I had a shed load of stuff through my letterbox today. Together with voting papers I had two different leaflets from the Labour candidate featuring a nice picture of the toolmakers son (or should I say factory owner) with his sleeves rolled up. Perhaps Labour have a nice little arangement with the local posties? Still nothing from anywhere else.
It wouldn't be a case of Labour or any other political party having a 'nice little arrangement with the local posties' in the sense this seems to imply. As if the local posties are somehow 'in league' with Labour, if that's what you mean.
Parties can pay for Post Office mailings if they have sufficient funds to do so at a local level. It would be a rush to time this before the deadline for the postal vote, but not impossible.
Your local Labour branch may have paid for a mailing - I doubt they'd be able to organise or pay for two during the time available in this campaign. But they may well have sufficient volunteers to post leaflets around your area whereas the other parties may not - particularly if their candidates don't live locally and are thereby unable to drum up support from relatives and friends.
All political parties have access to a single mail shot per election - they pay for printing but the post office will deliver the leaflets free of charge. There's nothing to stop parties paying the post office, or other delivery service, to put literature through doors providing the total cost doesn't exceed spending limits. Though, for Parliamentary elections the spending limits are so high that if a party has the funds they can pay for several leaflets to be delivered and for a professional polling agency to chap many doors to canvas opinion. A reduction in spending limits such that to get multiple literature through doors or significant canvassing campaigns requires local volunteers to get out would IMO be a good idea - it would mean that campaigns are limited by how many local people support a party and are willing to express that support by actively assisting in the campaign rather than just how much money parties can get.
With the exception of 1945, the Labour Party has been successful when it has emulated the approximate political space that the Liberals occupied prior to 1914, viz Wilson, Kinnock/Smith/Blair/Brown, and potentially now, and has signally failed when it has determinedly chosen the political space its more ideological members love, but the public won't vote for, viz Benn/Foot and Corbyn.
I think it's stretching the truth to call Kinnock or Brown a success but claim the public won't vote for the likes of Corbyn. Given that Labour has only taken power at a general election with a majority twice since 1945 there is very limited data upon which to base a conclusion. Arguably since 1945 Labour has only won when the public are so fed up with the tories that anything looked better. I would also argue that the Labour right's commitment to markets and privatisation is every bit as ideological as anything on the Labour left.
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Sorry. But I can only speak as I find.
Ideologically, of course ... 😉
Given the scouring of social media for a "like" they can object to the "liberal" end of the Labour Party seems to have its own fundamentalism. Anything from liking someone from another party recovering from covid to talking to Ken Loach can get you subject to a drumhead court martial.
I've certainly seen the behaviour you describe in what we might call the extra-parliamentary left, but that's generally (a) a lot less common than it once was due to the collapse of the USSR and (b) mostly confined to a handful of middle aged men who missed out on developing a fascination with trains or D&D.
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Sorry. But I can only speak as I find.
Ideologically, of course ... 😉
Given the scouring of social media for a "like" they can object to the "liberal" end of the Labour Party seems to have its own fundamentalism. Anything from liking someone from another party recovering from covid to talking to Ken Loach can get you subject to a drumhead court martial.
I've certainly seen the behaviour you describe in what we might call the extra-parliamentary left, but that's generally (a) a lot less common than it once was due to the collapse of the USSR and (b) mostly confined to a handful of middle aged men who missed out on developing a fascination with trains or D&D.
Can’t speak for D&D but the last thing most (any) preserved railway needs is an influx of tankies thanks very much!
We’re much more anarcho syndicalist as a movement generally.
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Yes, and ideology still exists, but resides in the realm of the unexamined the unconscious where it can take on strange forms or collapse into incoherence. At worst it can be a symptom of detachment bourne of privilege.
Even the current leader realised this when he and others wrote the Orange Book and set up Liberal Reform which - afaict - has largely been a flop. That very few Liberal Democrats have read the book where their leader set out his animating principles is not, I think, a sign of strength.
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Sorry. But I can only speak as I find.
Ideologically, of course ... 😉
Given the scouring of social media for a "like" they can object to the "liberal" end of the Labour Party seems to have its own fundamentalism. Anything from liking someone from another party recovering from covid to talking to Ken Loach can get you subject to a drumhead court martial.
I've certainly seen the behaviour you describe in what we might call the extra-parliamentary left, but that's generally (a) a lot less common than it once was due to the collapse of the USSR and (b) mostly confined to a handful of middle aged men who missed out on developing a fascination with trains or D&D.
Can’t speak for D&D but the last thing most (any) preserved railway needs is an influx of tankies thanks very much!
