I am not particularly Labour, but I would rather pay for stuff in that list than Grammar schools and HS2.
Seth, do Grammar schools cost more than non grammar, serious question?
In my experience most what I would call comprehensive schools have a grammar stream anyway, the Old Crown Woods simply split into three schools, one effectively being grammar in all but name.
Edit, I think grammars are a red herring, regardless we need more school places, particularly secondary.
Grammar schools inevitably involve duplication of facilities. The best teachers take the easiest jobs at the grammar school while bad teachers end up doing the more challenging work which is an inefficient and stupid way to allocate teaching resources.
Not to mention the poor sods who end up in the wrong school and cannot move up or down to an appropriate level.
Agree with edit! Let's just have more and better schools where everyone can get what they need!
This!
Don't create schools for the elite, improve all schools. I'm all for having streaming within comprehensive schools because it gives children the chance to move into the higher streams, rather than deciding at 11 years-old that they have not reached some arbitrary level and never will.
Also, the idea that parents have some choice in the school their little ones go to - if you want choice, pay.
This is a personal belief of mine. My son got his choices for both primary and secondary schools, had he not we would have fought. The best policy to improve schools is for us not to have a choice - instead of parents fighting to get their kids into the best schools, they have to fight to make the school their child has been given a best school!
Some parents don't care and there are some school full of the kids of parents who don't care. These tend not to be the best schools!
There's a new free school near me, and half the kids have parents who are really into the whole "free school" thing, proper helicopter, pretend-to-be-catholic-for-five-years types, and the other half are kids whose parents couldn't be bothered to fill in the paperwork to chose a school. It is... fractious. Luckily enough the primary schools near me are all fine - the daughter got into the catchment school rather than our first choice, but we are perfectly happy with it. But there is a small school nearby that is Ofsted "outstanding" and the catchment is tiny, so all these desperate parents have created this super expensive ring of housing around the school.
I'm sure that the kids will do well not because of the school, but because the parents clearly care and can afford the house premium. I'll bet parents who equally care and can't afford that catchment will find that their kids do just as well elsewhere!
There's a new free school near me, and half the kids have parents who are really into the whole "free school" thing, proper helicopter, pretend-to-be-catholic-for-five-years types, and the other half are kids whose parents couldn't be bothered to fill in the paperwork to chose a school. It is... fractious. Luckily enough the primary schools near me are all fine - the daughter got into the catchment school rather than our first choice, but we are perfectly happy with it. But there is a small school nearby that is Ofsted "outstanding" and the catchment is tiny, so all these desperate parents have created this super expensive ring of housing around the school.
I'm sure that the kids will do well not because of the school, but because the parents clearly care and can afford the house premium. I'll bet parents who equally care and can't afford that catchment will find that their kids do just as well elsewhere!
I think there is some truth in that. As long as a school streams according to ability, I think it is the kid's attitude to education that counts. I went to a grammar school, and whilst I did ok, I think I would have done better being a bigger fish in a smaller pond. We have tried to bring our son up to have the right attitude to education and undertsand how important it is. I think he would have done well in most schools. I do think kids need other academic kids around them to stimulate them though.
With him being an excellent footballer, I have met many parents over the years, who are nice people, but have no academic aspirations for their kids whatsoever - only sporting ones. I do find this hard to undertsand. The chances of becoming a professional footballer are so low, you can't aim for it.
Other parents will say, I didn't need academic qualifications so my son doesn't either. I don't bother arguing as it is pretty pointless, but it saddens me.
Just a quick reminder for anyone easily influenced by the spin that will no doubt follow Labour's manifesto launch: if you earn £80k a year, under Labour's proposals you will pay no more tax than you do now.
I didn't think the Labour Party would be able to get something this comprehensive together in under a month.
I believed that internal squabbles between the PLP, the Cabinet and groups like Momentum would run Labour into the ground during this campaign.
Instead they've mounted quite an strong ground campaign. They've managed to get the country talking about important things, besides Brexit, and now they've released an impressive and (more importantly) fully costed manifesto.
And what's more the polls are showing that it is working, slowly closing the gap.
If they keep up this momentum June 8th will be very interesting.
However, I don't think we've truly seen the Tory election machine lurch into action just yet. While they still have a comprehensive lead they've kept quiet, relying on their soundbites.
