In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
I'd sooner the money spent on education as a whole be more evenly spread than concentrated unfairly on the children of the wealthy.
Personally I'd abolish private education altogether. Those with the power to do so would ensure the state system was a lot better than it is if they couldn't opt out of using it. Call me a commie bastard if you like, but this has always been my conviction.
The question is would they ensure that? Certainly a right leaning government would look for savings in that area. More pupils means more funding from the public purse. Would the budget change? I am not sure it would.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
I'd sooner the money spent on education as a whole be more evenly spread than concentrated unfairly on the children of the wealthy.
Personally I'd abolish private education altogether. Those with the power to do so would ensure the state system was a lot better than it is if they couldn't opt out of using it. Call me a commie bastard if you like, but this has always been my conviction.
You want to abolish private education You want to control how people can spend their money.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
I'd sooner the money spent on education as a whole be more evenly spread than concentrated unfairly on the children of the wealthy.
Personally I'd abolish private education altogether. Those with the power to do so would ensure the state system was a lot better than it is if they couldn't opt out of using it. Call me a commie bastard if you like, but this has always been my conviction.
You want to abolish private education You want to control how people can spend their money.
We ban people buying crack, too. I reckon private education has done way more damage to society than crack ever has.
In Hertfordshire the CC has just announced reducing available primary school places by 105 from September. Meanwhile, in one place alone the closure in July of two prep schools - VAT casualties - will require an extra 520 primary places.
That is not true.
The link between VAT and school closures is extremely tenuous.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence that a school has to close because parents cannot afford the fees `
Falling school rolls are across the board at primary level. With private schools in places like Hertfordshire there is plenty of competition so a (say) 5% fall in rolls will impact those already less popular while the ones seen as offering better value will keep numbers up. A few will transfer to the state sector but clearly there's space.
I agree that there should be some space because of the falling birth rate.
I’ve been a school governor for over 25 years now. Twenty years ago we were looking at a projected increase in school numbers of around 12%. We were not able to admit all the children who were looking for places, and we were dealing with a number of appeals for children who had not been given places. This was in a two-form entry school.
Now, in the same area, across an area served by seven schools, we are looking at projected admission figures in five years time of fewer than 50 children across the seven schools. All the maintained (i.e. state funded) schools are at least “good“, and with the drop numbers class sizes are small. Parents see very few, if any, advantages in the private sector provision, and the private school locally is significantly scaling down. I’m not surprised, therefore, to see that private schools elsewhere are struggling, or closing.
Do you think that the VAT has been good or bad for private schools ?
I don’t think the application of VAT is financially beneficial for private schools, but I don’t think there were good reasons in public policy for exempting them.
The OBR estimated saving to the public purse of £1.4billion per annum (average over the next 6 years) can be better spent, than on supporting private education.
I have never been the benefit of private education but, in my opinion, any parents who take presure of the state system should have some sort of financial reward.
I'd sooner the money spent on education as a whole be more evenly spread than concentrated unfairly on the children of the wealthy.
Personally I'd abolish private education altogether. Those with the power to do so would ensure the state system was a lot better than it is if they couldn't opt out of using it. Call me a commie bastard if you like, but this has always been my conviction.
You want to abolish private education You want to control how people can spend their money.
There are loads of things we don't allow people to buy. It's simply a question of what we prohibit, not whether. Unless you're entirely consistent and want to legalise or deregulate the market for crystal meth, plastic explosives and rocket launchers.
You want to abolish private education You want to control how people can spend their money.
You say that like that's a bad thing. But you want to control how people spend their money too. You want to stop them hiring hitmen or buying slaves. You want to stop them buying guns. I expect you want to stop them buying hard drugs. You want to stop them bribing judges and politicians. In so far as KarlLB "wants to control how people spend their money" so do you.
(I would make a distinction between controlling how people spend their money for the sake of power, and doing things for the public good that incidentally prevent people from spending money in certain ways, but I expect you'd just skip it.)
Why are you all going on about the banning of things that are already illegal. I wish to retain something which is currently legal.
