Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

On your point about schools: I'd oppose any indoctrination, be it about unions or business, religion or atheism. That's why I oppose faith schools. However, young minds should be exposed to all major ideas, be that religions or humanism, business and the profit-motive or the role/history of trade unions. They should also be taught to assess the pros and cons of ALL such ideas with criticism and appreciation. It's a preparation for thinking for themselves as adults.

I would agree things should be taught from a balanced point of view, with pros and cons. For instance they may be taught about the better rights unions helped us secure, but they should also be told about the negative things, which I have a serious doubt would happen. It all begins to get a bit propagandaish for my liking. 

 

I do have a tendency to feel that their is a slight left wing bias in our education system at present, my daughter came home the other day moaning about the harder SATs the Tories introduced, cant imagine where that idea came from!?!

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

For the Hard Brexit supporters out there (and I'm aware that doesn't include you, Foxin).... 

"The economic consequences of a Corbyn Govt don't matter. The important thing is for Labour to take back control" 

Absolutely, they should be in complete control of trade policy, monetary policy, social policy, - they should be able to say yes or no to anything to do with all those things and more when it comes to our nation.

If the British people decide to put Corbyn and McDonnell in charge of that it is their choice to do so.

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think the personalities of Corbyn and McDonnell and the influence of Momentum are very dangerous. When their initial policies and forecasts don't work, because they wont, verified by the IFS who said their tax take will not even be close to what they predict, they will get more and more desperate. They have a lot in their egos and characters that makes them appear likely to have dictatorial tendencies like some of the people they endorse (Chavez). I find their behaviour and ego massaging very worrying indeed. I believe they could ignore all advice and even change laws to allow such actions to take place.

 

 

Agree to disagree.

 

I'm actually not sure Corbyn is bright enough to be as calculating as you suggest, even if he were to be as ruthlessly anti-democratic as you believe (which I don't believe - though I agree with your comment about the "ego" element to the Hard Left....though a rather pathetic compliance with a set of "right-on" beliefs, in Corbyn's case - more laughable than dangerous). McDonnell is bright and calculating enough, but bright and calculating enough to compromise when necessary, not to pursue some totalitarian strategy.

 

I also have more faith in the robust resistance of British parliamentary democracy and of the British people than you seem to have.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Absolutely, they should be in complete control of trade policy, monetary policy, social policy, - they should be able to say yes or no to anything to do with all those things and more when it comes to our nation.

If the British people decide to put Corbyn and McDonnell in charge of that it is their choice to do so.

 

I can't believe that I'm getting agreement from you and a rep point from Strokes for my comment that "the economic consequences of a Corbyn govt don't matter, so long as Labour takes back control" 

 

I appreciate you're making a separate point, Matt, but I was taking the piss. Economic consequences, be they from Brexit or Corbyn, matter greatly in my opinion. They have the potential to ruin millions of lives for a very long time - and to cause massive damage to society. I just disagree with Foxin's assumption that a Corbyn Govt would lead to utter disaster - and the belief of Hard Brexiteers that it doesn't matter if Brexit has that impact (which a No Deal Brexit would, IMHO).

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

I can't believe that I'm getting agreement from you and a rep point from Strokes for my comment that "the economic consequences of a Corbyn govt don't matter, so long as Labour takes back control" 

 

I appreciate you're making a separate point, Matt, but I was taking the piss. Economic consequences, be they from Brexit or Corbyn, matter greatly in my opinion. They have the potential to ruin millions of lives for a very long time - and to cause massive damage to society. I just disagree with Foxin's assumption that a Corbyn Govt would lead to utter disaster - and the belief of Hard Brexiteers that it doesn't matter if Brexit has that impact (which a No Deal Brexit would, IMHO).

I know you were, I was just again emphasising the point that the politicians we elect in Britain should be in complete control of the decisions they take.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Agree to disagree.

 

I'm actually not sure Corbyn is bright enough to be as calculating as you suggest, even if he were to be as ruthlessly anti-democratic as you believe (which I don't believe - though I agree with your comment about the "ego" element to the Hard Left....though a rather pathetic compliance with a set of "right-on" beliefs, in Corbyn's case - more laughable than dangerous). McDonnell is bright and calculating enough, but bright and calculating enough to compromise when necessary, not to pursue some totalitarian strategy.

 

I also have more faith in the robust resistance of British parliamentary democracy and of the British people than you seem to have.

I could be completely wrong and if I am I will come here and admit it.