We’re much more anarcho syndicalist as a movement generally.
No, no, I'm saying they became obsessed with the finer points of Marxist-Leninism vs Hoxhaism vs Maoism because they missed out at an early age on more productive pursuits. There is, of course, little to be done for them now.;)
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Sorry. But I can only speak as I find.
Ideologically, of course ... 😉
Given the scouring of social media for a "like" they can object to the "liberal" end of the Labour Party seems to have its own fundamentalism. Anything from liking someone from another party recovering from covid to talking to Ken Loach can get you subject to a drumhead court martial.
I've certainly seen the behaviour you describe in what we might call the extra-parliamentary left, but that's generally (a) a lot less common than it once was due to the collapse of the USSR and (b) mostly confined to a handful of middle aged men who missed out on developing a fascination with trains or D&D.
Can’t speak for D&D but the last thing most (any) preserved railway needs is an influx of tankies thanks very much!
We’re much more anarcho syndicalist as a movement generally.
No, no, I'm saying they became obsessed with the finer points of Marxist-Leninism vs Hoxhaism vs Maoism because they missed out at an early age on more productive pursuits. There is, of course, little to be done for them now.;)
I suppose this is tangentially relevant to the putative collapse of a political party so I'll pursue it (but probably regret it ...) - are there still people out there in any numbers that are still disciples of Hoxhaism?? I'd guess it's a minority pursuit even in Albania these days! 'what we need is lots of pillboxes... they are coming to get us you know'
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Sorry. But I can only speak as I find.
Ideologically, of course ... 😉
Given the scouring of social media for a "like" they can object to the "liberal" end of the Labour Party seems to have its own fundamentalism. Anything from liking someone from another party recovering from covid to talking to Ken Loach can get you subject to a drumhead court martial.
I've certainly seen the behaviour you describe in what we might call the extra-parliamentary left, but that's generally (a) a lot less common than it once was due to the collapse of the USSR and (b) mostly confined to a handful of middle aged men who missed out on developing a fascination with trains or D&D.
Can’t speak for D&D but the last thing most (any) preserved railway needs is an influx of tankies thanks very much!
We’re much more anarcho syndicalist as a movement generally.
No, no, I'm saying they became obsessed with the finer points of Marxist-Leninism vs Hoxhaism vs Maoism because they missed out at an early age on more productive pursuits. There is, of course, little to be done for them now.;)
I suppose this is tangentially relevant to the putative collapse of a political party so I'll pursue it (but probably regret it ...) - are there still people out there in any numbers that are still disciples of Hoxhaism?? I'd guess it's a minority pursuit even in Albania these days! 'what we need is lots of pillboxes... they are coming to get us you know'
I am awestruck that anyone would consider D & D productive.
Well, it was in various RPGs that I learnt the importance of co-ordinating actions as a group, and that having some advance planning for events can help when things happen suddenly.
Of course, but in my experience liberal types - for all their faults - are less likely to beat one another up or give each other the third degree in an interrogation as to which end of any particular ideological spectrum they happen to be on.
Yes, and ideology still exists, but resides in the realm of the unexamined the unconscious where it can take on strange forms or collapse into incoherence. At worst it can be a symptom of detachment bourne of privilege.
Even the current leader realised this when he and others wrote the Orange Book and set up Liberal Reform which - afaict - has largely been a flop. That very few Liberal Democrats have read the book where their leader set out his animating principles is not, I think, a sign of strength.
I didn't say it was. Neither is interrogating anyone who turns up at a Labour Party branch meeting as to what species of socialist they are ...
Lib Dems don't have an equivalent. We just pounce on anyone who opens the door of our telephone box, wrestle them to the ground and prevent them from getting up until they've agreed to deliver Focus leaflets.
I well remember a Lib Dem branch meeting where a newcomer outlined his reasons for his interest in the Party.
I remarked how refreshing it was to hear someone outline an ideological position for a change rather than us pounce on them to ask if they'd deliver leaflets.
No sooner had a said this than one of our political agents - God rest his soul - piped up to ask whether he'd be prepared to deliver leaflets ...
The fella laughed, thinking it was an ironic quip prompted by my comment. His smile faded as he realised the agent was being deadly serious ...
I recognise, of course, that absence of ideological discussion does not mean absence of ideology.
But it would have been nice to have some political discussions occasionally at branch meetings of a political party.
Surely that would not have been too much to ask ...
Yes it is. I speak as the former President of a Riding Association (Canadian equivalent of Party Branch). Our big concern is campaigning an organization. Political discussions? Not so much.
