Unbelievable
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Unbelievable
This is incorrect.
client journalism
That's a disingenuous tweet. The critique regarding free school meals was made because paying for it was accounted for by implementing a 20% VAT charge on private schools.
Implementing a 20% VAT charge on private schools would cause more parents to send their children to state school creating a black hole in education funding, meaning the money "available" for the aforementioned free school meals wouldn't in fact be available.
Reading the article it was a critique on Corbyn's inability to understand basic market functions, not a policy critique (unless I've missed something).
Why do we stand for this shit?
There was no data to back her claim up or at least she didn't present any. It's simply the man in the red tie was going to tax people like herself and Rashford well needed intervention isnt.
more specifically it reads as "oh shit, i'll have my kids to a worse school"
there should be paid no schools, it only incentivises the ruling classes to neglect the education of the lower classes, schools wouldn't be lacking staff or resources if we didn't have a class based education system where the rich go to good schools and poor don't
there should be paid no schools, it only incentivises the ruling classes to neglect the education of the lower classes, schools wouldn't be lacking staff or resources if we didn't have a class based education system where the rich go to good schools and poor don't
I don’t think you understand the economics of the personal tax allowance.
Also : If I’m not blocked (as I probably should be), have you ensured that your employees are treated better yet?
Surely it's pretty self explanatory that if you increase the cost of something the demand for it falls?
I agree that the article wasn't a thesis on the the public sector educational cost burden of increasing the cost of private education by 20%, when compared to funds raised; but likewise surely that analysis is for those who announce the policy to undertake rather than those merely reacting to a policy announcement with the critique you'd expect from any poorly costed policy.
Now if the tweet had said "I wish the critique on policy funding was as forensic now as it purported to be when Corbyn announced his policy on subsidised school meals" then I could understand the criticism.
However to disingenuously argue a point that was never made (ie that taxpayer subsidised free school meals are a bad policy irrespective of the funding) is poor in my view.
No he didn’t.
No he’s not.
No it wasn’t.
No they didn’t.
Rashford had a wonderfully huge influence on it. But don’t pretend that Labour didn’t want it. Nor that they’ve claimed the win.
she was talking about school closures and parents having to remove their children from private schools such claims needed some data.
The article was nothing more than her complaining about a potential rise in her taxes. Maybe the Labour policy was shit or maybe it was great but as a fitting tribute to Jane Merrick I can't be arsed to do the extra work and find out.
A Tory majority of 80 may leave people apathetic.
I'm not sure what tabloid articles you normally read but I certainly can't remember the last time one explored in depth the complex economic cause and effect of policy agenda.
I've seen hundreds of articles critique whether policy makers have studied those nuances prior to making tax giveaway, but precious few actually providing a cast iron economic review of them.
The personal tax allowance is pretty straight forward to understand unless I'm missing some hidden treasure that you wanted to enlighten me on?
I wouldn't block you. If I cared to block everyone who disagreed with me I wouldn't bother posting in political discussions and certainly not on a forum dominated by those that are by modern standards far left.
That is a bloody awful article.
I know it's par for the course in modern politics, and certainly not exclusive to the Conservative Party, but phrases like 'terrible optics' & 'bad political antennae' doesn't exactly sound like the talk of people who are in touch with their fellow human beings, does it?
Apart from her bias, and a defence of Johnson's government which amounts to Captain Obvious-style ruminations on humankind's shifting moods, it's boring. Though perhaps that's a deliberate choice of style, in an article underplaying yet another embarrassing u-turn.
It's an article that is incredibly disturbing in its blandness and meaningless fluff. Those opening paragraphs in particular are so tedious. I'd expect to read it on some teenager's blog. And it establishes a narrative that has no relation to the story - the u-turn did not pivot on 'new information' but overwhelming public pressure. But Laura's need to spin this and satisfy No.10 supersedes her need to do her actual job, I get it.
The very real issue at the heart of this - that thousands of children across the country would go hungry this summer without government intervention - is treated as some trivial sideshow to the more pressing matters of optics and credibility. There is nothing on the question of child poverty whatsoever. Nothing on why we have reached a point in one of the world's richest economies that parents in work cannot guarantee meals for their kids. Nothing on the absurdity that a young professional footballer is having to lead a campaign to force the government to address this matter. No wonder new research today revealed that faith in the media is at an absolute nadir.