 

If we have stellar 6-8% growth like Toddy promises, great public services and everyone has lots of cash, then great that's great for me and my business as well, as long as someone is sitting their saying thanks for working extra hard we are going to have that to 'distribute fairly'  

 

I have a worry with the deselections etc that are going on within the Labour party. For me it is absolutely correct that members of a party should have different opinions, people should be standing up in parliament and questioning policies, it seems to me with the deselection and bullying he is surrounding himself with an echo chamber. At the end of the day if Corbyn has a large enough majority he can pretty much do as he wishes.

 

I take your point on Corbyn not being bright enough though, perhaps this will be our saviour! but like you say McDonnell I am not sure on, if he got into power would it go to his head? He is clearly and intelligent man, sometimes he appears to speak sensibly but on other occasions he is condoning violence and 'bringing down the government'..

 

Corbyn and McDonnell to me appear highly dangerous, they give me a very bad feeling and its genuinely petrifying to think they could be leading this country in my view. 

 

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

The tax cuts allow me to employ more people and train more people which part of that do you Labour voters not get? If I am paying more tax then that stops as expenditure is reduced. I am one business in millions but I can assure you there will be thousands of businesses that will be the same. Jobs will be cut, there will be thousands more unemployed, who is paying for that? The taxpayer and more tax rises is who! Socialism is utter fvcktardery, it doesn't work.

The people who work for me are paid a fair wage above minimum in all cases except one who is an unskilled labourer. There is no exploiting staff whatsoever, in an exceptional year there will be exception bonuses.

 

I am saying that if I end up paying 5% more corporate tax and a higher minimum wage, which will result in an increase for skilled staff also then I will have to reduce the workforce to ensure that one day I might be able to fvcking retire. That is absolute fact and common sense, not exploitation or any other leftwing hyperbolic bollocks.

 

At the end of the day most business small are large are here to make profits for their shareholders/owners, we are not here to provide employment facilities for the state. If there is not profit then staff and unnecessary spending will be cut until profit returns. 

 

The economic consequences of a Corbyn led Labour government will be very long term indeed. 

 

If your definition of a better fairer world is every single person being a whole lot poorer, then yes Labour will deliver that. They will deliver a more equal society but it will be like other despot Socialist states that have tried this unworkable bollocks and failed. If you want to fight for bog roll then go ahead and vote Labour. 

 

The latest Corbyn bullshit the other day he wants children to be indoctrinated about trade unions at school FFS! What an absolute willy puller, this man is such a dangerous **** 

When you bang on like this though you only ever look at one expect of the equation.

 

Nobody is adding for everybody to be paid the same. Labour simply want a little workers to be hard a little more fairly. Companies that hold down wages at the bottom end whilst increasing executive salaries hugely are a huge problem for society. It isn't right.

 

From what you've previously said you treat your staff better than that. Good. Hopefully you understand that having staff that are not battling debts and marriage breakdowns because of money problems is better for productivity. Equally, workers having more money means they've got more to spend with local businesses.

 

Increasing government spending world being about benefits in terms of invedting for growth. Even if we argued about how much of it would lead to growth, some of it surely would. The economy is crying out for a boost in investment. A growing economy is good for businesses.

 

Despite the way the right is talking, the labour manifesto actually wasn't that revolutionary.

 

 

 

Edited 17 July 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

19 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

Nobody is adding for everybody to be paid the same. Labour simply want a little workers to be hard a little more fairly. Companies that hold down wages at the bottom end whilst increasing executive salaries hugely are a huge problem for society. It isn't right.

 

From what you've previously said you treat your staff better than that. Good. Hopefully you understand that having staff that are not battling debts and marriage breakdowns because of money problems is better for productivity. Equally, workers having more money means they've got more to spend with local businesses.

 

Increasing government spending world being about benefits in terms of invedting for growth. Even if we argued about how much of it would lead to growth, some of it surely would. The economy is crying out for a boost in investment. A growing economy is good for businesses.

 

Despite the way the right is talking, the labour manifesto actually wasn't that revolutionary.

 

 

 

 

Some companies do, normally huge multinationals. Now I am happy for separate action to be taken on multinationals, ideal action needs to be global. There are a number of actions I would support but none Labour are proposing. The best way is incentives to encourage a certain behaviour, so maybe say for companies who have no more than a 20% difference between their lowest and highest paid staff you pay a lower band of corp tax, companies based outside of London and lower band of corp tax etc etc

 

What Labour are suggesting is an across the board swipe at ALL business large or small, big profit or small profit. There is no distinction. In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the numbers of small businesses operating, these businesses are vital for employment and growth, similar to my own are often good places to work, most of my staff are happy and most are like friends. These businesses operate on pretty tight and small margins, if you begin to throw to many % increases in we can quickly go from a solvent profitable business to insolvent. If I have a tax rise, minimum wages rises, a fall in the £ I cant absorb it all or at least not in the long term.  