Because the fact that they're already illegal is logically irrelevant.
What you're saying is you like the way other people's money is controlled at the moment; you're fine with people that you agree with controlling other people's money.
Why are you all going on about the banning of things that are already illegal. I wish to retain something which is currently legal.
Because the fact that they're already illegal is logically irrelevant.
What you're saying is you like the way other people's money is controlled at the moment; you're fine with people that you agree with controlling other people's money.
What I'm actually saying is that I'm wasting my time trying to be persuade anyone so this is my last post on the subject
Why are you all going on about the banning of things that are already illegal. I wish to retain something which is currently legal.
Because the fact that they're already illegal is logically irrelevant.
What you're saying is you like the way other people's money is controlled at the moment; you're fine with people that you agree with controlling other people's money.
What I'm actually saying is that I'm wasting my time trying to be persuade anyone so this is my last post on the subject
You haven't tried to persuade anyone. That's the thing. You've thrown out an Ad Hom. which was essentially Bulverism and made a few assertions. That is not debate and certainly isn't persuasive.
'Private Education' is certainly responsible for many of the ills - persistent inequalities - of society.
I envied the self confidence many of my work colleagues displayed. But not their brains or ability to think 'outside the box'..... To the All Saints hell thread, the lot of 'em!
Let's try and make education more equitable. But how?
'Private Education' is certainly responsible for many of the ills - persistent inequalities - of society.
I envied the self confidence many of my work colleagues displayed. But not their brains or ability to think 'outside the box'..... To the All Saints hell thread, the lot of 'em!
Let's try and make education more equitable. But how?
There are whole questions about the purpose of education, the answers to which will inform what should be taught and to whom. I have a bunch of thoughts on this having had three quite different offspring go through the process. Another thread perhaps?
Labour have been trailing cuts to disability benefit for several days now, and Starmer has been speaking to the MPs tonight. Here is Guardian journalist Jessica Elgot:
Starmer has told Labour MPs that Britain’s benefits system is the “worst of all worlds”, with the numbers out of work or training “indefensible and unfair" as he prepares for deep cuts to disability payments.
The numbers of young people out of work meant “a wasted generation.”
Most MPs said Starmer was making the moral case for welfare reform.
But several did ask the PM about PIP cuts, with one MP saying it could affect his own disabled daughter. Those in the room say the PM did not respond directly to his concerns"
As an aside, levels of unemployment in the UK are at historical lows. There isn't a particularly large number of vacancies open either, even in the overheated South East. This seems purely down to finding excuses as to why 'growth' hasn't suddenly shown up.
Labour have been trailing cuts to disability benefit for several days now, and Starmer has been speaking to the MPs tonight.
What fraction of people currently claiming disability benefits does Mr Starmer think are turning down a decent job at a living wage because they'd rather sit on the sofa?
He's making these claims, so he must have some idea, surely?
Labour have been trailing cuts to disability benefit for several days now, and Starmer has been speaking to the MPs tonight.
What fraction of people currently claiming disability benefits does Mr Starmer think are turning down a decent job at a living wage because they'd rather sit on the sofa?
He's making these claims, so he must have some idea, surely?
This sounds very familiar. Oh yes the Cons did something remarkably similar.
So that is the two child limit on one benefit, the cut on pensioners benefits and now the disabled benefits. That tax hike in the rich hasn’t really materialised. On top of this anything positive that Labour are doing is not really getting out because their communication team appears not to be able to communicate it.
How long has Starmer got left?
Labour have been trailing cuts to disability benefit for several days now, and Starmer has been speaking to the MPs tonight.
What fraction of people currently claiming disability benefits does Mr Starmer think are turning down a decent job at a living wage because they'd rather sit on the sofa?
He's making these claims, so he must have some idea, surely?
Labour have been trailing cuts to disability benefit for several days now, and Starmer has been speaking to the MPs tonight.
What fraction of people currently claiming disability benefits does Mr Starmer think are turning down a decent job at a living wage because they'd rather sit on the sofa?