I predict by the middle of, to late next week it'll roar into action. Championing their cause while most of the press ramps up their concerted effort to malign Corbyn. By the time they are finished the public will have forgotten about everything Labour have done over the past week or so, and May will get her 100+ majority and her blank cheque.
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
It won't matter. 60%+ of the voting population won't bother to educate themselves on the manifestos and just stick to what they're told by newspapers and television.
This is why May isn't bothering to try, she knows the media will drag her to a landslide.
Just a quick reminder for anyone easily influenced by the spin that will no doubt follow Lablur's manifesto launch: if you earn £80k a year, under Labour's proposals you will pay no more tax than you do now.
Can you point me to the place in the manifesto where it says income tax personal allowances will rise in line with inflation? I can't find it.
I'm not sure how much it will actually help but it's very compelling and at least we now have options for the sort of country we would like to be, for so long one of the biggest problems was that the parties seemed very similar and that can no longer be claimed.
I can't find the details on the Corporation Tax increase to 26% by 2022. Is that a blanket increase or is there a financial thresholds that determine what you pay?
Just a quick reminder for anyone easily influenced by the spin that will no doubt follow Lablur's manifesto launch: if you earn £80k a year, under Labour's proposals you will pay no more tax than you do now.
Can you point me to the place in the manifesto where it says income tax personal allowances will rise in line with inflation? I can't find it.
It doesn't, it's very woolly statements......... some would say intentionally. All the eggs are in the 80k+ basket, when that doesn't come off guess what happens next....... and where are the cost for bringing in all of the services back into public ownership?
I can't find the details on the Corporation Tax increase to 26% by 2022. Is that a blanket increase or is there a financial thresholds that determine what you pay?
Raising the headline rate to 21% from 2018-19, 24% from 2019-20 and £26% from 2020-21 (direct cut and paste from labour).
Small Profits (below £300,000) rate is 20% from 2018-19 and 21% from 2020-21
All these spending and revenue raising plans in the manifestos of both main parties are laughably naive and insulting to the intelligence of the electorate. The country is heading towards the cliff with Brexit which will result in the economy crashing, Brexit civil service costs sky rocketing and government revenue cratering over the next 10 or 15 years. They should first outline how they are going to deal with this severe existential threat to the nation before peddling fanciful nonsense.
It won't matter. 60%+ of the voting population won't bother to educate themselves on the manifestos and just stick to what they're told by newspapers and television.
This is why May isn't bothering to try, she knows the media will drag her to a landslide.
'Won't bother to educate themselves' or refuse to believe the yarn they are being spun?
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
To be fair you were always going to be disapointed . The Tories had their stock responses ready before they even saw it.
I'm not sure how much it will actually help but it's very compelling and at least we now have options for the sort of country we would like to be, for so long one of the biggest problems was that the parties seemed very similar and that can no longer be claimed.
A tantalising glimpse of what the country could become - unfortunately people would rather vote for austerity because they undertsand it, even if it has been shown not to work and goes against basic economic principles! So a tantalising glimpse is all it will be. Sadly!
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
It's insane. Just bung it in the manifesto, the plebs'll love it! Never mind how to pay for it. Thames Water has a capital value of £12bn on its own. I guess they're planning on taking the Venezuelan approach and just stealing the company from shareholders?!
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
Is this any worse than the Tories saying that the NHS will make £22 billion efficiency savings ? Of course not. I do know which of the two is the more likely though.
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
It's insane. Just bung it in the manifesto, the plebs'll love it! Never mind how to pay for it. Thames Water has a capital value of £12bn on its own. I guess they're planning on taking the Venezuelan approach and just stealing the company from shareholders?!
That would be my approach - pay them what they paid for their shares apart from failing train companies, where you just order it back into public hands.
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
It's insane. Just bung it in the manifesto, the plebs'll love it! Never mind how to pay for it. Thames Water has a capital value of £12bn on its own. I guess they're planning on taking the Venezuelan approach and just stealing the company from shareholders?!
That would be my approach - pay them what they paid for their shares apart from failing train companies, where you just order it back into public hands.
They'll end up spending more than £12bn just on lawyers when the whole thing ends up in court for a thousand years!
It won't matter. 60%+ of the voting population won't bother to educate themselves on the manifestos and just stick to what they're told by newspapers and television.
This is why May isn't bothering to try, she knows the media will drag her to a landslide.
