Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[ralphjohn69]

First topic message reminder :

It's not logic. Most pot 4 teams are no worse than Rangers. If Rangers were the worst ever pot 4 team last year, what makes them any better now?

Because instead of playing another Pot 3 team they will be playing a Pot 4 team, who will probably be worse than a Pot 3 team so they have a better chance of getting 3rd, although it's obviously not guaranteed. You really don't help yourself when you post about football....

[navyblueshorts]

...Agree about needing PR, but I'm not sure our system and politicians has the maturity to handle it¹. If we were to take the last PR election in this country (2019 Euros) as a GE result, the seat composition would be: 202 seats for Reform, 130 seats for the Lib Dems, 91 seats for Labour, 78 seats for the Greens, 59 seats for the Tories, 26 seats for the SNP, and a handful of others for smaller parties. I know the equations are all different now, but what governance would actually get done with that make up of Parliament?²

¹ They need to try. Many(most?) of these people aren't intellectually stupid. Most of them use forms of PR to elect their own party leaders for Heaven's sake. It's not good enough to propose possible complexity as a reason not to allow the public a fit-for-purpose voting system.

² Interesting if that's what would have resulted, but suspect it'll be a different thing when it's not essentially a single issue election. I have no idea what would result from that sort of makeup, but I would hope a PR-form of elected Government would eschew the radical wings of the main parties because compromise on those extremes is likely the only way to get any legislation enacted. Only a minority of fools actually want policies that reflect the extreme views; most just want a country that works in the basics and to get on with their own lives in an environment where they can afford to live and have the odd holiday etc.

I also suspect you're correct, and the Tories will hang about like a bad smell, before eventually making a comeback. Almost bound to happen as power corrupts etc. I hope that if/when they do so, they've had an extended period of reflection and realised that there's no place for the liars, grifters and the nasty Neoliberal policies. I won't hold my breath though....

[JAS]

Gary Stevenson. Oh dear. Nothing about him adds up, and I'm not talking about his economic views.

Re GS ok then, my turn to ask you for specifics. What doesn’t add up?

Checks watch, whistles tune, watches tumbleweed roll by whilst waiting for detailed explanation backing up initial statement.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that you’ve played the man not the ball and that what he says backs up my narrative not yours. Anyway I’m sure a detailed  and truthful breakdown of what exactly doesn’t add up will clarify things.

Anyone else listened to any of Gary Stevensons youtube vids?

Sorry, forgot about this.

Essentially all of his grandiose claims are not verified. He claims to have been a trader from 2008-2014, but he was only FCA registered between 2010 and 2012. He claims to have been Citibank's most profitable trader (globally, I think), a claim which has no evidence, and for which he claims to have received a $2m bonus. This, in itself, is rubbish, because someone who really was Citibank's most profitable trader, a little before Stevenson, got around $100million. He claims to have been Citibank's youngest trader at 21, but this is obviously nonsense. He claims to have been so successful because he had a profound insight that inequality would get worse, not better, but this, as well as obviously being more complete nonsense, flies in the face of other claims he has made that traders like himself all knew that the lives of the rich would continue to get better, while the poorest in society would get worse. His social media has also largely been scrubbed during the time he was supposedly coining it in and earning millions (while, erm, living in a small flat in East London).

It's a nicely packaged story, obviously. Ordinary working class guy goes off to the big city, earns millions, has an attack of conscience and turns his back on it, begins attacking the rich. A modern day Robin Hood, yada, yada. And obviously his overly simplistic economic views, curated with the most basic predictions (he predicted inflation would come down this week, wow, what a guru!), topped off with his geezer Essex accent (cos he's definitely working class-innit), will appeal to some.

Does every employee need to be registered with the FCA? Or only senior Traders? 2008 to 2010 he would have been a junior trader. Does a senior trader need to be registered here whilst working in the far east?
Was the alleged £100m before the bankers bonus cap?

If someone decided they were going to have an enhanced media profile advancing ideas that powerful people are clearly not going to like then scrubbing one’s social media beforehand would be a sensible thing to do, no?

