Off Topic Politics Thread

[......loading......]

Is the labour councillor that called for people to slit the throats of right wing protestors currently in prison?

(Answer: obviously not)

So, you admit you lied? Because your evidence is apparently about a completely different event! And he was fired as a councillor so you mean the former Labour councillor?

 

[SR get out of my club]

Good thing VAT on education is indeed lawful then! Phew!

How do you actually know this is lawful? I mean come on, this place has ben full of constant stuff, quite rightly many times, about Tories breaking the laws. There are cases going through ECHR about VAT in schools. We are I believe the only country globally taxing children’s education. What a triumph.

I do wonder when the will start taxing University student fees a, and they are getting private education also.

Anyhow im not getting into the school thing with you, is pointless. We don’t agree, happy to leave it there…

 

[StJabbo1]

Well, in an interview the week prior to the GE, she stated she wouldn’t be introducing unlawful VAT on children’s education until Sept 25 at the earliest. Think it was in Times or Guardian, can’t recall which.

So, I’d suggest that was one promise she instantly broke.

No Billo that's a promise she's fulfilling and absolutely 100% lawful.

 

[......loading......]

How do you actually know this is lawful? I mean come on, this place has ben full of constant stuff, quite rightly many times, about Tories breaking the laws. There are cases going through ECHR about VAT in schools. We are I believe the only country globally taxing children’s education. What a triumph.

I do wonder when the will start taxing University student fees a, and they are getting private education also.

Anyhow im not getting into the school thing with you, is pointless. We don’t agree, happy to leave it there…

I know because last time someone brought this up, they included a VERY LONG and VERY THOROUGH explanation of why this is legal from LAWYER specialising in TAXATION. It was so comprehensive, straightforward and clear that even I understood it.

 

[Puck]

I really hope you don't read The Mail. That stuff will rot your teeth.

No. I don't avoid it but I don't particularly read it either.

 

[Gregm1988]

I know because last time someone brought this up, they included a VERY LONG and VERY THOROUGH explanation of why this is legal from LAWYER specialising in TAXATION. It was so comprehensive, straightforward and clear that even I understood it.

Bah. I think you’ll find we’ve all had enough of “experts”. Was probably one of those lefty lawyers anyway

 

[SR get out of my club]

Last week the Guardian reported Reeves will raise taxes and cut spending. None of this particularly surprises me.

Did Labour not have the same access as all political parties in the run up to the GE to the figures? And wasn’t part of the deficit made up of the whopping rises to Junior Doctors etc.

I didn’t pay as much attention to this to be fair, so may have conflated stuff. I’m sure our resident far lefties will tell me how ring I am shortly.

I actually am starting to believe that Loading has an alert use for me when i post on this thread.

 

[......loading......]

Did Labour not have the same access as all political parties in the run up to the GE to the figures? And wasn’t part of the deficit made up of the whopping rises to Junior Doctors etc.

I didn’t pay as much attention to this to be fair, so may have conflated stuff. I’m sure our resident far lefties will tell me how ring I am shortly.

I actually am starting to believe that Loading has an alert use for me when i post on this thread.

Haha I was on the thread anyway. Your bad luck!

This is what it says about Labour's knowledge of the financial position on the BBC:


We know there is some truth to that – the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is meant to keep an eye on government finances, said that it had not been made aware of the extent of those extra costs, external.

The head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think tank wrote in the Times that it wouldn’t have been clear to Labour that the government’s reserve for the year had already been spent by the start of July and that money had not been set aside for a number of the previous government’s new initiatives.

 

[SR get out of my club]

I know because last time someone brought this up, they included a VERY LONG and VERY THOROUGH explanation of why this is legal from LAWYER specialising in TAXATION. It was so comprehensive, straightforward and clear that even I understood it.

See what happens then with the ECHR stuff. I did wonder why they brought this forward, despite her pre-election promises.

I still have my doubts about the whole VAT thing. I wondered if they were going to see the ECHR stuff play out, and see how much % students went back into public school, to see if the numbers still add up, and back track out of it under the guise of the ECHR stuff. I seem to recall the Gov break even if c. 12% of students go back into public schools. The intake in Sept 2023 was already 2.7% lower.

 

[Archers Road]

Well, in an interview the week prior to the GE, she stated she wouldn’t be introducing unlawful VAT on children’s education until Sept 25 at the earliest. Think it was in Times or Guardian, can’t recall which.

So, I’d suggest that was one promise she instantly broke.

Labour were always clear about putting VAT on private schools, there’s no broken promises there as far as I can see.

 

[Puck]

See what happens then with the ECHR stuff. I did wonder why they brought this forward, despite her pre-election promises.

I still have my doubts about the whole VAT thing. I wondered if they were going to see the ECHR stuff play out, and see how much % students went back into public school, to see if the numbers still add up, and back track out of it under the guise of the ECHR stuff. I seem to recall the Gov break even if c. 12% of students go back into public schools. The intake in Sept 2023 was already 2.7% lower.

Even if the ECHR can be ignored I think it would be extremely difficult politically for a man who's spent most of his life as a human right lawyer to ignore a ruling by the ECHR.

But I agree the real key will be how many kids go back into state education and you can see it happening already. One of my wife's friends works at a small local private school and every year has two classes except Reception. The Greeks added VAT on private school fees in 2015 and the state system was overwhelmed to the point they had to abandon the tax. I doubt it'll be quite that bad here but I very much doubt it will raise as much money as predicted and wouldn't be surprised if it costs money overall. But I suspect Labour will be too stubborn to change tack unless there's absolute chaos.

 

[Puck]

Labour were always clear about putting VAT on private schools, there’s no broken promises there as far as I can see.

I think the point is she said it wouldn't happen until September 2025 at the earliest and it's now happening in January.

 

[......loading......]

Even if the ECHR can be ignored I think it would be extremely difficult politically for a man who's spent most of his life as a human right lawyer to ignore a ruling by the ECHR.

But I agree the real key will be how many kids go back into state education and you can see it happening already. One of my wife's friends works at a small local private school and every year has two classes except Reception. The Greeks added VAT on private school fees in 2015 and the state system was overwhelmed to the point they had to abandon the tax. I doubt it'll be quite that bad here but I very much doubt it will raise as much money as predicted and wouldn't be surprised if it costs money overall. But I suspect Labour will be too stubborn to change tack unless there's absolute chaos.

A bit like the Tories decimating the social care network and continuing to do so even as the country fell apart. Ideology which has led to the country being on the verge of riots, racial disharmony, foodbanks everywhere, massive disparity between rich and poor, people getting murdered by the mentally unwell.

Except this one is at least intended to level the UK out in terms of opportunities (whether or not you think it will work) and the Tory position was designed to make their wealthy overlords richer.

 

[SR get out of my club]

Labour were always clear about putting VAT on private schools, there’s no broken promises there as far as I can see.

If you care to read back, it is clear they broke their promise of not introducing this before ~Sept 25 at the earliest.

That was clearly a lie.

Just because you may agree with the outcome, doesn’t make it difficult to acknowledge they lied about it. They literally said it the week prior to the election.

 

[SR get out of my club]

Even if the ECHR can be ignored I think it would be extremely difficult politically for a man who's spent most of his life as a human right lawyer to ignore a ruling by the ECHR.

But I agree the real key will be how many kids go back into state education and you can see it happening already. One of my wife's friends works at a small local private school and every year has two classes except Reception. The Greeks added VAT on private school fees in 2015 and the state system was overwhelmed to the point they had to abandon the tax. I doubt it'll be quite that bad here but I very much doubt it will raise as much money as predicted and wouldn't be surprised if it costs money overall. But I suspect Labour will be too stubborn to change tack unless there's absolute chaos.

Yep agree with this. Literally the calculations were along the line of they make £1.6bn pa if everyone stays in private.

That clearly wont happen.

It was c. 12% and the break even.

Think it was over 20%, it costs the taxpayer over a billion.

I always thought they did this to win votes, which it clearly did, with the ECHR as KS get out of jail card, as in “i tried, wasn’t me, this is the better thing to do”, if the ECHR ruling goes that way.

 

[Archers Road]

If you care to read back, it is clear they broke their promise of not introducing this before ~Sept 25 at the earliest.

That was clearly a lie.

Just because you may agree with the outcome, doesn’t make it difficult to acknowledge they lied about it. They literally said it the week prior to the election.

Can you provide a link to this promise?

Removing the VAT exemption on private school fees was always Labour policy, so bringing it forward from the intended start date, if that’s what’s happened, shouldn’t really come as a shock to anyone.

 

[......loading......]

I find it funny that Reform, who included leaving the ECHR as one of their election promises, want to go to the ECHR to protect private schools. How is that chocolate teapot going?

 

[Puck]

A bit like the Tories decimating the social care network and continuing to do so even as the country fell apart. Ideology which has led to the country being on the verge of riots, racial disharmony, foodbanks everywhere, massive disparity between rich and poor, people getting murdered by the mentally unwell.

Except this one is at least intended to level the UK out in terms of opportunities (whether or not you think it will work) and the Tory position was designed to make their wealthy overlords richer.

Calling that ideology fails to acknowledge the fact we as a country have no money. Which is presumably why Reeves is planning to raise taxes and cut spending.

The fees thing is framed as a proposal to level out opportunities but there are better ways to do that. Ways Labour wouldn't consider adopting because of their ideology. This is really the simplistic politics of jealousy. People will happily vote to take good things away from others and the overall standard of education is likely to fall as a result.

 

[SR get out of my club]

Can you provide a link to this promise?

Removing the VAT exemption on private school fees was always Labour policy, so bringing it forward from the intended start date, if that’s what’s happened, shouldn’t really come as a shock to anyone.

Archers, I’m as lazy as you when it comes to these things, will take a Quick Look see if I can find it.

 

[......loading......]

Calling that ideology fails to acknowledge the fact we as a country have no money. Which is presumably why Reeves is planning to raise taxes and cut spending.

The fees thing is framed as a proposal to level out opportunities but there are better ways to do that. Ways Labour wouldn't consider adopting because of their ideology. This is really the simplistic politics of jealousy. People will happily vote to take good things away from others and the overall standard of education is likely to fall as a result.

It was 100% an ideological choice.