He's making these claims, so he must have some idea, surely?
Barring some unforeseen event Starmer will remain until , at least, the next general election - three or four years.
But Starmer might not remain for long as the leader of a National Government if that is forced upon us. If the United States invades Canada or, in effect, Denmark, then we will need an extraordinary reaction - not excluding a National Government.
Barring some unforeseen event Starmer will remain until , at least, the next general election - three or four years.
But Starmer might not remain for long as the leader of a National Government if that is forced upon us. If the United States invades Canada or, in effect, Denmark, then we will need an extraordinary reaction - not excluding a National Government.
Ah, a government of none of the talents, given the current composition of the front benches.
If we were to have to have a government of national unity to face of an existential threat then there is a definite dearth of anyone I'd trust to do a decent job of leading the nation through such a crisis, especially on the front benches. Even dredging the Lords for members of such a Cabinet would seem to be not significantly better.
Let's just hope that sabre-rattling Presidents gambling with WWIII don't actually do anything to precipitate such events, nor for another pandemic or other natural disaster.
If we were to have to have a government of national unity to face of an existential threat then there is a definite dearth of anyone I'd trust to do a decent job of leading the nation through such a crisis, especially on the front benches. Even dredging the Lords for members of such a Cabinet would seem to be not significantly better.
Let's just hope that sabre-rattling Presidents gambling with WWIII don't actually do anything to precipitate such events, nor for another pandemic or other natural disaster.
Indeed. Where are our Attlees, our Bevans and Bevins, heck even our Edens and Beaverbrooks?
Barring some unforeseen event Starmer will remain until , at least, the next general election - three or four years.
But Starmer might not remain for long as the leader of a National Government if that is forced upon us. If the United States invades Canada or, in effect, Denmark, then we will need an extraordinary reaction - not excluding a National Government.
As I understand it there are mumblings among some back benchers who are not that happy with the way things are going. Getting a bit of ear ache from constituents. The latest move on the disabled front has not gone down well.
Barring some unforeseen event Starmer will remain until , at least, the next general election - three or four years.
But Starmer might not remain for long as the leader of a National Government if that is forced upon us. If the United States invades Canada or, in effect, Denmark, then we will need an extraordinary reaction - not excluding a National Government.
As I understand it there are mumblings among some back benchers who are not that happy with the way things are going. Getting a bit of ear ache from constituents. The latest move on the disabled front has not gone down well.
I doubt this will affect much. If Starmer goes it'll be because the Labour Right have decided to ditch him (think people from the "Britain Working Group"), in which case there'll be a round of stories of him failing to cope with cabinet management, doubts about his age and so on (similar to the rumblings in 2022).
Barring some unforeseen event Starmer will remain until , at least, the next general election - three or four years.
But Starmer might not remain for long as the leader of a National Government if that is forced upon us. If the United States invades Canada or, in effect, Denmark, then we will need an extraordinary reaction - not excluding a National Government.
As I understand it there are mumblings among some back benchers who are not that happy with the way things are going. Getting a bit of ear ache from constituents. The latest move on the disabled front has not gone down well.
I doubt this will affect much. If Starmer goes it'll be because the Labour Right have decided to ditch him (think people from the "Britain Working Group"), in which case there'll be a round of stories of him failing to cope with cabinet management, doubts about his age and so on (similar to the rumblings in 2022).
If we were to have to have a government of national unity to face of an existential threat then there is a definite dearth of anyone I'd trust to do a decent job of leading the nation through such a crisis, especially on the front benches. Even dredging the Lords for members of such a Cabinet would seem to be not significantly better.
Let's just hope that sabre-rattling Presidents gambling with WWIII don't actually do anything to precipitate such events, nor for another pandemic or other natural disaster.
Indeed. Where are our Attlees, our Bevans and Bevins, heck even our Edens and Beaverbrooks?
If we were to have to have a government of national unity to face of an existential threat then there is a definite dearth of anyone I'd trust to do a decent job of leading the nation through such a crisis, especially on the front benches. Even dredging the Lords for members of such a Cabinet would seem to be not significantly better.