So… there’s not really anything conclusive in what you say that materially marks him as some kind of fraud is there, youngest trader claim maybe un researched nonsense but apart from that.

As an aside, no offence to anyone from Essex but I can’t stand the accent either but neither the accent or the excessive profanities have any bearing on the reality of what he’s actually saying.

So are you asserting that wealth inequality isn’t getting worse and he’s talking lovesacks?? Keep digging

[Duty281]

Gary Stevenson. Oh dear. Nothing about him adds up, and I'm not talking about his economic views.

Re GS ok then, my turn to ask you for specifics. What doesn’t add up?

Checks watch, whistles tune, watches tumbleweed roll by whilst waiting for detailed explanation backing up initial statement.

I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that you’ve played the man not the ball and that what he says backs up my narrative not yours. Anyway I’m sure a detailed  and truthful breakdown of what exactly doesn’t add up will clarify things.

Anyone else listened to any of Gary Stevensons youtube vids?

Sorry, forgot about this.

Essentially all of his grandiose claims are not verified. He claims to have been a trader from 2008-2014, but he was only FCA registered between 2010 and 2012. He claims to have been Citibank's most profitable trader (globally, I think), a claim which has no evidence, and for which he claims to have received a $2m bonus. This, in itself, is rubbish, because someone who really was Citibank's most profitable trader, a little before Stevenson, got around $100million. He claims to have been Citibank's youngest trader at 21, but this is obviously nonsense. He claims to have been so successful because he had a profound insight that inequality would get worse, not better, but this, as well as obviously being more complete nonsense, flies in the face of other claims he has made that traders like himself all knew that the lives of the rich would continue to get better, while the poorest in society would get worse. His social media has also largely been scrubbed during the time he was supposedly coining it in and earning millions (while, erm, living in a small flat in East London).

It's a nicely packaged story, obviously. Ordinary working class guy goes off to the big city, earns millions, has an attack of conscience and turns his back on it, begins attacking the rich. A modern day Robin Hood, yada, yada. And obviously his overly simplistic economic views, curated with the most basic predictions (he predicted inflation would come down this week, wow, what a guru!), topped off with his geezer Essex accent (cos he's definitely working class-innit), will appeal to some.

Does every employee need to be registered with the FCA? Or only senior Traders? 2008 to 2010 he would have been a junior trader. Does a senior trader need to be registered here whilst working in the far east?
Was the alleged £100m before the bankers bonus cap?

If someone decided they were going to have an enhanced media profile advancing ideas that powerful people are clearly not going to like then scrubbing one’s social media beforehand would be a sensible thing to do, no?

So… there’s not really anything conclusive in what you say that materially marks him as some kind of fraud is there, youngest trader claim maybe un researched nonsense but apart from that.

As an aside, no offence to anyone from Essex but I can’t stand the accent either but neither the accent or the excessive profanities have any bearing on the reality of what he’s actually saying.

So are you asserting that wealth inequality isn’t  getting worse and he’s talking lovesacks?? Keep digging

The point is is that he's a complete bullshitter and grifter. You can be taken in by that if you wish, your choice. He actually reminds me of Jack Monroe, another shameless bullshitter and grifter, although supposedly from the other side of the wealth divide.

I haven't asserted wealth inequality isn't expanding. It is. But lowering wealth inequality isn't going to be some magic bullet that leads us all to broad, sunlit uplands.

He's talking very simple, basic messages - 'tax the rich', 'inequality bad' etc - that resonate with some people, which lead to him selling books, getting subscribers/newspaper columns, and having people pay for his magical insights on places like Patreon. He supplements this with the most basic predictions - inflation will fall, Covid-19 will be good for the rich etc -which lead to his followers revering him as some sort of economic guru.

[Duty281]

...Agree about needing PR, but I'm not sure our system and politicians has the maturity to handle it¹. If we were to take the last PR election in this country (2019 Euros) as a GE result, the seat composition would be: 202 seats for Reform, 130 seats for the Lib Dems, 91 seats for Labour, 78 seats for the Greens, 59 seats for the Tories, 26 seats for the SNP, and a handful of others for smaller parties. I know the equations are all different now, but what governance would actually get done with that make up of Parliament?²

¹ They need to try. Many(most?) of these people aren't intellectually stupid. Most of them use forms of PR to elect their own party leaders for Heaven's sake. It's not good enough to propose possible complexity as a reason not to allow the public a fit-for-purpose voting system.