Yes it is. I speak as the former President of a Riding Association (Canadian equivalent of Party Branch). Our big concern is campaigning an organization. Political discussions? Not so much.
My experience...
Campaigners will often discuss ideology, if so inclined, but it tends to be the sorta thing that happens after-hours when everybody's unwinding at the bar.
And, that kinda socialization prob'ly tends to happen moreso when the campaign is over, but it's been well over two decades since I was politically active, so YMMV.
At a local level all political parties tend to focus on keeping the show on the road. I doubt there's that much more political discussion within Labour and Conservative branches than there is within ours.
Labour seemed to bicker among themselves a lot more while the Conservatives seemed to bleed members over to independency very regularly. Ours began to die off and are not being replaced. A surge of interest over Brexit did not translate into new activists or campaigners.
I use the past tense as I'm far less involved these days.
Of course, in all political groupings the real discussions occur outside of boring branch meetings and the like.
My experience of a small branch of a smaller party, we will discuss policies in various contexts. We have short committee meetings that cover the organisational stuff, and longer monthly branch meetings which will include policy discussion - that might be discussion of a policy area our councillor wants to develop a motion on in council, it might be a bill that our MSP group will be supporting or opposing, it might be motions that are being discussed for a vote at Conference, it might be an issue a member has interest in or where there's a local interest. As a small branch, for some of those discussions it may be more appropriate to cooperate with a neighbouring branch, and often inviting in someone with expertise. And, if there are more social occasions (eg: the pub after a few hours canvassing) policy discussion happens in those settings without any formal organisation - though, with our main meetings almost entirely online those don't happen as often as they did before we got a Zoom account.
There are, of course, additional opportunities to discuss policy at national or regional level rather than just at branch level. Annual Conference will include discussion and votes on a couple of dozen motions with typically half of those relating to policies, though the majority of discussion of those happen ahead of Conference (because the formal discussion structure of Conference and short time available makes good discussion impossible) through discussion meetings ahead of motion submission, discussion of motions and identification of amendments, a forum for online discussion, and in many cases discussion within Branch Meetings or rep groups. Plenty of opportunities to join working groups looking at policy areas of interest, and the monthly policy committee is open to all members.
My sense is that the National Service idea is going down very badly. I don't know if it will ultimately make a difference with regard to the Tory party survival, but I suspect it might.
Oddly they are also staking a lot on the whole "VAT on private school fees" thing, which one might think hardly has a wide resonance.
Sure, and all of that is well and good if you want to get involved with a political party to the virtual exclusion of any other activity.
Some do.
Yes, some few people do get involved to the exclusion of everything else. But, it's very few and even those who end up pursuing politics as a career still maintain other activities in their lives. I personally don't know anyone like that. I do know a lot of people who are involved enough to spend a few hours a month in meetings to discuss politics. I don't recognise a description of political party meetings which are just "campaigning and organisation" - there has to be some organisation, of course, but in my experience that's not much of the time spent in branch meetings; there is campaigning, of course, but that's not all the time. My experience of Greens is that meetings tend towards being mainly about discussing policy - keeping the "boring" management parts of running the show to a minimum.
A political party where meetings are just about organisation and management would be like a church which spends all their time discussing how to run services, drawing up rotas for who will be welcoming people and making the tea ... but never actually holding an act of worship.
At a local level all political parties tend to focus on keeping the show on the road. I doubt there's that much more political discussion within Labour and Conservative branches than there is within ours.
You allude to a problem that all political parties face in an age of the death of civic engagement.
It would be slightly unfair to describe the setup you describe as a fraternal organization united around largely incidental political rituals, but there's an element of truth here in that parties used to be the focal point of more than just political activities - I have friends whose parents met at social events organized by the Conservative Party back in the 50s/60s when they had almost 3 million members.
I suspect the weird tangents some local parties can go down is a side effect of a smaller membership, you end up getting a subset of a subset, and a few people with stranger than average ideas can tend to become the flavour of the place.
Oddly they are also staking a lot on the whole "VAT on private school fees" thing, which one might think hardly has a wide resonance.
Chatting over a dram with a friend who is both lawyer and accountant, he raised an interesting point. If VAT is taken at face value (a tax on an activity or process that has added value) then there is quicksand under the whole idea.
Logic dictates that VAT should also be imposed on private nursery fees and university tuition fees - to do otherwise implies neither "adds value".
How much is the imposition of VAT on private schools going to cost local authorities who rely on private institutions for a lot of special needs provision? And will central government cover the increased cost for the LEAs?