 

These small businesses are the cogs of the economy and there is a danger that some business may be lost under Labours proposals, this will cause to job losses and those losing their jobs to battle debts, have marriage breakdowns etc. 

 

The government are spending and we have growth, despite the uncertainty created by Brexit. We are also beginning to reduce the debt mountain. 

 

The IFS have said that Labours tax plans wont bring in the revenue they expect. So if this is the case how will they pay for the 'government spending', more borrowing? more tax?

 

If there was any hope of the plan working then fine, but we are highly unlikely to get the tax take and growth Labour would need to make this work. If plan A fails and they get desperate what/who will they go for next? Where will they stop. 

 

If you say you are going to requisition private utilities 'at a rate decided by parliament',  that is going to cause concern on the markets and rightly so! Once you have 'requisitioned' one private company you fancy a slice of where do you stop?

 

 

Edited 17 July 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

I have a worry with the deselections etc that are going on within the Labour party. For me it is absolutely correct that members of a party should have different opinions, people should be standing up in parliament and questioning policies, it seems to me with the deselection and bullying he is surrounding himself with an echo chamber. At the end of the day if Corbyn has a large enough majority he can pretty much do as he wishes.

 

 

Could you name me a few MPs that have been deselected under Corbyn? I can't identify any.

 

I'm not being naive. I'm aware that there are moves to introduce the mandatory reselection of MPs (arguments for and against that) - and am sure that some MPs may be targeted for their "moderate" views.

How many end up being deselected is another matter. I've not been active in the party for many years, but in my experience longstanding party members tend to be pretty loyal to their MP, unless he/she is useless.

There might be a few seats where Momentum gain sufficient critical mass to overcome that - or seats where membership or activity levels are low, where MPs might be vulnerable. Likely to be a small minority of seats, I suspect.

 

I checked my understanding of what is actually happening - as opposed to the regular scare stories about deselection in the right-wing media.

Via Google News, I found reference to a few Labour councillors being deselected (Enfield, Luton) but that seemed more factional/cultural than political & there was Haringey a while back (over local policy)....no MPs  that I could see.

Googling "MP deselected" only produced references to the deselection of Tory MPs Tim Yeo and Anne McIntosh, and Labour deselections in the 1990s.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Could you name me a few MPs that have been deselected under Corbyn? I can't identify any.

 

I'm not being naive. I'm aware that there are moves to introduce the mandatory reselection of MPs (arguments for and against that) - and am sure that some MPs may be targeted for their "moderate" views.

How many end up being deselected is another matter. I've not been active in the party for many years, but in my experience longstanding party members tend to be pretty loyal to their MP, unless he/she is useless.

There might be a few seats where Momentum gain sufficient critical mass to overcome that - or seats where membership or activity levels are low, where MPs might be vulnerable. Likely to be a small minority of seats, I suspect.

 

I checked my understanding of what is actually happening - as opposed to the regular scare stories about deselection in the right-wing media.

Via Google News, I found reference to a few Labour councillors being deselected (Enfield, Luton) but that seemed more factional/cultural than political & there was Haringey a while back (over local policy)....no MPs  that I could see.

Googling "MP deselected" only produced references to the deselection of Tory MPs Tim Yeo and Anne McIntosh, and Labour deselections in the 1990s.

None at present. Perhaps I should have been clearer above apologies.

 

I think it is more the threat of deselection and the alleged bullying culture that makes them feel unable to speak out. Certainly the shadow front bench is mainly filled with people who agree with Corbyn. 

 

Interesting article on the internal affairs not from a far right rag:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-nec-jon-lansman-paul-mason-deselection-a8168096.html

[Alf Bentley]

A quick word on yesterday's Brexit amendments in parliament...

 

I'm struck by the parallel between the Tory party now and Labour a couple of years ago, when Corbyn first took over.

 

Corbyn was widely - and correctly - criticised back then for focusing on internal Labour party politics, not holding the Tory Govt to account or presenting an alternative vision.

 

Like a mirror image, we now have the Tory party ignoring the world outside and focusing only on internal party politics.