Let's just hope that sabre-rattling Presidents gambling with WWIII don't actually do anything to precipitate such events, nor for another pandemic or other natural disaster.
Indeed. Where are our Attlees, our Bevans and Bevins, heck even our Edens and Beaverbrooks?
I suggest that their modern equivalents did not enter politics because of the cynicism, stress and lack of respect afforded to those pursuing a contemporary political career. As a result abnormal self-confidence and shamelessness to the point of narcissism becomes almost essential for the new variety. Recent examples in the UK and US are too obvious to mention...
Yes, I was a bit surprised by that, but there was only a spreadsheet of numbers - no explanation of what those numbers actually refer to. Compulsory education in school (or acceptable home schooling) extends to 16 across the UK. In England, some form of education (which can include apprenticeships or other vocational schemes) is compulsory until 18. That means that 16-17 year olds can be employed - they just need to be doing some form of education at the same time. I assume that those who are not in full-time education (school or college) and are unable to find a job that also allows ongoing education may be able to claim unemployment benefit. I don't think that requirement to continue in education to 18 applies in other parts of the UK, but the proportion of population in other nations probably makes those young people a minor part of the statistics compared to the data from England.
But, in the 16-24 age range the vast majority not in work or education will be 18-24. Which would be just under half a million unemployed (some of whom may also be in part time education), plus however are unable to work through illness or disability (and hence in different parts of the benefits system from those who are on unemployment benefits).
But, in the 16-24 age range the vast majority not in work or education will be 18-24. Which would be just under half a million unemployed (some of whom may also be in part time education), plus however are unable to work through illness or disability (and hence in different parts of the benefits system from those who are on unemployment benefits).
And a significant proportion of those on unemployment benefits will live in places with low levels of employment.
Incidentally, it's may be worth noting that Iain Duncan Smith stepped down over the prospect of PIP cuts proposed by the then Osborne / Cameron government.
It's quite possible that this was driven by personal animosity between IDS and Osborne, but I'm not exactly sure where that leaves Labour.
Incidentally, it's may be worth noting that Iain Duncan Smith stepped down over the prospect of PIP cuts proposed by the then Osborne / Cameron government.
It's quite possible that this was driven by personal animosity between IDS and Osborne, but I'm not exactly sure where that leaves Labour.
Not often minded to rush to the defence of IDS, but IIRC this one was principle. He (however wrongheadedly) genuinely thought he was doing the right thing at the DWP, and could see cuts undermining that work.
He may well in many ways be an idiot, but a bit like David Davis there’s a streak of old-school honour there, even if they’re wrong about what they’re advocating/implementing.
I'd lean towards the latter on the strength of his CV, his adoption of Lawrence Mead - seemingly because it suited his self presentation, his characterisation of the benefits system (on which see https://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/great-crapsy-why-iain-duncan-smith-isnt-all-he-seems ) and his pigheaded approach to UC implementation, he was the first of type that led to the eventual chancer-isation of the whole party.
The long tail of consequences of his actions in terms of the CJS leading to Legatum and ARC shouldn't be ignored.
In any case, the point is that it says nothing good about Labour (although a cursory look at the history of both Reeves and Kendall would reveal that this has long been their aspiration).
But, in the 16-24 age range the vast majority not in work or education will be 18-24. Which would be just under half a million unemployed (some of whom may also be in part time education), plus however are unable to work through illness or disability (and hence in different parts of the benefits system from those who are on unemployment benefits).
A rational politician who was approaching this issue would begin by asking "why?"
There are a whole set of reasons why young people are economically inactive, and different reasons require different solutions.
1. no work available locally?
2. young person has no useful skills or qualification?
3. mental or physical illness makes work difficult.
4. doesn't want to work at crappy minimum wage job
5. engaged in criminal activity as a substitute for work
and I'm sure there are plenty of others. Making being unemployed more hostile might shift the balance a bit for reason 4, but probably doesn't do anything for the other reasons.