What about specialist institutions such as the Royal Ballet School, the junior departments of the music conservatoires, etc? Kier having been a JE at the Guildhall must surely have thought about this?
Private tertiary level institutions such as Sandhurst, etc?
Scholarship places: who will be responsible for paying the VAT on the fees that are given as a bursary or scholarship?
Specialist apprenticeships for the armed forces - again, will VAT be imposed and who pays if it is?
All apprenticeships for people 16-18: it is private provision so logically there will be VAT.
The whole thing is a complete Horlicks and exposes the idea for what it is: an unpleasant knee-jerk "tax the rich" wheeze that hasn't been thought through beyond the sound-bite.
Oddly they are also staking a lot on the whole "VAT on private school fees" thing, which one might think hardly has a wide resonance.
Chatting over a dram with a friend who is both lawyer and accountant, he raised an interesting point. If VAT is taken at face value (a tax on an activity or process that has added value) then there is quicksand under the whole idea.
Logic dictates that VAT should also be imposed on private nursery fees and university tuition fees - to do otherwise implies neither "adds value".
How much is the imposition of VAT on private schools going to cost local authorities who rely on private institutions for a lot of special needs provision? And will central government cover the increased cost for the LEAs?
What about specialist institutions such as the Royal Ballet School, the junior departments of the music conservatoires, etc? Kier having been a JE at the Guildhall must surely have thought about this?
Private tertiary level institutions such as Sandhurst, etc?
Scholarship places: who will be responsible for paying the VAT on the fees that are given as a bursary or scholarship?
Specialist apprenticeships for the armed forces - again, will VAT be imposed and who pays if it is?
All apprenticeships for people 16-18: it is private provision so logically there will be VAT.
The whole thing is a complete Horlicks and exposes the idea for what it is: an unpleasant knee-jerk "tax the rich" wheeze that hasn't been thought through beyond the sound-bite.
In the whole manifesto that’s the one that stands out to me - and AIUI there are people with cash waiting in the wings to argue ‘put it on everything educational or nothing’ in the courts as and when.
The other one is shotgun licences - manifesto commitment is to pass the whole cost of licensing onto the applicant. At the moment the licensing system is on its knees and waits of up to 18 months not uncommon. I’ve got some sympathy with the farmers in my rural pub at the weekend who said they didn’t mind paying the full cost of a working system, but the manifesto is saying it’ll make them pay for the one the police have broken…
Although there’re no fees at Sandhurst/Dartmouth/Cranwell - but some of the training is outsourced to various universities so I suppose the MOD could be on the hook for VAT on that.
But agree, ending up in 5 years time with the imposition of VAT on university tuition fees would be an interesting place for the government to find itself…
There are few private universities (Buckingham, Cirencester a few law schools). I've no issue with charging VAT on fees for these institutions, the rest are literally public institutions.
The logical flaw is the assumption that the government has no choice about what added value they choose to tax, and the rate of that taxation. In practically every area of taxation, the government makes exceptions where something could be taxed but isn't. Income, the government chooses to waive tax on incomes below a threshold. Likewise for capital gains and inheritance, where only gains above a threshold are taxed. Conversely, the government chooses to tax some items over and above the VAT - alcohol, tobacco, petrol.
It's within the power of government to remove some exemptions to paying VAT, that doesn't mean it has to remove all those exemptions.
Yeah, it's going to require a bit of careful drafting of regulations but that's what HMRC does for a living. If the rules can effectively distinguish between residential and holiday lets (the latter attracts VAT) then they can identify private schools and exempt specialist placements. The wealthy will whinge but mostly cough up to keep their kids away from the riff-raff.
The wealthy will whinge but mostly cough up to keep their kids away from the riff-raff.
The truly wealthy won't be impacted at all - they have more than enough spare cash to cover the rise in fees.
The ones who will be made to hurt will be those who need private schooling because of their child's special needs, and those in the aspirational middle class who currently make savings elsewhere in their lives in order to get the fees paid for their child(ren) to have a better chance at life in the future.
The net result will be to make private schooling even more elitist, and a reduction in social mobility.
From my experience at an independent school, those parents are very few and far between. There was a lot of talk about "making sacrifices" but the boys in question still had a standard of living well above anything I, as a bursary lad, could even dream of.
Secondly, there are independent schools at any number of, for want of a better word, price points. Parents priced out of all but the cheapest ones will have the option to simply move a rung down the ladder.
So the impacted group is that subset of parents struggling to meet the fees of the cheapest independent schools. A fraction of a fraction.
The plus side of the balance sheet is income from the VAT that is levied which can be invested in education for the 90%+ of children whose parents could never afford private fees with or without VAT.