² Interesting if that's what would have resulted, but suspect it'll be a different thing when it's not essentially a single issue election. I have no idea what would result from that sort of makeup, but I would hope a PR-form of elected Government would eschew the radical wings of the main parties because compromise on those extremes is likely the only way to get any legislation enacted. Only a minority of fools actually want policies that reflect the extreme views; most just want a country that works in the basics and to get on with their own lives in an environment where they can afford to live and have the odd holiday etc.

I also suspect you're correct, and the Tories will hang about like a bad smell, before eventually making a comeback. Almost bound to happen as power corrupts etc. I hope that if/when they do so, they've had an extended period of reflection and realised that there's no place for the liars, grifters and the nasty Neoliberal policies. I won't hold my breath though....

1) Agreed.

2) Extremes, as you term them, would have more of a footing with PR, than under FPTP, I think that's undeniable. The BNP, for instance, would have probably got parliamentary representation if we had PR in the 2000s. Corbyn and his hard-left acolytes would likely be a party in their own right, with a decent presence. And you see the headaches on the continent, especially the Netherlands, that result from trying to knit together multi-party coalitions.

The Tories are probably going back to the right after this election, but I suppose we'll wait and see the make up of the parliamentary party before forecasting that.

[super_realist]

Ain’t it fascinating how the right always demand specific figures from the Left but when it’s their narrative they get all high level “keeping more of you own money in your pocket” sloganising….yeah? How much specifically and will it offset my ballooning mortgage payment and utility price hikes and if so by how much. See it’s easy to ask for specifics knowing fine well a definitive answer isn’t there. Excellent way of distracting from the broad theme that’s being suggested though.

I thought you didn't have an actual answer, so thanks for confirming. Your ideas are based on feelings, not reality, unfortunately, otherwise you'd be able to come up with specifics.

I'm an IT manager, not a politician, it's not my job to have the answers.  Ideas, based on whatever become opinions and unless we're based in somewhere like North Korea we're allowed to have them. You've got your reality, I've got mine, they don't match, simples. You can say it's not reality all you like but it doesn't make it so

Anyway, you didn't think, you knew, to be able to suggest a workable numerical answer one would need to have access to the books. Can you just imagine me knocking on Hunts door..."Excuse me Jezzers can I have a look/study of the countries books, Duty has asked me to provide some specifity on a  answer I'm trying to give him on how Muppet like you should be taxed to the hilt"

You cant be all specific now it's about getting people to buy into the broad theme that the taxation burden needs to be tilted onto a different axis than where it is now.

This guy, and from a position of experience (and experience of both sides of the poverty wealth divide and experience of how markets ACTUALLY work), gets it....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVvoyRpxG-A

Gary Stevenson. Oh dear. Nothing about him adds up, and I'm not talking about his economic views.

What isn't reality is what you're advocating, because it isn't based on a point of logic or data. It's just you feel that taxes should be raised, based on an idea that reducing income inequality will make things better, but that's all it is. A feeling. It's not logical or evidence based. So it's worthless.

So you think we should just let inequality rip then? Everything has been fine and everything will be fine and get better.

Re GS ok then, my turn to ask you for specifics. What doesn’t add up?

It's funny how you're fine with taxation inequality though isn't it?
The top 1% pay 49% of the income tax and the Top 10% cover 60%.

What would you do about the state of Britain? Where would you get the money for the desperate improvements the UK needs in Housing, Health, Education, Infrastructure, Water, Power Networks, Energy Supply etc? Who are you going to tax?
No doubt you're probably the sort of person who is happy for any type of immigrant to just come here as well but somehow thinks that this has no effect on any of the above.

[super_realist]

So explain in humanity terms the difference between mass murder and collateral genocide super.  You might want to look for a minuscule hair splitting tool before you start.

Or are you sticking with over 35000 unfortunate “accidents”

Why don't you actually look up what genocide means. Not a very successful genocide if the population are warned of attacks on Hamas or if the Gaza population is growing year on year is it?

Also, do you really accept the death figures as touted by a proscribed terrorist group? Yes, they are going to be highly reliable aren't they? Bit like Russian conscript deaths or Chinese COVID death rates. Would you believe those figures too?

Funny how no one pro palestine can bring themselves to condemn Hamas or ask for them to be removed. This entire issue would end of Palestinians allowed Israel to wipe them out, but 60% of Palestinians support Hamas, so there you go.

[super_realist]

BBC having to apologise for a lack of impartiality yet again.

[navyblueshorts]

...2) Extremes, as you term them, would have more of a footing with PR, than under FPTP, I think that's undeniable. The BNP, for instance, would have probably got parliamentary representation if we had PR in the 2000s. Corbyn and his hard-left acolytes would likely be a party in their own right, with a decent presence. And you see the headaches on the continent, especially the Netherlands, that result from trying to knit together multi-party coalitions.

The Tories are probably going back to the right after this election, but I suppose we'll wait and see the make up of the parliamentary party before forecasting that.

Yes, that's true, but they'd likely have found no partners in any coalition, so would have had zero influence beyond shouting xenophobic stuff across the Chamber. I guess I could them partnering up with the current sort of Tory shower if the latter were in a minority, but largest party, under some sort of PR system. Headaches aren't a reason to refuse to modernise our electoral system.

Yp, I think we may see a full wingnut Tory party for a cycle or two, before they realise that there aren't enough UK xenophobes to get back into power on that ticket. Bit like labour going Milliband, and then Corby, and now Starmer etc...

[navyblueshorts]

So explain in humanity terms the difference between mass murder and collateral genocide super.  You might want to look for a minuscule hair splitting tool before you start.

Or are you sticking with over 35000 unfortunate “accidents”

Why don't you actually look up what genocide means. Not a very successful genocide if the population are warned of attacks on Hamas or if the Gaza population is growing year on year is it?

Also, do you really accept the death figures as touted by a proscribed terrorist group? Yes, they are going to be highly reliable aren't they? Bit like Russian conscript deaths or Chinese COVID death rates. Would you believe those figures too?

Funny how no one pro palestine can bring themselves to condemn Hamas or ask for them to be removed. This entire issue would end of Palestinians allowed Israel to wipe them out, but 60% of Palestinians support Hamas, so there you go.

Perhaps it's you that needs to look it up. I'll help - have a look here. It's not all about killing, but you knew that. Right? It's a debatable point re. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, which is why it's now a good thing it's formally before the ICJ. Not that I expect them to rule in any fashion that's uninfluenced by the US (in particular).

As for your last paragraph, enough already. Aside from the whataboutery, if you don't understand the absurdity of the sweeping generalisation you make and the fact that Israel has been stealing from, dispossessing and murdering Palestinians since the early 1940s, and how that might influence ones thinking about any group (because the UN sure as Hell doesn't) purporting to fight your cause, you're either not thinking straight, being deliberately disingenuous or fully support Israel and their actions.

[navyblueshorts]

BBC having to apologise for a lack of impartiality yet again.

And? At least they acknowledge and apologise where mistakes are made. I'm not sure what your point is...

[navyblueshorts]

It's funny how you're fine with taxation inequality though isn't it?
The top 1% pay 49% of the income tax and the Top 10% cover 60%.

What would you do about the state of Britain? Where would you get the money for the desperate improvements the UK needs in Housing, Health, Education, Infrastructure, Water, Power Networks, Energy Supply etc?  Who are you going to tax?
No doubt you're probably the sort of person who is happy for any type of immigrant to just come here as well but somehow thinks that this has no effect on any of the above.

We don't pay enough tax nationally for the services we want, which I thought you agreed with. The top 10% pay whatever they pay as a function of overall UK tax, but what's their tax burden as a % of their income? What's that cf. the individual tax burdens of the most wealthy in most of the EU etc and OECD nations? Are they comparable?

Re. immigrants, and a point you made some way back re. their 'contribution' to the nation, they mostly (I'd hazard to guess) fill public sector posts so don't 'generate' any wealth in that sense, but you'd be hard pushed to say they don't fill a need. In order to fill posts in the NHS, care sector etc etc, they need to live here (with family if they have it) and if those services that cater for the general population (housing, GP services etc) can't cope, we're back to too little tax. Who pays?

[super_realist]

BBC having to apologise for a lack of impartiality yet again.

And? At least they acknowledge and apologise where mistakes are made. I'm not sure what your point is...

Why are they making mistakes like this? What is wrong with their editorial? They've made 80 (mistakes) on their middle east radio station, ALL against Israel. Tells you something about their bias.

Funny how they never make any pro right wing statements that they have to apologise for isn't it? Says everything you need to know about the inherent bias of the institution.

[super_realist]

It's funny how you're fine with taxation inequality though isn't it?
The top 1% pay 49% of the income tax and the Top 10% cover 60%.

What would you do about the state of Britain? Where would you get the money for the desperate improvements the UK needs in Housing, Health, Education, Infrastructure, Water, Power Networks, Energy Supply etc?  Who are you going to tax?
No doubt you're probably the sort of person who is happy for any type of immigrant to just come here as well but somehow thinks that this has no effect on any of the above.

We don't pay enough tax nationally for the services we want, which I thought you agreed with. The top 10% pay whatever they pay as a function of overall UK tax, but what's their tax burden as a % of their income? What's that cf. the individual tax burdens of the most wealthy in most of the EU etc and OECD nations? Are they comparable?

Re. immigrants, and a point you made some way back re. their 'contribution' to the nation, they mostly (I'd hazard to guess) fill public sector posts so don't 'generate' any wealth in that sense, but you'd be hard pushed to say they don't fill a need. In order to fill posts in the NHS, care sector etc etc, they need to live here (with family if they have it) and if those services that cater for the general population (housing, GP services etc) can't cope, we're back to too little tax. Who pays?

Yes we do pay enough tax for the level of service we are provided. We simply have an incredibly inefficient, wasteful and ineffective provision of public services. As I've said before, if you want better services you have to make what we have run more efficiently first before you charge extra tax.

49% of the NHS staff  and budget is  non clinical, yet people, especially those of the left who worship the NHS often like to boast how the NHS is the biggest employer in Europe, well Germany has 16m more people, has a better bed ratio, and doctor/nurse ratio per patient but does so with FEWER staff, so begs the question what exactly are all those people in the NHS actually doing?

We have immigrants because we demand low pay services and jobs. This started with Tony Blair and successive governments have kept it going to the point it is out of control. Why are we taking good staff from Europe and far east decimating their systems? Didn't our health systems work before immigration on this scale? Yes, and far better.

We need to sort out the efficiency of our services first as a priority, the NHS and Councils are demonstrably inefficient and massively wasteful. The key is not to just charge more in tax into a bottomless black hole and expect improvement , the key is to make them efficient, like every other European country does. They need to act as if they were businesses, not some wasteful communist type useless service with no incentive to be good  or no accountability for bad provision.

In regards to immigration I'd much rather we had more focussed and  managed immigration on the basis of the good they might do for society, I'd much prefer to have say one Indian doctor and his/her family than 10 Turkish or Pakistani barbers or "American Candy Shop" owners and their families, wouldn't you?

As to your question as to what the top 10% pay, well surely you know this, that the top 10% pay  a minimum 40% plus NI on income over 37k, (this is even higher at 42% in Scotland with lower threshold). Isn't that enough taxation for the level of services the UK gets currently? By the way, to be in the Top 10% of income in UK you only have to earn a paltry  £66,600. So not exactly James Dyson or Jim Radcliffe territory is it?
The top 1% pay considerably more as a % over 150k.

[navyblueshorts]

It's funny how you're fine with taxation inequality though isn't it?
The top 1% pay 49% of the income tax and the Top 10% cover 60%.