After 2 years avoiding the biggest Brexit decisions so as to maintain party unity, the Tories now want to focus on an internal, ideological civil war.....sod the reality of negotiations with the EU, the clock ticking towards March, the potential for firms to start disinvesting, even the potential for their own govt to collapse at the most critical moment for 70+ years.

 

Amendments made to govt policy yesterday will only become meaningful if the EU agrees to them in negotiations.....what's the chance of that?

Maybe it increases the chance of No Deal? Or does it just increase the chance of any govt deal (or no deal) being voted down in the autumn, leading to what....the fall of the PM? The collapse of the Govt? Another general election, fought in a toxic atmosphere with an unpredictable outcome? A Corbyn Govt?

 

If Corbyn was irresponsible in examining his navel when he should have been holding the Govt to account, how much more irresponsible is a Tory Govt facing the most important crisis for decades but likewise assessing its belly button?

 

Seems to me that the main impact of yesterday's votes is likely to be to postpone the full-scale Tory civil war until the autumn....so as to leave the party, govt and country in chaos just as the time arrives for serious Brexit decisions to be made.

There should always be a party - or parties - to represent conservative/laissez-faire/nationalist views, but the Tory Party deserves to cease to exist....and it's possible that may happen! 

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

None at present. Perhaps I should have been clearer above apologies.

 

I think it is more the threat of deselection and the alleged bullying culture that makes them feel unable to speak out. Certainly the shadow front bench is mainly filled with people who agree with Corbyn. 

 

Interesting article on the internal affairs not from a far right rag:

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-party-nec-jon-lansman-paul-mason-deselection-a8168096.html

 

I share some of your concerns - and would like to see Labour with a wider range of front-bench views.

Though certainly Starmer (Brexit) and Ashworth (Health) are not Corbynistas. I don't think Emily Thornberry (Shadow Foreign Sec) is a true believer either (served under Miliband & seems more Soft Left, like Ashworth).

 

I don't think the Hard Left is in a position to push through whatever it likes, be that at parliament or via local parties/membership. More power than before, but far from absolute power.

They also have to be very careful over Brexit as the vast majority of party members, including most on the Hard Left, are Remainers - and about 70% of their wider electoral support base is also pro-Remain.

[Buce]

May faces defeat as Labour backs customs union amendment

Labour to back amendment that would force UK to join customs union if no trade agreement were reached

 

Theresa May faces a damaging Commons defeat on Tuesday as Labour confirmed it would back an amendment tabled by rebel Tory MPs seeking to ensure Britain remains in a customs union after Brexit.

 

The prime minister’s Brexit plans could be thrown into further disarray with two more pro-EU government ministers understood to be considering quitting their roles in order to back the amendment.

Tory remainers Nicky Morgan and Stephen Hammond have tabled an amendment to the trade bill under which Britain would be forced to join a customs union with the EU if no agreement were reached on frictionless trade by 21 January 2019.

The pro-European group believes that they have at least 10 Tory MPs prepared to support their plans in the vote on Tuesday night, and possibly more, with the ministers among those considering joining the rebels.

Labour also confirmed it would vote against the plan to bring forward the summer recess to Thursday this week, putting Tory MPs in the invidious position of having to defend voting for an early break to their constituents.

It would also mean that there would be almost no time for Tory MPs to hold a confidence vote in the prime minister if one was called.

 

Leavers led by Jacob Rees-Mogg forced the government on Monday to back four amendments to Brexit legislation, including one intended to scupper May’s plans for a new customs deal. The concession infuriated Tory remainers.

 

May was on Tuesday morning debating her next move with her cabinet at Downing Street after denials that the changes killed her Chequers plan, which faces an precarious path through the Commons.

A senior Labour source said: “We saw yesterday there is no majority for May’s Chequers’ agreement. But there is a majority for a customs union. Today parliament has the chance to change the course of the Brexit negotiations, protect jobs and the economy. Fingers crossed the Lib Dems turn up.”

The Brexiters defeated the most controversial amendments by just three votes on Monday night. The Liberal Democrat leader, Vince Cable, and his predecessor Tim Farron were both criticised for missing the vote.

Hammond told the Guardian: “Our new clause supports keeping Chequers on the road and personally I think that’s very important because it’s the best chance for a negotiation and therefore I hope the government accepts new clause 18 as well.”