It still appears a winner to me. As @Alan Cresswell and @Arethosemyfeet both pointed out, it's not beyond the wit of man to exclude special needs placements.
There's a lot in here that I think is quite wide of the mark.
Firstly, VAT is charged on most services. That includes all sorts of education and training. It's very unlikely to be legally problematic to legislate that private schools' fees are subject to VAT.
There is a disproportionate amount of media attention on this. Quite possibly because the majority of journalists are privately educated, compared to 7% of the population. The Telegraph stories about thousands of pupils being forced out of private schools has been totally debunked.
The range of fees is quite large, but the sources I found suggest that the average is around £18,000 / per year per pupil. If we assume that the schools will not absorb any of the increased cost and keep their fees the same, then the tax bill is, of course, £3,600 per year per pupil.
The number of pupils who fit into this group whose parents 'can only just afford the fees' is a minority. Moreover, many of them will be at schools with fees at the lower end of the range and hence the tax bill is correspondently smaller. Of course, there inevitably will be some but that in itself is not a compelling argument against a principled position. The real key here is the question: "Why should school fees be exempt?"
There are few private universities (Buckingham, Cirencester a few law schools). I've no issue with charging VAT on fees for these institutions, the rest are literally public institutions.
No, universities are not literally public institutions. David Willetts explains this in his excellent book "A University Education". They are (now) mostly government funded but they are autonomous and not under government control (unlike polytechnics).
Being autonomous doesn't make them somehow not a public body.
To be absolutely technical about it, they are considered "not for profit institutions serving households" in government accounts.
Does it matter with regard to VAT?
IDK but my guess is that it would be relatively easy for HMRC to distinguish between a "not for profit institutions serving households" and a private for-profit institution.
The Telegraph stories about thousands of pupils being forced out of private schools has been totally debunked.
The range of fees is quite large, but the sources I found suggest that the average is around £18,000 / per year per pupil. If we assume that the schools will not absorb any of the increased cost and keep their fees the same, then the tax bill is, of course, £3,600 per year per pupil.
The number of pupils who fit into this group whose parents 'can only just afford the fees' is a minority. Moreover, many of them will be at schools with fees at the lower end of the range and hence the tax bill is correspondently smaller. Of course, there inevitably will be some but that in itself is not a compelling argument against a principled position. The real key here is the question: "Why should school fees be exempt?"
But if you look at it from a "supply and demand" perspective why wouldn't demand fall if prices go up? Sure, you could shift your child to a formerly cheaper school if all prices go up. But you may no longer think that it is worth it to receive a less desirable product at the same price. That is not being "forced out" exactly but it means that a child has moved from private to state education with concomitant cost to the Treasury.
This is a ridiculous point. Public transportation is heavily subsidised in the UK.
That doesn't therefore mean that petrol can't be subject to VAT because commuters who drive would use up government subsidies if they travelled by train.
This argument is never, ever applied to anything other than private education.
The Telegraph stories about thousands of pupils being forced out of private schools has been totally debunked.
The range of fees is quite large, but the sources I found suggest that the average is around £18,000 / per year per pupil. If we assume that the schools will not absorb any of the increased cost and keep their fees the same, then the tax bill is, of course, £3,600 per year per pupil.
The number of pupils who fit into this group whose parents 'can only just afford the fees' is a minority. Moreover, many of them will be at schools with fees at the lower end of the range and hence the tax bill is correspondently smaller. Of course, there inevitably will be some but that in itself is not a compelling argument against a principled position. The real key here is the question: "Why should school fees be exempt?"
But if you look at it from a "supply and demand" perspective why wouldn't demand fall if prices go up? Sure, you could shift your child to a formerly cheaper school if all prices go up. But you may no longer think that it is worth it to receive a less desirable product at the same price. That is not being "forced out" exactly but it means that a child has moved from private to state education with concomitant cost to the Treasury.
Indeed. And this has been carefully studied. Two key points.
1. Because of a drop in the birthrate in recent years, there are multiple vacancies and schools closing. (Primary at the moment).
2. The number of pupils likely to end up moving to the state sector is small and the figures quoted for revenue generated by Labour are net and include allowing for this.
This is a ridiculous point. Public transportation is heavily subsidised in the UK.
That doesn't therefore mean that petrol can't be subject to VAT because commuters who drive would use up government subsidies if they travelled by train.
This argument is never, ever applied to anything other than private education.
Well, putting tax on petrol most certainly does reduce the total amount of driving. You may well feel that this is a good thing, and that likewise reducing the number of pupils in private education is a good thing, but it seems silly to deny that it will happen.