What would you do about the state of Britain? Where would you get the money for the desperate improvements the UK needs in Housing, Health, Education, Infrastructure, Water, Power Networks, Energy Supply etc?  Who are you going to tax?
No doubt you're probably the sort of person who is happy for any type of immigrant to just come here as well but somehow thinks that this has no effect on any of the above.

We don't pay enough tax nationally for the services we want, which I thought you agreed with. The top 10% pay whatever they pay as a function of overall UK tax, but what's their tax burden as a % of their income? What's that cf. the individual tax burdens of the most wealthy in most of the EU etc and OECD nations? Are they comparable?

Re. immigrants, and a point you made some way back re. their 'contribution' to the nation, they mostly (I'd hazard to guess) fill public sector posts so don't 'generate' any wealth in that sense, but you'd be hard pushed to say they don't fill a need. In order to fill posts in the NHS, care sector etc etc, they need to live here (with family if they have it) and if those services that cater for the general population (housing, GP services etc) can't cope, we're back to too little tax. Who pays?

Yes we do pay enough tax for the level of service we are provided. We simply have an incredibly inefficient, wasteful and ineffective provision of public services. As I've said before, if you want better services you have to make what we have run more efficiently first before you charge extra tax.

49% of the NHS staff  and budget is  non clinical, yet people, especially those of the left who worship the NHS often like to boast how the NHS is the biggest employer in Europe, well Germany has 16m more people, has a better bed ratio, and doctor/nurse ratio per patient but does so with FEWER staff, so begs the question what exactly are all those people in the NHS actually doing?

We have immigrants because we demand low pay services and jobs. This started with Tony Blair and successive governments have kept it going to the point it is out of control. Why are we taking good staff from Europe and far east decimating their systems? Didn't our health systems work before immigration on this scale? Yes, and far better.

We need to sort out the efficiency of our services first as a priority, the NHS and Councils are demonstrably inefficient and massively wasteful. The key is not to just charge more in tax into a bottomless black hole and expect improvement , the key is to make them efficient, like every other European country does. They need to act as if they were businesses, not some wasteful communist type useless service with no incentive to be good  or no accountability for bad provision.

In regards to immigration I'd much rather we had more focussed and  managed immigration on the basis of the good they might do for society, I'd much prefer to have say one Indian doctor and his/her family than 10 Turkish or Pakistani barbers or "American Candy Shop" owners and their families, wouldn't you?

As to your question as to what the top 10% pay, well surely you know this, that the top 10% pay  a minimum 40% plus NI on income over 37k, (this is even higher at 42% in Scotland with lower threshold). Isn't that enough taxation for the level of services the UK gets currently? By the way, to be in the Top 10% of income in UK you only have to earn a paltry  £66,600. So not exactly James Dyson or Jim Radcliffe territory is it?
The top 1% pay considerably more as a % over 150k.

Agree with some of this, but not all. You're mistaking me suggesting we don't pay enough for what we want with your view that we currently pay enough for what we get now. It's also demonstrably the case that, largely, we pay less tax as a nation than many of those we like to compare ourselves with.

I take issue with the dogmatic idea that business-run = good, and public-run = bad. I can't even summon the effort to argue. I'll just point to the UK water companies; or the rail services etc etc etc.

You quote the tax rates that individuals should pay, but we both know that far too many 'avoid' paying the headline rates and much of that occurs at the top.

As for your reference to a "paltry £66,600" being all that's required for top rate tax, I'm glad I'm this side of a keyboard.

[JAS]

As to your question as to what the top 10% pay, well surely you know this, that the top 10% pay  a minimum 40% plus NI on income over 37k, (this is even higher at 42% in Scotland with lower threshold). Isn't that enough taxation for the level of services the UK gets currently? By the way, to be in the Top 10% of income in UK you only have to earn a paltry  £66,600. So not exactly James Dyson or Jim Radcliffe territory is it?
The top 1% pay considerably more as a % over 150k.

The crass insensitivity and total out of touchness of “a paltry £66600” marks you out as an ideal Conservative Candidate, have Conservative Central Office been in touch?