Increasing the personal allowance is a very expensive way of helping lower earners because higher earners (at least up to £100k) also get a tax break. It's not very targeted.
If you are already on £12k, then increasing the personal allowance doesn't help you any more, but it will help someone on £90k.
By definition the further the threshold is increased, those who benefit most incrementally become the better off earners.
Have we evwe had a cabinet this bad?
Feels like Cummings chose the worst possible cabinet to keep eyes off Boris.
Gaff after gaff. It's incredible.
Feels like Cummings chose the worst possible cabinet to keep eyes off Boris.
Gaff after gaff. It's incredible.
'Outrage' ~
Guardian said:
I wish, when accused or questioned, some of these people & organisations the government considers to be opponents would call out this habitual faked outrage from MPs. Bodies from the EU to, currently, teaching unions are routinely being accused of everything from arrogance to truculence to outright militancy, as if their sole purpose in professional life is to thwart a brilliant and independent English government. This stance is laughable, expedient, and is purely aimed at the galleries of public and media; surely people can see through this tactic that they employ again and again? Make no mistake - in time, it'll be the turn of 'hero' nurses and doctors to be suddenly labelled 'traitors' (or greedy, lazy, entitled, Marxists etc etc), or care workers, or...whoever has the misfortune of fleetingly exposing the Conservative Party for its utter carelessness towards anyone bar themselves, their supporters, their donors, and their political/financial masters.Guardian said:
pmq's -boris had no idea what the governments mobility report said.tried to have a go at starmer re schools opening , see steve j's post above
Sir Keir could make it so much harder to have a go at him re: schools opening if he could decide what his view on it is.
PMQs, squared:
Sing it, Steve!
How anyone can think Johnson even came close to winning this round of PMQ's is beyond me. Every week he has come up against Starmer, he dodges the question and waffles his way through. The only difference from the first time is that he has got louder, he bangs his fist on the dispatch box and resorts to answering the question with a question to the opposition... at PMQ's! Not a good look for the government on serious issues raised, but some bizarrely consider the fact that Starmer didn't answer Johnson's question on schools being safe to open a win. Who are the health and education secretaries again?
Really? Okay, chief, your wish is my command:
Me
♫ I wish, when accused or questioned, some of these people & organisations the government considers to be opponents would call out this habitual faked outrage from MPs. Bodies from the EU to, currently, teaching unions are routinely being accused of everything from arrogance to truculence to outright militancy, as if their sole purpose in professional life is to thwart a brilliant and independent English government. This stance is laughable, expedient, and is purely aimed at the galleries of public and media; surely people can see through this tactic that they employ again and again? Make no mistake - in time, it'll be the turn of 'hero' nurses and doctors to be suddenly labelled 'traitors' (or greedy, lazy, entitled, Marxists etc etc), or care workers, or...whoever has the misfortune of fleetingly exposing the Conservative Party for its utter carelessness towards anyone bar themselves, their supporters, their donors, and their political/financial masters. ♫
that's enough internet for todayJust realised - that's not actually Elton john in the photo, is it? Sheesh, nothing gets past me...
'Let them eat TimTams.'Journalist said:
Politics as a jolly old wheeze:
Tbf Tim tams are class, but we don't need a trade deal to lower our biscuit tariffs.
left the scene lock boris up
'At a time of national crisis, it's appalling that our Fuhrer leader should suffer such treasonous assassination attempts.'
Boris now resorting to the whiplash scam to distract.
Two car crashes in one day.
As I said before as a proportion of income it's a much larger increase for those earnings less "it would disproportionately help the lowest in the group as for example someone earning £20k per annum would see their net salary increase by more than 8% whereas someone on £40k would see less than a 4.5% rise."
I'll reiterate again also I'd be in favour of this alongside a cut in VAT, a cut in fuel duty, cuts in particularly lower council tax bands etc. Cutting these regressive taxes would naturally target the poorest.
Finally the middle classes (Inc nurses, teachers etc) who'd benefit from the £1500 tax break would spend this money which would have the effect of boosting the economy. This would create jobs for the poorest who are likely to be disproportionately effected by Covid job losses and would cause other tax revenues to increase (VAT due to money spent, income tax due to greater levels of employment, stamp duty as more people would buy homes, corporation tax due to greater business profits etc).