasons for its success are:
1) Non-competition between schools (rankings)
2) Non-standardised testing
3) More playtime and no tests for kids.
4) Very little homework
5) Well paid, well respected, well educated teachers
And those changes happened in a 40 year period, not in a flash. You can always make great changes to the current system without leaping straight into seazing of private assets like it’s a natural reflex. It shows other underlying intents rather than fixing things.
Also bear in mind that Finnish society is very different from ours. Far less urbanised and far more homogeneous. Many inner city schools here are a mess because of how our society overall is structured. Fix that before forcing parents to send their kids there.
Inb4 some claim I blame the immigrants or poor people (the literal victims of the current state) for the failings of inner city schools.
Last edited: