Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Jan 31, 2024 21:58:32 GMT
"Do you? Then how do you feel for those going to rather cheaper private schools at half that price, where one parent is working all around the clock to pay those fees, because their child has had an awful time in the state sector and local education authority will not do anything about it?" Another myth from the same source that used to say benefits family get £10,000 a month View AttachmentI'm sorry, but I do know exactly what I am talking about here from inside knowledge. Not only do parents struggle to pay the fees to get their kid into a private school, not necessarily all their kids just one who is having difficulties, but also local authorities will pay private school fees to educate kids the state system is unable to cope with in its big schools with big classes. Presumably they find it cheaper than building their own special schools for misfits or sending in dedicated private tutors, or alternatively very much cheaper than funding state schools uniformly to the same standard. Parents will also specifically send their kids to a private school only for the GCSE years, because this is where the state system is worst. Sure, not all parents of course. Theres also the truly wealthy ones and indeed the foreign nationals who may well see this as the first step in acquiring british nationality. But I suspect this measure will be a net vote loser for labour, because most who might approve it will see it as a total irrelevance to choosing who to vote for, while those affected by it will move to con. But as I said before, I think labour has decided its worth the votes they will lose because in a wider sense it allows them to claim they will be spending more on state education by soaking the rich. Which narrative on behalf of the labour party you are clearly pushing yourself. Wholly missing that every child privately educated is a saving to the state so by rights they ought to get a subsidy payment. I'm sure Blair did not do this because he saw it would not be in the overall interests of improving education or of winning votes, but he also had the luxury of a financial situation where the governemt was solvent, unlike the state it has been reduced to by con this time round. So he could actually spend real money on education.
Danny My daughter had a hard time at her first state secondary school, so we moved schools.The new one was significantly better. It didn't require tens of thousands a year for a private school.It did require a ten minute train journey to get there.This wasn't in the dark ages it was 2013. Dont know where you live, but Sussex has a terrible reputation for schools if you care to look them up in league tables. Entry in all the better schools is subject to stiff competition and restrictions based on catchment areas etc. It has been in particular ever since grammar schools were abolished, but before that too. You luckily seem to have got away with just a train ride, most people would have to buy a home within the catchment area, which is of course also a means of getting better state education through wealth. That was happening even when I was a kid. Harder to do now, but people would use addresses of relatives or friends pretending their kids lived there so as to get them eligible for good schools. Though as i say, if your child totally fails in all accesible state schools, the LA may relent and pay themselves for the child to attend a private one. But to do that, they would have to suffer/ practice bullying or practice arson or whatever is going on sufficient times to qualify. Caring parents would probably baulk at getting their kids to do that just to get into a decent school. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Jan 31, 2024 22:01:23 GMT
Re the increased UK population prediction, it appears it may not be accurate The fertility assumptions underlining atleast part of the increase are out of date. The birth rate has infact been falling and is likely to continue falling No its not a baby boom accounting for predicted population rises, its an IMMIGRATION boom. Accompany that by falling local births and its a recipe for the end of British society as we know it within a generation or two. Which I suspect is mirrored across Europe and people are starting to realise. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Jan 31, 2024 22:04:30 GMT
Freedom of movement works both ways net immigration to the UK would have been lower if we hadn't had our freedom of movement to the European union stolen.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 31, 2024 22:15:38 GMT
neilj - "Re the increased UK population prediction, it appears it may not be accurate The fertility assumptions underlining atleast part of the increase are out of date. The birth rate has infact been falling and is likely to continue falling" I was a bit surprised at this too. I understand the ONS projection indicates a rise of 0.6m in a decade excluding migration, but live births in 2022 were 605K and 650k deaths. I don't have UK wide birth figures for 2023 but last time I checked (up to end Nov) the live births for NI and Scotland had shown an accelerated decline, so that gap seems likely to grow. One other factor worth keeping an eye on is the long term impact on fertility of covid. Female fertility is temporarily affected, but quickly restores to normal around a month after infection. For males, it seems to be a developing story that longer term fertility issues are a potential problem, with significant drops in sperm count and quality noted for a surprisingly high proportion of cases post infection, lasting for 6 moths or so, apparently permanent in a small minority of cases. No one yet knows whether multiple infections make this worse, but with infections coming once a year or so for younger males, some disruption to total births seems likely, and if the more alarming predictions come to pass, then we might end up in a more significant drop in live births.
|
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 31, 2024 22:17:43 GMT
Freedom of movement works both ways net immigration to the UK would have been lower if we hadn't had our freedom of movement to the European union stolen. Pull the other one. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Jan 31, 2024 22:24:04 GMT
I dread to think what the predicted population would be had we retained FoM. The answer to that question is that the projected population would be lower. The reason is that Brexit has done nothing to slow immigratin to the UK, which was always mostly from outside the EU and has nothng to do with refugees, but is all about people we invite to come here. The problem is that because of the immigration hoops you have to jump through it becomes necessary for immigrants without the benefit of FOM to commit much more to a total change of country. Whereas the rights to live anywhere in Europe made it possible to move wherever and whenever you wanted. So someone making a career here born in France or Poland could with no problem retire back home when they got old, or move their careers back home half way, just as easily as young Scots leave Scotland for good jobs in England, and then retire back home afterwards. This is brilliant, because it avoids the problem of looking after these people when they retire. Whereas formally requiring them to become citizens tends to force them to stay here till they die. FOM was so useful exactly because it didnt just allow people to come here when we asked them to, it also allowed them to go back home afterwards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2024 22:35:41 GMT
“ A builder who killed a customer in a brutal hammer attack after “chronic” delays in building an extension to her home has been jailed for life.
Peter Norgrove was ordered to serve a minimum term of 15 years after admitting the murder of 58-year-old Sharon Gordon, who he left for dead with severe skull fractures.”
How could fifteen years be considered an acceptable minimum sentence for something as horrific as this? The full story is in the Guardian and the murder was clearly premeditated.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 31, 2024 22:41:34 GMT
(d) I have heard rumours of specific financial wheezes that Reeves has up her sleeve that would raise significant sums but which have to be kept secret at this stage to prevent counter-measures. Believe that or not as one wishes, but I was told what one was. We shall see. When will voters be told. ? We have no plans to raise VAT, or something along those lines, should suffice. 😁😛 |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,149
|
Post by domjg on Jan 31, 2024 22:58:23 GMT
"The baby boomer geriatrics need someone to "service" their need. " I mean you'd have to be some kind of daft prick to vote to make it more difficult for people to come freely to the UK to provide these services Judging by the migration projections, Treasure Island(s) have as much lustre as ever for those looking for a better future. I dread to think what the predicted population would be had we retained FoM. You do know immigration is now higher than then right? And I've had my rights taken from me that frankly I'll never forgive. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,149
|
Post by domjg on Jan 31, 2024 22:59:20 GMT
Freedom of movement works both ways net immigration to the UK would have been lower if we hadn't had our freedom of movement to the European union stolen. Pull the other one. You seem to be pretty good at pulling your own legs so don't think you need any help. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 31, 2024 23:09:19 GMT
crossbat11 "I think where I may be disappointed with Labour is if they don't make income tax significantly more progressive than it currently is, especially at the top end." One side-effect of progressive Income Tax rates which I have not seen discussed is that it leads to greater income inequality. For instance if an employee pays 20% tax and his firm want to give him an extra £1,000 p.a. net they have to increase his gross pay by £1,250. If he is paying 50% tax they would have to give him an increase of £2,000. If there was a flat rate tax it would be the same and income disparity wouldn't change. There's also the argument that if there was a flat rate of 20% a person with £10,000 taxable income would pay £2,000, whereas someone with £100,000 would pay £20,000. He/she has 10 times the taxable income and pays 10 times as much tax. Seems fair to me. Of course if there was a flat rate it would probably have to be around 30%. Hardship to lower earners could be removed by having a big rise in the tax threshold. Over time this might have the effect of reducing obscene pay rises for the very highly-paid. By the way this isn't based on special pleading. I think I may have briefly got into a higher tax bracket many years ago but it didn't last. You are only looking at the tax raising side of the equation - it is what a LoC government does with the money raised that can significantly reduce inequality. Something like "Sure Start" for example. What I was trying to say was that by having a flat rate tax, but at a higher level than the current basic rate, and a much higher tax threshold, the total take could be the same or greater without causing hardship to lower earners. And IMO it would be fairer. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. It wouldn't satisfy the "soak the rich" brigade perhaps, but if current higher rate taxpayers had the same rate as everyone else there would be less incentive for tax avoidance and evasion, so the total take from that group might well go up. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,617
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 31, 2024 23:10:20 GMT
(d) I have heard rumours of specific financial wheezes that Reeves has up her sleeve that would raise significant sums but which have to be kept secret at this stage to prevent counter-measures. Believe that or not as one wishes, but I was told what one was. We shall see. When will voters be told. ? Three options I suppose: (a) After the election in the first Labour budget (b) Never, because they give up on it (c) (the interesting one) late in the election campaign when it is too late for the Conservative Party and their many allies to muster coherent opposition. The one I'm referring does exist in print. Good luck to everyone in finding it  |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 31, 2024 23:20:34 GMT
neilj - "Re the increased UK population prediction, it appears it may not be accurate The fertility assumptions underlining atleast part of the increase are out of date. The birth rate has infact been falling and is likely to continue falling"I was a bit surprised at this too. I understand the ONS projection indicates a rise of 0.6m in a decade excluding migration, but live births in 2022 were 605K and 650k deaths. I don't have UK wide birth figures for 2023 but last time I checked (up to end Nov) the live births for NI and Scotland had shown an accelerated decline, so that gap seems likely to grow. One other factor worth keeping an eye on is the long term impact on fertility of covid. Female fertility is temporarily affected, but quickly restores to normal around a month after infection. For males, it seems to be a developing story that longer term fertility issues are a potential problem, with significant drops in sperm count and quality noted for a surprisingly high proportion of cases post infection, lasting for 6 moths or so, apparently permanent in a small minority of cases. No one yet knows whether multiple infections make this worse, but with infections coming once a year or so for younger males, some disruption to total births seems likely, and if the more alarming predictions come to pass, then we might end up in a more significant drop in live births. I assume that the assumptions might be based on the fact that most immigrants are young and many come from cultures where large families are still the norm. They are likely to have a higher birth rate than natives and so the overall birth rate will increase. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 31, 2024 23:24:48 GMT
“ A builder who killed a customer in a brutal hammer attack after “chronic” delays in building an extension to her home has been jailed for life. Peter Norgrove was ordered to serve a minimum term of 15 years after admitting the murder of 58-year-old Sharon Gordon, who he left for dead with severe skull fractures.” How could fifteen years be considered an acceptable minimum sentence for something as horrific as this? The full story is in the Guardian and the murder was clearly premeditated. The death penalty should be brought back for cases like this. Now we're out of the EU we could do it, but I can't see any of the main parties doing so for the foreseeable future. We'll have to wait for a few more murderers released early to do it again and hope for a massive public outcry. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 31, 2024 23:58:44 GMT
“ A builder who killed a customer in a brutal hammer attack after “chronic” delays in building an extension to her home has been jailed for life. Peter Norgrove was ordered to serve a minimum term of 15 years after admitting the murder of 58-year-old Sharon Gordon, who he left for dead with severe skull fractures.” How could fifteen years be considered an acceptable minimum sentence for something as horrific as this? The full story is in the Guardian and the murder was clearly premeditated. The death penalty should be brought back for cases like this. Now we're out of the EU we could do it, but I can't see any of the main parties doing so for the foreseeable future. We'll have to wait for a few more murderers released early to do it again and hope for a massive public outcry. ? Leaving the EU isn't sufficient, we would have to leave the Council of Europe also. Anyone who wants the death penalty back needs to be reminded of the number of miscarriages of justice in murder cases (e.g. the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4). |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Feb 1, 2024 0:04:49 GMT
leftieliberalThere could be very strict rules about evidence - e.g. There would have to be DNA or film evidence or something equally damning. There is so much more technology available now.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,563
|
Post by neilj on Feb 1, 2024 5:47:59 GMT
alec'was a bit surprised at this too. I understand the ONS projection indicates a rise of 0.6m in a decade excluding migration, but live births in 2022 were 605K and 650k deaths. I don't have UK wide birth figures for 2023 but last time I checked (up to end Nov) the live births for NI and Scotland had shown an accelerated decline, so that gap seems likely to grow' Agree, as ONS say themselves they have used the fertility figures from a few years ago, in reality as you say there has been a continuing and increasing decline in the birth rate since then. The ONS figures assume there would be quite a sharp increase, which seems unlikely Yes immigration will mitigate the effect, but I seriously doubt we will see the big increases predicted On top of that of course over the next 30 years my generation of baby boomers will be dying off, which will increase the decline I appreciate mercian thinks new immigrants will be breeding like rabbits, but from the last few years it has certainly not stopped the decline in our birth rate. Anyway I thought the Daily Mail told us they were all men so how will that work 😀