We could ask what effect the global pandemic had on people’s long term health at a sensitive stage in their development. Especially their mental health and socialisation ? We seem to want to act as if the long term effects on society are effects of choice rather than of impact.
We could ask what effect the global pandemic had on people’s long term health at a sensitive stage in their development. Especially their mental health and socialisation ? We seem to want to act as if the long term effects on society are effects of choice rather than of impact.
The IFS have just published a report indicating that there has been a rise in disability and illness post pandemic:
Being "economically inactive" just means not doing paid work.
For the 16-24 age range it looks like there are about half a million unemployed - able to work but not currently in work. That age group is often geographically fixed - still living with parents and lacking the savings to put down a deposit to either buy or rent elsewhere - so lack of jobs locally that they are qualified for is probably a big part of why they're not in work. Solutions could include help to put down that deposit and moving costs (probably not very substantial as they'll also not own a ton of furniture) so that they can go to where the work is. And, of course, trying to encourage more employers into the area where they are. A lot of people in that age range are also in some form of education to improve their skills, and if you need to fit work around studies that also limits options (it's also usually another tie to the locality, because you can't move a significant distance from college until your course is finished).
There will, of course, be a lot of people that age who are economically inactive because they're in full time education (still at school, or full time college or university courses), though many will still be working part time around their courses.
But according to the BBC Politics Live programme @Telford mentioned only about half of the 1.2 million in neither employment or education are unemployed. That means some 600,000 young people who are unable to work. Many will have disabilities or ill health preventing them from working, in which how to get them into work requires employers to see them as potentially valuable staff and make adjustments to allow them to work. Cutting their benefits doesn't magically make it possible for them to work if employers aren't willing to put in the effort to create workplaces that they can work in. Others in that 600,000 or so will be fit and healthy, but have full-time caring roles for family members - giving them an opportunity to work means fixing care services. And, again, cutting their benefits doesn't magically create a load of care workers to take over their caring responsibilities so they can work.
Wow OK the NHS initative looks interesting and ambitious. On the face of it a doubling-down on the "national" aspect and a move away from the public-private finance, internal market way of doing things. But some Shipmates may have a better insight than that.
Wow OK the NHS initative looks interesting and ambitious. On the face of it a doubling-down on the "national" aspect and a move away from the public-private finance, internal market way of doing things. But some Shipmates may have a better insight than that.
I don't know yet.
However a colleague of mine who is a consultant surgeon and also works for NHS England is very worried about what DOH control of NHS England will look like. It also seems to be the case that no NHSE staff were warned about this in advance...
Wow OK the NHS initative looks interesting and ambitious. On the face of it a doubling-down on the "national" aspect and a move away from the public-private finance, internal market way of doing things. But some Shipmates may have a better insight than that.
However a colleague of mine who is a consultant surgeon and also works for NHS England is very worried about what DOH control of NHS England will look like. It also seems to be the case that no NHSE staff were warned about this in advance...
That has very much been the practice to date, the groups affected have been consulted last if at all, and as you indicate this spreads anxiety - doubly so if it's your life at stake and not merely your job (which is why I felt some of the earlier counsel to 'see what they do' was somewhat misplaced).
Of course there are valid criticisms of NHS England, not least the way it has sometimes functioned as a means of the government washing their hands of the consequences of their own policies, nevertheless the call of reform has to be seen in context. A context which includes Labour Together - the vehicle behind Starmer's leadership - floating proposals for a 'Project Chainsaw' (a reference to Millei and Musk), and senior ministers saying the quiet part loud:
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?
Comments
The question is would they ensure that? Certainly a right leaning government would look for savings in that area. More pupils means more funding from the public purse. Would the budget change? I am not sure it would.
You want to abolish private education You want to control how people can spend their money.
We ban people buying crack, too. I reckon private education has done way more damage to society than crack ever has.
There are loads of things we don't allow people to buy. It's simply a question of what we prohibit, not whether. Unless you're entirely consistent and want to legalise or deregulate the market for crystal meth, plastic explosives and rocket launchers.
