advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VII

Well, in order to win, he needs lots of Tory voters to vote Labour. Which means not wildly deviating from Tory policies. If he goes all Corbyn, he ain’t gonna win. Presumably you left wing chaps will still vote for him, assuming ousting the tories is your #1 goal.
 
Ponty said:
Well, in order to win, he needs lots of Tory voters to vote Labour. Which means not wildly deviating from Tory policies. If he goes all Corbyn, he ain’t gonna win. Presumably you left wing chaps will still vote for him, assuming ousting the tories is your #1 goal.
Click to expand...
I think he could quite easily come up with policies that appeal to the sort of 'one nation' Tories who dislike the direction their party has taken, without going 'all Corbyn'. And he doesn't necessarily need to win over 'lots of Tory voters'. If 'lots of Tory voters' sit on their hands at GE time because they can't stomach voting for this lot, that's probably sufficient, especially if enough red wall voters revert to Labour having seen how they got shafted.

Instead, he seems to be offering much the same as the incumbents, but without the sleaze and grift. Presumably somebody has research and polling that says this is what will do the trick.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think he could quite easily come up with policies that appeal to the sort of 'one nation' Tories who dislike the direction their party has taken, without going 'all Corbyn'. And he doesn't necessarily need to win over 'lots of Tory voters'. If 'lots of Tory voters' sit on their hands at GE time because they can't stomach voting for this lot, that's probably sufficient, especially if enough red wall voters revert to Labour having seen how they got shafted.

Instead, he seems to be offering much the same as the incumbents, but without the sleaze and grift. Presumably somebody has research and polling that says this is what will do the trick.
Click to expand...
I would argue that ‘For the Many, not the Few’, the ‘Greater Good to the Greater Number’ and the ‘One Nation Toryism’ of people like Macmillan, come from similar places and have similar ends.

Corbynism was very middle ground in any objective sense. Labour are currently to the right of One Nationism
 
This just dropped through the door - looks like another good read

9781847927286.jpg


https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1847927270/?tag=pinkfishmedia-21
 
This site contains affiliate links for which pink fish media may be compensated.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
I think he could quite easily come up with policies that appeal to the sort of 'one nation' Tories who dislike the direction their party has taken, without going 'all Corbyn'. And he doesn't necessarily need to win over 'lots of Tory voters'. If 'lots of Tory voters' sit on their hands at GE time because they can't stomach voting for this lot, that's probably sufficient, especially if enough red wall voters revert to Labour having seen how they got shafted.

Instead, he seems to be offering much the same as the incumbents, but without the sleaze and grift. Presumably somebody has research and polling that says this is what will do the trick.
Click to expand...

Yes, the amount of data mining and analysis now available will be mind boggling. What he says and does will be driven by the most probable route to power accordingly to the data.
 
gavreid said:
Labour drops plan to strip public schools of charitable status

Sir Keir Starmer had previously said that charitable status for private schools could not be justified.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66942985
Click to expand...
My understanding is the key purpose of the policy was to tax private school fees and use the revenue to fund better education in state schools. It turned out it would take years to enact the changes required to charity law whereas it is much quicker to enact changes to taxation in the parliamentary process, therefore getting access to the funds soon after forming a government.

This seems an eminently sensible and pragmatic approach to me, and gives the sector plenty of advance warning to prepare.

I imagine the vast majority of voters, who do not pay private school fees, would not be bothered which mechanism is used to raise the funds and improve state provision of education.

What surprises me is the opposition on here to a policy that creates a clear difference between the Labour and Conservative parties and promotes social justice. I find it quite bizarre, unless it turns out they attended private school, or send their children to one and don't want to see the cost of providing them a lifelong advantage go up.
 
lawrence001 said:
My understanding is the key purpose of the policy was to tax private school fees and use the revenue to fund better education in state schools. It turned out it would take years to enact the changes required to charity law whereas it is much quicker to enact changes to taxation in the parliamentary process, therefore getting access to the funds soon after forming a government.

This seems an eminently sensible and pragmatic approach to me, and gives the sector plenty of advance warning to prepare.

I imagine the vast majority of voters, who do not pay private school fees, would not be bothered which mechanism is used to raise the funds and improve state provision of education.

What surprises me is the opposition on here to a policy that creates a clear difference between the Labour and Conservative parties and promotes social justice. I find it quite bizarre, unless it turns out they attended private school, or send their children to one and don't want to see the cost of providing them a lifelong advantage go up.
Click to expand...
If it helps, I despise Starmer for all the obvious reasons but I approve of this policy.

Of course, the real question is whether we can believe a word any of these liars say:

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1707294507341849026
Just as Bevan built the NHS to be the heart of Atlee’s Labour, so Ernst Bevin helped found NATO and established our nuclear programme to be its strong arm.

This is @UKLabour’s heritage.

My commitment to NATO and the UK’s nuclear deterrent is unshakeable.
Click to expand...
Sed contra...

F7I1WibXUAEqJ6D


From 2016.

Right up there with Starmer's biggest whoppers.
 
gavreid said:
Labour drops plan to strip public schools of charitable status

Sir Keir Starmer had previously said that charitable status for private schools could not be justified.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66942985
Click to expand...
I believe he can make school fees subject to VAT regardless of charitable status.

The problem of course is that he will put some schools out of business, which will increase pressure on state education, which will cost more than the money raised, which makes the whole thing an exercise in class warfare and levelling down.
 
Paul R said:
I believe he can make school fees subject to VAT regardless of charitable status.

The problem of course is that he will put some schools out of business, which will increase pressure on state education, which will cost more than the money raised, which makes the whole thing an exercise in class warfare and levelling down.
Click to expand...
How do you know the numbers that would move to state schools are sufficient to more than cancel out the increase in tax revenue?
 
lawrence001 said:
How do you know the numbers that would move to state schools are sufficient to more than cancel out the increase in tax revenue?
Click to expand...

Private schools won't close, they have at least a 10k per pupil buffer on state schools and they have the option to pass on the increase to the punters. Might have to close the Fives courts on a Monday afternoon perhaps or increase class sizes from 10 to 12 ;)
 
It would be easy enough to apply a grounds and buildings tax too. Swimming pool? Tick. Cricket square? Tick. It would be very easy to make them open up their facilities to share with state schools (and the public) too in return for these exemptions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top