So IF you really think £66600 is paltry, doesn’t that mean that the neoliberal regimes of the past 40 years have driven the U.K. to be a low wage economy?? If the bottom 90% are on “paltry” wages and public services are on their financial knees doesn’t that automatically suggest that the tax burden should naturally shift to within the top 10%. Care to research how Executive Pay has risen over the past 40 years?

[navyblueshorts]

For info, the current starting spine point for a full professor in a UK university is ~£69,000.

This for someone who'd typically only achieve that point in their 40s at the earliest. Many don't make this level until their 50s (at least) or, indeed, at all.
This would also only be after a record of at least a 2.i UG degree, a Ph.D., years of post-doctoral work, probably at least one personal fellowship, excellence re. attracting competitive research grant funding, a good track record of publication in peer reviewed journals w/ average or better impact factors and a track record of good HE teaching.
This would also be on top of acquiring a teaching qualification (PGCHE), designing taught content, delivering (to many types of student, incl. medical, STEM and others; you know, teaching people such as those that work in the oil and gas industries) and assessing it.
This would also be in addition to acting as a Tutor for ~15-20 students every year, who increasingly need mental health support etc.
This would also be while playing a fully active role with various higher level administrative/management roles within the university.

This in the context of a Government devoid of STEM graduates and who have ripped ~80% of the central funding out of UK HE since Blair, and a public who haven't got a clue about UK HE or its value.

[JAS]

Yeah but they’re public Sector Navy and as Tory boy tells us rigidly public sector = bad, inefficient etc Private sector  = good.

What a lot of people don’t seem to grasp is that it’s not the £66k to £69k middle that are the problem and they shouldn’t be leaned on to solve the problem. It IS the Ratcliffes, the Dysons, the Sunaks etc that are the problem. Sitting on a £500m pot, that generates a passive income  even on Poopie interest rates which means they have more cash than they know what to do with and that’s BEFORE their day job income. What else would they do but buy assets  causing an asset bubble that prices ordinary people out of the market. How much harder is it for young adults to get on the property ladder now than it was in our day? And that narrative is going to continue to move in one direction only. The only way to break that cycle is to reintroduce a super tax  on excessive wealth.

The usual counter to any suggestion that we tax the super rich more is “Oh but they’ll just leave”  or “Oh if you tax them too much, they’ll just pay their accountants to find loopholes” Sooo that to me means several things 1. Leave if you’re not happy, others can fill the gap. 2. Any sensible govt has to close all such loopholes as a priority. 3. If you domicile yourself somewhere like Lichtenstein for tax purposes and somebody burgles your house here or nicks your car… get the effin Lichtenstein Police to investigate the crime for you, you don’t pay your fair share of taxes in, you’re not entitled to any public services out… pretty simple really.

[Duty281]

Yeah but they’re public Sector Navy and as Tory boy tells us rigidly public sector = bad, inefficient etc Private sector  = good.

What a lot of people don’t seem to grasp is that it’s not the £66k to £69k middle that are the problem and they shouldn’t be leaned on to solve the problem. It IS the Ratcliffes, the Dysons, the Sunaks etc that are the problem. Sitting on a £500m pot, that generates a passive income  even on Poopie interest rates which means they have more cash than they know what to do with and that’s BEFORE their day job income. What else would they do but buy assets  causing an asset bubble that prices ordinary people out of the market. How much harder is it for young adults to get on the property ladder now than it was in our day? And that narrative is going to continue to move in one direction only. The only way to break that cycle is to reintroduce a super tax  on excessive wealth.

The usual counter to any suggestion that we tax the super rich more is “Oh but they’ll just leave”  or “Oh if you tax them too much, they’ll just pay their accountants to find loopholes” Sooo that to me means several things 1. Leave if you’re not happy, others can fill the gap. 2. Any sensible govt has to close all such loopholes as a priority. 3. If you domicile yourself somewhere like Lichtenstein for tax purposes and somebody burgles your house here or nicks your car… get the effin Lichtenstein Police to investigate the crime for you, you don’t pay your fair share of taxes in, you’re not entitled to any public services out… pretty simple really.

You do realise that of the ultra wealthy's net worth, very little of that is cash? It's mostly tied up in stocks, shares, investments, businesses etc.