This is a ridiculous point. Public transportation is heavily subsidised in the UK.
That doesn't therefore mean that petrol can't be subject to VAT because commuters who drive would use up government subsidies if they travelled by train.
This argument is never, ever applied to anything other than private education.
Well, putting tax on petrol most certainly does reduce the total amount of driving. You may well feel that this is a good thing, and that likewise reducing the number of pupils in private education is a good thing, but it seems silly to deny that it will happen.
My mother recently paid for private healthcare because the NHS queue was too long for her condition. As in she might have died before she saw the NHS consultant.
She had savings, she grumbled loudly about it but paid to get the healthcare.
I highly doubt whether an additional 20% would have made any difference about the decision. It was painful, she didn't want to have to pay.
But given the circumstances, if it had been more money she would have paid more money.
And from what I hear from people who pay for private healthcare, private dentistry etc, they mostly feel the same.
Comments
Terms like "nutters", "loonies" and such are both ableist and inappropriately hellish. Please stop using them.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
It wouldn't be a case of Labour or any other political party having a 'nice little arrangement with the local posties' in the sense this seems to imply. As if the local posties are somehow 'in league' with Labour, if that's what you mean.
Parties can pay for Post Office mailings if they have sufficient funds to do so at a local level. It would be a rush to time this before the deadline for the postal vote, but not impossible.
Your local Labour branch may have paid for a mailing - I doubt they'd be able to organise or pay for two during the time available in this campaign. But they may well have sufficient volunteers to post leaflets around your area whereas the other parties may not - particularly if their candidates don't live locally and are thereby unable to drum up support from relatives and friends.
I think it's stretching the truth to call Kinnock or Brown a success but claim the public won't vote for the likes of Corbyn. Given that Labour has only taken power at a general election with a majority twice since 1945 there is very limited data upon which to base a conclusion. Arguably since 1945 Labour has only won when the public are so fed up with the tories that anything looked better. I would also argue that the Labour right's commitment to markets and privatisation is every bit as ideological as anything on the Labour left.
All political platforms are ultimately driven by some kind of ideology, Liberal parties (or 'the' Liberal Party) aren't free of it either.
Whereas, on the lefty end of the left there can be an almost fundamentalist obsession about labelling or categorising where anyone or everyone stands ideologically. Almost as fundamentalist in fact as those highly conservative evangelicals who want to find out someone's eschatalogical position as soon as they've been introduced.
Sorry. But I can only speak as I find.
Ideologically, of course ... 😉
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2024/jun/03/uk-general-election-opinion-polls-tracker-latest-labour-tories-2024
Labour are slightly down, with the LibDems slightly up - which may be a good thing in the long run!
Given the scouring of social media for a "like" they can object to the "liberal" end of the Labour Party seems to have its own fundamentalism. Anything from liking someone from another party recovering from covid to talking to Ken Loach can get you subject to a drumhead court martial.
I've certainly seen the behaviour you describe in what we might call the extra-parliamentary left, but that's generally (a) a lot less common than it once was due to the collapse of the USSR and (b) mostly confined to a handful of middle aged men who missed out on developing a fascination with trains or D&D.
Can’t speak for D&D but the last thing most (any) preserved railway needs is an influx of tankies thanks very much!
We’re much more anarcho syndicalist as a movement generally.
Yes, and ideology still exists, but resides in the realm of the unexamined the unconscious where it can take on strange forms or collapse into incoherence. At worst it can be a symptom of detachment bourne of privilege.
Even the current leader realised this when he and others wrote the Orange Book and set up Liberal Reform which - afaict - has largely been a flop. That very few Liberal Democrats have read the book where their leader set out his animating principles is not, I think, a sign of strength.
No, no, I'm saying they became obsessed with the finer points of Marxist-Leninism vs Hoxhaism vs Maoism because they missed out at an early age on more productive pursuits. There is, of course, little to be done for them now.;)
I suppose this is tangentially relevant to the putative collapse of a political party so I'll pursue it (but probably regret it
Apparently there are a few, though there doesn't seem to be a UK affiliate at present:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist–Leninist_Parties_and_Organizations_(Unity_%26_Struggle)
Well, it was in various RPGs that I learnt the importance of co-ordinating actions as a group, and that having some advance planning for events can help when things happen suddenly.
Compared with bickering over various flavours of Stalinism it absolutely is. 2nd edition, anyway.
I didn't say it was. Neither is interrogating anyone who turns up at a Labour Party branch meeting as to what species of socialist they are ...