(I would make a distinction between controlling how people spend their money for the sake of power, and doing things for the public good that incidentally prevent people from spending money in certain ways, but I expect you'd just skip it.)
Everything that is banned was previously legal.
What you're saying is you like the way other people's money is controlled at the moment; you're fine with people that you agree with controlling other people's money.
You haven't tried to persuade anyone. That's the thing. You've thrown out an Ad Hom. which was essentially Bulverism and made a few assertions. That is not debate and certainly isn't persuasive.
I envied the self confidence many of my work colleagues displayed. But not their brains or ability to think 'outside the box'..... To the All Saints hell thread, the lot of 'em!
Let's try and make education more equitable. But how?
There are whole questions about the purpose of education, the answers to which will inform what should be taught and to whom. I have a bunch of thoughts on this having had three quite different offspring go through the process. Another thread perhaps?
No evidence of a huge shift from private schools to the state education.
https://bsky.app/profile/jessicaelgot.bsky.social/post/3lk2bqmuc2k2o
As an aside, levels of unemployment in the UK are at historical lows. There isn't a particularly large number of vacancies open either, even in the overheated South East. This seems purely down to finding excuses as to why 'growth' hasn't suddenly shown up.
What fraction of people currently claiming disability benefits does Mr Starmer think are turning down a decent job at a living wage because they'd rather sit on the sofa?
He's making these claims, so he must have some idea, surely?
This sounds very familiar. Oh yes the Cons did something remarkably similar.
So that is the two child limit on one benefit, the cut on pensioners benefits and now the disabled benefits. That tax hike in the rich hasn’t really materialised. On top of this anything positive that Labour are doing is not really getting out because their communication team appears not to be able to communicate it.
How long has Starmer got left?
Until Streeting finishes sharpening his knife.
Kendall refuses to say, so it's probably a no:
https://x.com/BBCBreakfast/status/1897893843028078932
(Ironically a few years back another poster here implied I was describing her as some kind of horocrux of Thatcher).
But Starmer might not remain for long as the leader of a National Government if that is forced upon us. If the United States invades Canada or, in effect, Denmark, then we will need an extraordinary reaction - not excluding a National Government.
Ah, a government of none of the talents, given the current composition of the front benches.
Let's just hope that sabre-rattling Presidents gambling with WWIII don't actually do anything to precipitate such events, nor for another pandemic or other natural disaster.
Indeed. Where are our Attlees, our Bevans and Bevins, heck even our Edens and Beaverbrooks?
As I understand it there are mumblings among some back benchers who are not that happy with the way things are going. Getting a bit of ear ache from constituents. The latest move on the disabled front has not gone down well.
I doubt this will affect much. If Starmer goes it'll be because the Labour Right have decided to ditch him (think people from the "Britain Working Group"), in which case there'll be a round of stories of him failing to cope with cabinet management, doubts about his age and so on (similar to the rumblings in 2022).
"Doesn't he look tired?"
Bring back Boris!!
I suggest that their modern equivalents did not enter politics because of the cynicism, stress and lack of respect afforded to those pursuing a contemporary political career. As a result abnormal self-confidence and shamelessness to the point of narcissism becomes almost essential for the new variety. Recent examples in the UK and US are too obvious to mention...
But, in the 16-24 age range the vast majority not in work or education will be 18-24. Which would be just under half a million unemployed (some of whom may also be in part time education), plus however are unable to work through illness or disability (and hence in different parts of the benefits system from those who are on unemployment benefits).
And a significant proportion of those on unemployment benefits will live in places with low levels of employment.
It's quite possible that this was driven by personal animosity between IDS and Osborne, but I'm not exactly sure where that leaves Labour.
Not often minded to rush to the defence of IDS, but IIRC this one was principle. He (however wrongheadedly) genuinely thought he was doing the right thing at the DWP, and could see cuts undermining that work.
He may well in many ways be an idiot, but a bit like David Davis there’s a streak of old-school honour there, even if they’re wrong about what they’re advocating/implementing.
Duffer not spiv, IYSWIM.