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Some companies do, normally huge multinationals. Now I am happy for separate action to be taken on multinationals, ideal action needs to be global. There are a number of actions I would support but none Labour are proposing. The best way is incentives to encourage a certain behaviour, so maybe say for companies who have no more than a 20% difference between their lowest and highest paid staff you pay a lower band of corp tax, companies based outside of London and lower band of corp tax etc etc

 

What Labour are suggesting is an across the board swipe at ALL business large or small, big profit or small profit. There is no distinction. In recent years there has been a tremendous increase in the numbers of small businesses operating, these businesses are vital for employment and growth, similar to my own are often good places to work, most of my staff are happy and most are like friends. These businesses operate on pretty tight and small margins, if you begin to throw to many % increases in we can quickly go from a solvent profitable business to insolvent. If I have a tax rise, minimum wages rises, a fall in the £ I cant absorb it all or at least not in the long term.  

 

These small businesses are the cogs of the economy and there is a danger that some business may be lost under Labours proposals, this will cause to job losses and those losing their jobs to battle debts, have marriage breakdowns etc. 

 

The government are spending and we have growth, despite the uncertainty created by Brexit. We are also beginning to reduce the debt mountain. 

 

The IFS have said that Labours tax plans wont bring in the revenue they expect. So if this is the case how will they pay for the 'government spending', more borrowing? more tax?

 

If there was any hope of the plan working then fine, but we are highly unlikely to get the tax take and growth Labour would need to make this work. If plan A fails and they get desperate what/who will they go for next? Where will they stop. 

 

If you say you are going to requisition private utilities 'at a rate decided by parliament',  that is going to cause concern on the markets and rightly so! Once you have 'requisitioned' one private company you fancy a slice of where do you stop?

 

 

 

but labour would be reintroducing the small business rate so you wouldn't be hit as hard as big business. Perhaps you need to read their actual policies?

[Buce]

Senior Tory calls for referendum to be re-run in the light of evidence of Vote Leave's 'cheating'

Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative who chairs the Commons health committee and the Commons liaison committee, says the Electoral Commission report reveals deliberate “cheating”. She says Dominic Cummings, the Vote Leave campaign director, said the help his campaign got from AggregateIQ made all the difference. But Cummings now refuses to give evidence to a Commons committee, despite claiming that Brexit was all about restoring the authority of parliament. And she says the referendum should be re-run.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

but labour would be reintroducing the small business rate so you wouldn't be hit as hard as big business. Perhaps you need to read their actual policies?

It still higher than what I am paying now and will still lead to job losses. You will not convince me or most business leaders that a far left extremist Labour government is ever going to be good for the economy in this country. It would be an unmitigated disaster far beyond your fears for Brexit in my opinion.

 

With Brexit we are still going to consume as one of the major consumer economies on the planet. By implementing far left extremist policies like requisitioning private utilities for 'a price set by parliament' you are entering into a state controlled economy that no business worth its salt would ever risk investing into, especially an overseas business. To pretend otherwise is delusional. 

[lifted*fox]

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

I do have a tendency to feel that their is a slight left wing bias in our education system at present, my daughter came home the other day moaning about the harder SATs the Tories introduced, cant imagine where that idea came from!?!

It doesn't surprise me seeing as most teachers despise this Conservative government (and Gove) for stripping funding to education, etc.

 

Is it professional to to convey that to students? Mmm, maybe not - but at the same time maybe the kids are asking the questions. Kids aren't stupid these days, despite people thinking 16 is too young for the vote - there's a lot of very clued up 16 year old kids out there who will know exactly what's going on. 

 

Considering my wife (and her colleagues) had to fund her school's end of Year 11 'prom' out of her own pocket because the school doesn't have any money for that kind of stuff - it wouldn't surprise me if the odd Tory slur slipped out in front of the class.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

It doesn't surprise me seeing as most teachers despise this Conservative government (and Gove) for stripping funding to education, etc. 

 

Is it professional to to convey that to students? Mmm, maybe not - but at the same time maybe the kids are asking the questions. Kids aren't stupid these days, despite people thinking 16 is too young for the vote - there's a lot of very clued up 16 year old kids out there who will know exactly what's going on.  

 

Considering my wife (and her colleagues) had to fund her school's end of Year 11 'prom' out of her own pocket because the school doesn't have any money for that kind of stuff - it wouldn't surprise me if the odd Tory slur slipped out in front of the class.

Teachers/Lecturers being left wing isn't something that happened due to cuts, virtually all mine were Labour/Lib Dem leaning as well growing up long before any recent events, it's been dominated by them since the cultural shift away from respect/discipline started to attract them to the profession.