Lib Dems don't have an equivalent. We just pounce on anyone who opens the door of our telephone box, wrestle them to the ground and prevent them from getting up until they've agreed to deliver Focus leaflets.
I well remember a Lib Dem branch meeting where a newcomer outlined his reasons for his interest in the Party.
I remarked how refreshing it was to hear someone outline an ideological position for a change rather than us pounce on them to ask if they'd deliver leaflets.
No sooner had a said this than one of our political agents - God rest his soul - piped up to ask whether he'd be prepared to deliver leaflets ...
The fella laughed, thinking it was an ironic quip prompted by my comment. His smile faded as he realised the agent was being deadly serious ...
I recognise, of course, that absence of ideological discussion does not mean absence of ideology.
But it would have been nice to have some political discussions occasionally at branch meetings of a political party.
Surely that would not have been too much to ask ...
Does this include people like me, who enjoy reading in-depth about various fringe groups as a hobby, but with no real sympathies for any of them?
Or is it only the people who absorb such minutiae while battling on behalf of one of the groups?
My experience...
Campaigners will often discuss ideology, if so inclined, but it tends to be the sorta thing that happens after-hours when everybody's unwinding at the bar.
And, that kinda socialization prob'ly tends to happen moreso when the campaign is over, but it's been well over two decades since I was politically active, so YMMV.
At a local level all political parties tend to focus on keeping the show on the road. I doubt there's that much more political discussion within Labour and Conservative branches than there is within ours.
Labour seemed to bicker among themselves a lot more while the Conservatives seemed to bleed members over to independency very regularly. Ours began to die off and are not being replaced. A surge of interest over Brexit did not translate into new activists or campaigners.
I use the past tense as I'm far less involved these days.
Of course, in all political groupings the real discussions occur outside of boring branch meetings and the like.
Them's fighting words.
(Although not nearly as much as "4th edition" would have been.)
I have got Dafling major into 5th edition.
There are, of course, additional opportunities to discuss policy at national or regional level rather than just at branch level. Annual Conference will include discussion and votes on a couple of dozen motions with typically half of those relating to policies, though the majority of discussion of those happen ahead of Conference (because the formal discussion structure of Conference and short time available makes good discussion impossible) through discussion meetings ahead of motion submission, discussion of motions and identification of amendments, a forum for online discussion, and in many cases discussion within Branch Meetings or rep groups. Plenty of opportunities to join working groups looking at policy areas of interest, and the monthly policy committee is open to all members.
Some do.
You can take my THAC0 from my cold dead hands.
Oddly they are also staking a lot on the whole "VAT on private school fees" thing, which one might think hardly has a wide resonance.
A political party where meetings are just about organisation and management would be like a church which spends all their time discussing how to run services, drawing up rotas for who will be welcoming people and making the tea ... but never actually holding an act of worship.
It’s the hope that kills you.
But yes, I have a quietly simmering hope that the new leader of the opposition will not be a Tory.
With the nagging fear that it will be Farage?
You allude to a problem that all political parties face in an age of the death of civic engagement.
It would be slightly unfair to describe the setup you describe as a fraternal organization united around largely incidental political rituals, but there's an element of truth here in that parties used to be the focal point of more than just political activities - I have friends whose parents met at social events organized by the Conservative Party back in the 50s/60s when they had almost 3 million members.
I suspect the weird tangents some local parties can go down is a side effect of a smaller membership, you end up getting a subset of a subset, and a few people with stranger than average ideas can tend to become the flavour of the place.
Chatting over a dram with a friend who is both lawyer and accountant, he raised an interesting point. If VAT is taken at face value (a tax on an activity or process that has added value) then there is quicksand under the whole idea.
Logic dictates that VAT should also be imposed on private nursery fees and university tuition fees - to do otherwise implies neither "adds value".
How much is the imposition of VAT on private schools going to cost local authorities who rely on private institutions for a lot of special needs provision? And will central government cover the increased cost for the LEAs?
What about specialist institutions such as the Royal Ballet School, the junior departments of the music conservatoires, etc? Kier having been a JE at the Guildhall must surely have thought about this?
Private tertiary level institutions such as Sandhurst, etc?
Scholarship places: who will be responsible for paying the VAT on the fees that are given as a bursary or scholarship?
Specialist apprenticeships for the armed forces - again, will VAT be imposed and who pays if it is?
All apprenticeships for people 16-18: it is private provision so logically there will be VAT.
The whole thing is a complete Horlicks and exposes the idea for what it is: an unpleasant knee-jerk "tax the rich" wheeze that hasn't been thought through beyond the sound-bite.