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Feb 1, 2024 6:32:01 GMT
I appreciate mercian thinks new immigrants will be breeding like rabbits, but from the last few years it has certainly not stopped the decline in our birth rate. Anyway I thought the Daily Mail told us they were all men so how will that work 😀 The reason people choose not to have lots of kids is because they are very expensive in the Uk. In particular where you have a choice, ie effective contraception readily available, then its a choice whether the female partner spends her time having and raising kids or goes out to work. At a time it requires two adult incomes to pay for a home, then the choice becomes between having a kid or having a house. Since its been topical and if someone is the sort who believes private education is essential, then thats again enough to buy a house you will spend on each child's education, so you cannot afford more than one. Starmer's school fees tax can be viewed as a tax on having children. Even state education is calculated to cost parents a couple of grand a year in incidental costs. The government has been trying to expand childcare to free up more parents to work, but this scheme is reported as failing because of the costs involved which government is unwilling to pay. If they will not contribute to making it easier to have children, why should parents bear the cost? Plus of course, once basic health care becomes established so its a reasonable bet even just one child is unlikely to die before you do, then just one is enough to assist you in old age or carry on some sort of legacy. And nowadays people dont benefit from breeding their own cheap labour to work on the farm. An interesting speculation is whether despite all the efforts of governments exhorting people to have more children so as to solve government's desires for tax revenues, the human race has a well evolved instinct to reduce its birth rate if society pressures mean competition for resources is too great. That we actually might have a survival instinct not to outgrow resources. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Feb 1, 2024 6:34:13 GMT
Freedom of movement works both ways net immigration to the UK would have been lower if we hadn't had our freedom of movement to the European union stolen. Indeed...restricting immigrants to people coming from countries which are themselves desireable places to live again means its much more likely they will eventually go home again. FOM inside the EU was always a BRILLIANT idea to restrict permanent immigration to the UK and stabilise our population. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Feb 1, 2024 6:40:41 GMT
You are only looking at the tax raising side of the equation - it is what a LoC government does with the money raised that can significantly reduce inequality. Something like "Sure Start" for example. What I was trying to say was that by having a flat rate tax, but at a higher level than the current basic rate, and a much higher tax threshold, the total take could be the same or greater without causing hardship to lower earners. And IMO it would be fairer. Sorry if I didn't make that clear The big problem is that higher earners usually can create a choice for themselves between having an income and owning assets which rise in value. So capital gain taxes are just as important as income taxes and need to be at an equivalenet level. But they arent, they are way lower. This vast loophole allows rich people, and even not so rich, to avoid income taxes. In part the excessive price of houses has been used as a trojan horse to change capital taxes to much lower rates. Its quite remarkable just how much the nation has suffered from government deliberate policies of not building enough homes. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Feb 1, 2024 6:47:02 GMT
Paul
The sentence handed down was one of life imprisonment.
Norgrove pleaded guilty at first hearing while not admitting the offence initially and rightly or wrongly this is taken into account when sentencing, if he hadn't pleaded guilty the minimum term would have been around 20 years, he's been in custody since July 2023 which is also taken into account.
Norgrove won't be eligible to apply for release on licence until he's nearly 60, the parole board are under no obligation to release him at that point.
If he is released at any time he remains on life license and is subject to recall to prison for the rest of his life not only if he commits any further offence , however minor, but if his probation officer thinks he is no longer safe to be on licence.
I'm not referring specifically to the details of this case but I do think there's some misunderstanding of what a minimum sentence actually means.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Feb 1, 2024 6:47:27 GMT
An interesting comment in the news that the Uk and US might formally recognise a palestinian state because 'the world' wants a two state solution to the Israeli war.