I'd lean towards the latter on the strength of his CV, his adoption of Lawrence Mead - seemingly because it suited his self presentation, his characterisation of the benefits system (on which see https://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/great-crapsy-why-iain-duncan-smith-isnt-all-he-seems ) and his pigheaded approach to UC implementation, he was the first of type that led to the eventual chancer-isation of the whole party.
The long tail of consequences of his actions in terms of the CJS leading to Legatum and ARC shouldn't be ignored.
In any case, the point is that it says nothing good about Labour (although a cursory look at the history of both Reeves and Kendall would reveal that this has long been their aspiration).
A rational politician who was approaching this issue would begin by asking "why?"
There are a whole set of reasons why young people are economically inactive, and different reasons require different solutions.
1. no work available locally?
2. young person has no useful skills or qualification?
3. mental or physical illness makes work difficult.
4. doesn't want to work at crappy minimum wage job
5. engaged in criminal activity as a substitute for work
and I'm sure there are plenty of others. Making being unemployed more hostile might shift the balance a bit for reason 4, but probably doesn't do anything for the other reasons.
The IFS have just published a report indicating that there has been a rise in disability and illness post pandemic:
https://ifs.org.uk/news/various-indicators-point-deterioration-population-mental-health-likely-contributing-rising
For the 16-24 age range it looks like there are about half a million unemployed - able to work but not currently in work. That age group is often geographically fixed - still living with parents and lacking the savings to put down a deposit to either buy or rent elsewhere - so lack of jobs locally that they are qualified for is probably a big part of why they're not in work. Solutions could include help to put down that deposit and moving costs (probably not very substantial as they'll also not own a ton of furniture) so that they can go to where the work is. And, of course, trying to encourage more employers into the area where they are. A lot of people in that age range are also in some form of education to improve their skills, and if you need to fit work around studies that also limits options (it's also usually another tie to the locality, because you can't move a significant distance from college until your course is finished).
There will, of course, be a lot of people that age who are economically inactive because they're in full time education (still at school, or full time college or university courses), though many will still be working part time around their courses.
But according to the BBC Politics Live programme @Telford mentioned only about half of the 1.2 million in neither employment or education are unemployed. That means some 600,000 young people who are unable to work. Many will have disabilities or ill health preventing them from working, in which how to get them into work requires employers to see them as potentially valuable staff and make adjustments to allow them to work. Cutting their benefits doesn't magically make it possible for them to work if employers aren't willing to put in the effort to create workplaces that they can work in. Others in that 600,000 or so will be fit and healthy, but have full-time caring roles for family members - giving them an opportunity to work means fixing care services. And, again, cutting their benefits doesn't magically create a load of care workers to take over their caring responsibilities so they can work.
I don't know yet.
However a colleague of mine who is a consultant surgeon and also works for NHS England is very worried about what DOH control of NHS England will look like. It also seems to be the case that no NHSE staff were warned about this in advance...
Not ideal.
That has very much been the practice to date, the groups affected have been consulted last if at all, and as you indicate this spreads anxiety - doubly so if it's your life at stake and not merely your job (which is why I felt some of the earlier counsel to 'see what they do' was somewhat misplaced).
Of course there are valid criticisms of NHS England, not least the way it has sometimes functioned as a means of the government washing their hands of the consequences of their own policies, nevertheless the call of reform has to be seen in context. A context which includes Labour Together - the vehicle behind Starmer's leadership - floating proposals for a 'Project Chainsaw' (a reference to Millei and Musk), and senior ministers saying the quiet part loud:
https://x.com/ADeggar/status/1900163104110948444
https://x.com/lewis_goodall/status/1900204340146499922
Labour are claiming that the waiting list for appointments is going down. I can well believe it.
I saw my very nice Cardiac specialist a few weeks ago. He has writen to me and my doctors to say that he doesn't need to see me again. I assume that I am cured !!
Hmm ..... why doesn't he want to see you again? Better put a posting in the 'All Saints' thread .... either 'Prayers ' or 'prayers and thanksgiving'. But which?