This is why I've been stressing to friends that we need to discuss with that 60% face to face and try to open their eyes away from the media's biased slur
So some early highlights of how the promises will be paid for (not the promises themselves), bit disappointed if I'm honest as an awful lot of gaps;
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
It's insane. Just bung it in the manifesto, the plebs'll love it! Never mind how to pay for it. Thames Water has a capital value of £12bn on its own. I guess they're planning on taking the Venezuelan approach and just stealing the company from shareholders?!
The Bank of England created £375 billion in quantitative easing and govt bonds are considered one of the safest investments, plus Interest rates are historically low. A national bank investing in national industries. There are mechanisms that can be used. Not so insane.
You can forget the straw man argument that the trots want to steal it.
I didn't say it would be Labour's approach but mine. These industries need to be run efficiently for our benefit. Great pot Mcgrandall, quantative easing is printing money for banks to lock away in vaults and not to lend to anybody! Better to make the money work!
Comments
Some parents don't care and there are some school full of the kids of parents who don't care. These tend not to be the best schools!
I'm sure that the kids will do well not because of the school, but because the parents clearly care and can afford the house premium. I'll bet parents who equally care and can't afford that catchment will find that their kids do just as well elsewhere!
(not that it matters as I live in a Labour safe seat anyway and we need PR but still!)
It's the hope that kills you!
With him being an excellent footballer, I have met many parents over the years, who are nice people, but have no academic aspirations for their kids whatsoever - only sporting ones. I do find this hard to undertsand. The chances of becoming a professional footballer are so low, you can't aim for it.
Other parents will say, I didn't need academic qualifications so my son doesn't either. I don't bother arguing as it is pretty pointless, but it saddens me.
I believed that internal squabbles between the PLP, the Cabinet and groups like Momentum would run Labour into the ground during this campaign.
Instead they've mounted quite an strong ground campaign. They've managed to get the country talking about important things, besides Brexit, and now they've released an impressive and (more importantly) fully costed manifesto.
And what's more the polls are showing that it is working, slowly closing the gap.
If they keep up this momentum June 8th will be very interesting.
However, I don't think we've truly seen the Tory election machine lurch into action just yet. While they still have a comprehensive lead they've kept quiet, relying on their soundbites.
I predict by the middle of, to late next week it'll roar into action. Championing their cause while most of the press ramps up their concerted effort to malign Corbyn. By the time they are finished the public will have forgotten about everything Labour have done over the past week or so, and May will get her 100+ majority and her blank cheque.
What happens after that? Only she knows.
45p tax band at 80k, 50p tax band at 123k. This supposedly will raise £6.4bn.
If you truly believe that will raise this money you are as deluded as JC and JMc. I may have missed it but couldn't see anywhere any comment as to what tax would be lost (namely VAT) on that additional income tax some of which would have been spent by the individual.
This has potential to actually reduce the taxation at those levels overall in my view, at least I'd put my hat on the line and say those increases would raise no where near that amount. He's just opened the door and let the money flood out.
A levy on employers where they pay over £300k or £500k. Again I believe this will have a negative effect and again no mention of the lost tax (i.e. this assuming it is paid would be from current company profit so what about Corp tax that would have been paid anyway?)
Privatise the water industry........ but can't confirm the cost in doing so ... WTF!
Some changes on Corp Tax, IHT etc - again sounds great in principal but I doubt it will have the desired effect they think it will.
This raises for me more questions than answers as so many gaps regarding funding.....
This is why May isn't bothering to try, she knows the media will drag her to a landslide.
I'm not sure how much it will actually help but it's very compelling and at least we now have options for the sort of country we would like to be, for so long one of the biggest problems was that the parties seemed very similar and that can no longer be claimed.
Raising the headline rate to 21% from 2018-19, 24% from
2019-20 and £26% from 2020-21 (direct cut and paste from labour).
Small Profits (below £300,000) rate is 20% from 2018-19 and 21% from 2020-21
It's insane. Just bung it in the manifesto, the plebs'll love it! Never mind how to pay for it. Thames Water has a capital value of £12bn on its own. I guess they're planning on taking the Venezuelan approach and just stealing the company from shareholders?!
They'll end up spending more than £12bn just on lawyers when the whole thing ends up in court for a thousand years!
You can forget the straw man argument that the trots want to steal it.
This election is suddenly becoming quite important..