Problem might be that israel does not want a two state solution, so this might be seen as an incentive to settle the problem of the palestinians once and for all sooner rather than later, as some of their leaders have promised.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Feb 1, 2024 6:53:48 GMT
"Problem might be that israel does not want a two state solution"
That's not entirely accurate, the current Israeli government doesn't want a two state solution.The main opposition does.
There are also large divides along ideological lines: 73% of Israelis on the political left say a way can be found for two states to coexist, compared with 53% of those in the center and 14% of those on the right.
Arab Israelis are somewhat more likely than Jewish Israelis to express optimism in the possibility of a peaceful coexistence with an independent Palestinian state (41% vs. 32%).
There are strong divisions between Jewish groups: 61% of Hiloni Jews say a peaceful coexistence is possible, while just 17% of Masorti Jews and 7% of Haredi/Dati Jews say the same.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,549
|
Post by Danny on Feb 1, 2024 6:58:37 GMT
Allan Bates, who has become the most prominent of the post office fraud victims was mentioned in the news because he said the compensation offer from government was derisory, and only 1/6 of what he should recieve in proper compensation.
Its very plain the government spent 14 years pretending there was no problem at the post office, which remains a wholly owned government company which it therefore fully controls. It has now said it wants to clear all these people and properly compensate them...only it doesnt. Its lies. all it wants to do is sound caring and leave the problem to labour to pay for. Part of the truly vast debt legacy Con have created for the nation.
Conservative governments are truly adept at dissipating national assets to their mates. I guess you could say thats hardly surprising in a democracy, a party needs to pay its supporters for their votes. Trouble comes when the system gives total power to minority groups.
And rather than create a separate post, the near bankrupt local authorities popped into the news again with some committee saying they need four billion pounds now. They will not get it, its another one intended to poison the next labour government.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Feb 1, 2024 7:01:31 GMT
For those who enjoy a flutter on the lottery there's a new owner from today.
Allwyn international a Czech based conglomerate that runs a number of international lotteries.
Upon being awarded the money generating contract in 2022 Allwyn promptly donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Tory party.
Total coincidence no doubt!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,752
|
Post by steve on Feb 1, 2024 7:13:31 GMT
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,563
|
Post by neilj on Feb 1, 2024 8:02:52 GMT
For those who enjoy a flutter on the lottery there's a new owner from today. Allwyn international a Czech based conglomerate that runs a number of international lotteries. Upon being awarded the money generating contract in 2022 Allwyn promptly donated tens of thousands of pounds to the Tory party. Total coincidence no doubt! The other issue is having won the contract by pledging to more than double the amount of money allocated to good causes, they now say charitable donations will be lower than the amount originally projected for the first two years. But they say there might be a chance to “catch up” later... How many tines have we seen public sector contracts awarded to private sector companies on promises that turn out to be false/unrealistic, but they still keep the contract www.independent.co.uk/business/new-national-lottery-operator-sees-sales-double-after-charity-donations-warning-b2458797.html |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Feb 1, 2024 8:09:22 GMT
mercian - re immigrants and breeding, figures are pointing to more general declines in birth rates. China, for example, now shrinking in terms of population. The covid effect, if there turns out to be one, will be global. It has to be listed as unlikely, but with unchecked multiple infections, it remains a live possibility that we could be seeing the start of what becomes essentially an extinction level event, if the early data strengthens. The big unknown is whether those affected by infertility are a distinct subset, or, as with other outcomes of 'long covid', it's more a function of the number of infections. If the latter, then we could start to see progressively declining births.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,563
|
Post by neilj on Feb 1, 2024 8:36:17 GMT
More In common
🌹Labour 43% (+1)
🌳Conservatives 29% (+2)
🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-)
🟣Reform UK 8% (-1)
💚Greens 6% (-2)
Labour lead 14
N= 3113, 26-31/01
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2024 8:37:58 GMT
When will voters be told. ? Three options I suppose: (a) After the election in the first Labour budget (b) Never, because they give up on it (c) (the interesting one) late in the election campaign when it is too late for the Conservative Party and their many allies to muster coherent opposition. The one I'm referring does exist in print. Good luck to everyone in finding it (a) then. |
|