I've got no problems with politics and economics being taught in school at all, teach them about the cuts and why they happened, teach them about debt and deficit and teach them about how government money is raise, collected and then allocated, teach them how we fund government borrowing through gilt and bonds, let's educate them.

On the last point - You'll be giving the current opposition ideas with that one, votes at sixteen and we'll be having taxpayer funded proms, Vote Labour, get a free prom, a date thrown in and a bottle from bucky from your uncle Jezza.

[lifted*fox]

yeah fair enough - education is left-leaning anyway.

 

teachers are having to spend their own wages on buying school supplies. forget the prom. my wife regularly buys stationary, books (like text-books, required for teaching / learning), food, sports equipment, clothes, etc. for her kids at school. 

 

she then has to submit receipts and wait sometimes up to 2 months to get the money back - IF the school deem it a 'necessary' purchase.

 

the lack of funding in schools isn't funny. it's a serious problem and it's only going to hold back the education of future generations. 

[lifted*fox]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've got no problems with politics and economics being taught in school at all, teach them about the cuts and why they happened, teach them about debt and deficit and teach them about how government money is raise, collected and then allocated, teach them how we fund government borrowing through gilt and bonds, let's educate them.

 

I 100% agree with this however. 

 

imo, there are some things that can be cut out of the curriculum and they can be replaced with politics, money management (loans, saving, mortgages), self-care (health, mental health, fitness, eating properly, etc). 

 

too many kids leave school knowing ****ing trig and long division yet they have ZERO idea of the real world and how to get by in it. 

 

we have calculators and google for heavy mathematics - learn that shit past GCSE if you're going into science or related industries but imo it's far more important that kids leave school at 16 (if they choose to) with street smarts and financial understanding. 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

yeah fair enough - education is left-leaning anyway.

 

teachers are having to spend their own wages on buying school supplies. forget the prom. my wife regularly buys stationary, books (like text-books, required for teaching / learning), food, sports equipment, clothes, etc. for her kids at school. 

 

she then has to submit receipts and wait sometimes up to 2 months to get the money back - IF the school deem it a 'necessary' purchase.

 

the lack of funding in schools isn't funny. it's a serious problem and it's only going to hold back the education of future generations. 

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately all the spare cash (and extra taxed and borrowed money more scarily) is going on the NHS now as that seems to be about the only concern the public have, I'd happily be raiding our foreign aid budget out of current spend.

If only we hadn't got into such debt as well, £2.04 trillion now - that's now 48billion a year we pay on it in interest, dead money, completely mental, more thah our whole annual spend on education.

[Guest]

Tonight the remainers will be showing their strength potentially ending the threat of a no deal Brexit entirely. Turns out last night's amendments only got through because labour and the lib dems didn't turn out not realising the vote was there to be won. I doubt that mistake will be made tonight and we'll see the majority don't support hard Brexit. Customs union here we come. 

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Tonight the remainers will be showing their strength potentially ending the threat of a no deal Brexit entirely. Turns out last night's amendments only got through because labour and the lib dems didn't turn out not realising the vote was there to be won. I doubt that mistake will be made tonight and we'll see the majority don't support hard Brexit. Customs union here we come. 

Who didn't turn up from Labour? A few Brexiteers stayed away as well it has to be said and there were some who abstained.

Comical the Lib Dems just went home though because they thought it was over, everyone with even the slightest interest in politics knew that vote was going to be fairly close as 14 Tory rebels said they would be doing so.

[lifted*fox]

Speaking of the NHS.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-dividend-nhs-obr-fiscal-sustainability-report-a8450731.html

 

Quote

The Office for Budget Responsibility, established in 2010 to provide independent forecasts for the Government, confirmed that Brexit is more likely to weaken than strengthen the public finances

 

[Buce]

56 minutes ago, MattP said:

Teachers/Lecturers being left wing isn't something that happened due to cuts, virtually all mine were Labour/Lib Dem leaning as well growing up long before any recent events, it's been dominated by them since the cultural shift away from respect/discipline started to attract them to the profession.

I've got no problems with politics and economics being taught in school at all, teach them about the cuts and why they happened, teach them about debt and deficit and teach them about how government money is raise, collected and then allocated, teach them how we fund government borrowing through gilt and bonds, let's educate them.

On the last point - You'll be giving the current opposition ideas with that one, votes at sixteen and we'll be having taxpayer funded proms, Vote Labour, get a free prom, a date thrown in and a bottle from bucky from your uncle Jezza.

2

 

Would you care to substantiate this? Assuming that we accept your premise, why would that attract left-leaning professionals into teaching?