In the whole manifesto that’s the one that stands out to me - and AIUI there are people with cash waiting in the wings to argue ‘put it on everything educational or nothing’ in the courts as and when.
The other one is shotgun licences - manifesto commitment is to pass the whole cost of licensing onto the applicant. At the moment the licensing system is on its knees and waits of up to 18 months not uncommon. I’ve got some sympathy with the farmers in my rural pub at the weekend who said they didn’t mind paying the full cost of a working system, but the manifesto is saying it’ll make them pay for the one the police have broken…
But agree, ending up in 5 years time with the imposition of VAT on university tuition fees would be an interesting place for the government to find itself…
It's within the power of government to remove some exemptions to paying VAT, that doesn't mean it has to remove all those exemptions.
The truly wealthy won't be impacted at all - they have more than enough spare cash to cover the rise in fees.
The ones who will be made to hurt will be those who need private schooling because of their child's special needs, and those in the aspirational middle class who currently make savings elsewhere in their lives in order to get the fees paid for their child(ren) to have a better chance at life in the future.
The net result will be to make private schooling even more elitist, and a reduction in social mobility.
Secondly, there are independent schools at any number of, for want of a better word, price points. Parents priced out of all but the cheapest ones will have the option to simply move a rung down the ladder.
So the impacted group is that subset of parents struggling to meet the fees of the cheapest independent schools. A fraction of a fraction.
The plus side of the balance sheet is income from the VAT that is levied which can be invested in education for the 90%+ of children whose parents could never afford private fees with or without VAT.
It still appears a winner to me. As @Alan Cresswell and @Arethosemyfeet both pointed out, it's not beyond the wit of man to exclude special needs placements.
3/4 of children in private schools are from households in the top 3 income deciles, a good proportion of the rest are funded via inherited wealth.
Private education contributes more to the reduction in social mobility than its amelioration.
Firstly, VAT is charged on most services. That includes all sorts of education and training. It's very unlikely to be legally problematic to legislate that private schools' fees are subject to VAT.
There is a disproportionate amount of media attention on this. Quite possibly because the majority of journalists are privately educated, compared to 7% of the population. The Telegraph stories about thousands of pupils being forced out of private schools has been totally debunked.
The range of fees is quite large, but the sources I found suggest that the average is around £18,000 / per year per pupil. If we assume that the schools will not absorb any of the increased cost and keep their fees the same, then the tax bill is, of course, £3,600 per year per pupil.
The number of pupils who fit into this group whose parents 'can only just afford the fees' is a minority. Moreover, many of them will be at schools with fees at the lower end of the range and hence the tax bill is correspondently smaller. Of course, there inevitably will be some but that in itself is not a compelling argument against a principled position. The real key here is the question: "Why should school fees be exempt?"
No, universities are not literally public institutions. David Willetts explains this in his excellent book "A University Education". They are (now) mostly government funded but they are autonomous and not under government control (unlike polytechnics).
To be absolutely technical about it, they are considered "not for profit institutions serving households" in government accounts.
Does it matter with regard to VAT?
IDK but my guess is that it would be relatively easy for HMRC to distinguish between a "not for profit institutions serving households" and a private for-profit institution.
But if you look at it from a "supply and demand" perspective why wouldn't demand fall if prices go up? Sure, you could shift your child to a formerly cheaper school if all prices go up. But you may no longer think that it is worth it to receive a less desirable product at the same price. That is not being "forced out" exactly but it means that a child has moved from private to state education with concomitant cost to the Treasury.
That doesn't therefore mean that petrol can't be subject to VAT because commuters who drive would use up government subsidies if they travelled by train.
This argument is never, ever applied to anything other than private education.
Indeed. And this has been carefully studied. Two key points.
1. Because of a drop in the birthrate in recent years, there are multiple vacancies and schools closing. (Primary at the moment).
2. The number of pupils likely to end up moving to the state sector is small and the figures quoted for revenue generated by Labour are net and include allowing for this.
AFZ
Well, putting tax on petrol most certainly does reduce the total amount of driving. You may well feel that this is a good thing, and that likewise reducing the number of pupils in private education is a good thing, but it seems silly to deny that it will happen.
My mother recently paid for private healthcare because the NHS queue was too long for her condition. As in she might have died before she saw the NHS consultant.
She had savings, she grumbled loudly about it but paid to get the healthcare.
I highly doubt whether an additional 20% would have made any difference about the decision. It was painful, she didn't want to have to pay.
But given the circumstances, if it had been more money she would have paid more money.
And from what I hear from people who pay for private healthcare, private dentistry etc, they mostly feel the same.