Sunak's estimated net worth (both husband and wife) is £651m. It's highly unlikely he's just sitting on £500m in cash. Apparently he earned just under £4,000 in interest from bank savings according to his last tax report.

If you want more people from working class backgrounds to buy houses, then more houses need to be built and immigration (i.e. population growth) needs to be drastically lowered.

[superflyweight]

Yeah but they’re public Sector Navy and as Tory boy tells us rigidly public sector = bad, inefficient etc Private sector  = good.

What a lot of people don’t seem to grasp is that it’s not the £66k to £69k middle that are the problem and they shouldn’t be leaned on to solve the problem. It IS the Ratcliffes, the Dysons, the Sunaks etc that are the problem. Sitting on a £500m pot, that generates a passive income  even on Poopie interest rates which means they have more cash than they know what to do with and that’s BEFORE their day job income. What else would they do but buy assets  causing an asset bubble that prices ordinary people out of the market. How much harder is it for young adults to get on the property ladder now than it was in our day? And that narrative is going to continue to move in one direction only. The only way to break that cycle is to reintroduce a super tax  on excessive wealth.

The usual counter to any suggestion that we tax the super rich more is “Oh but they’ll just leave”  or “Oh if you tax them too much, they’ll just pay their accountants to find loopholes” Sooo that to me means several things 1. Leave if you’re not happy, others can fill the gap. 2. Any sensible govt has to close all such loopholes as a priority. 3. If you domicile yourself somewhere like Lichtenstein for tax purposes and somebody burgles your house here or nicks your car… get the effin Lichtenstein Police to investigate the crime for you, you don’t pay your fair share of taxes in, you’re not entitled to any public services out… pretty simple really.

You do realise that of the ultra wealthy's net worth, very little of that is cash? It's mostly tied up in stocks, shares, investments, businesses etc.

Sunak's estimated net worth (both husband and wife) is £651m. It's highly unlikely he's just sitting on £500m in cash. Apparently he earned just under £4,000 in interest from bank savings according to his last tax report.

If you want more people from working class backgrounds to buy houses, then more houses need to be built and immigration (i.e. population growth) needs to be drastically lowered.

Poor sod must be worried where his next meal is coming from.

[navyblueshorts]

You do realise that of the ultra wealthy's net worth, very little of that is cash? It's mostly tied up in stocks, shares, investments, businesses etc....

Yep, garnering preferential interest/dividends etc for doing f-all as JAS suggested. Also, no doubt their money is tied up in all sorts of 'clever' ways in order to minimise their tax burden to the Uk Exchequer. All no doubt very legal, and all very sh!t.

If you want more people from working class backgrounds to buy houses, then more houses need to be built and immigration (i.e. population growth) needs to be drastically lowered.

Only if investors are barred from buying them up as easy money and property is made unavailable for purchase by non-UK nationals unless they're demonstrably in residence in the UK for, say, 6 months of every year.

Agree immigration needs to be discussed in an adult fashion (some hope with the current political classes), because even if we accept we need it (and we do), immigrants need somewhere to live and as long as available housing lags behind demand, it'll allow the dealers in misery to **** over those who just want a reasonable roof over their heads and somewhere they can call 'home'.

[super_realist]

As to your question as to what the top 10% pay, well surely you know this, that the top 10% pay  a minimum 40% plus NI on income over 37k, (this is even higher at 42% in Scotland with lower threshold). Isn't that enough taxation for the level of services the UK gets currently? By the way, to be in the Top 10% of income in UK you only have to earn a paltry  £66,600. So not exactly James Dyson or Jim Radcliffe territory is it?
The top 1% pay considerably more as a % over 150k.

The crass insensitivity and total out of touchness of “a paltry £66600” marks you out as an ideal Conservative Candidate, have Conservative Central Office been in touch?

So IF you really think £66600 is paltry, doesn’t that mean that the neoliberal regimes of the past 40 years have driven the U.K. to be a low wage economy?? If the bottom 90% are on “paltry” wages and public services are on their financial knees doesn’t that automatically suggest that the tax burden should naturally shift to within the top 10%. Care to research how Executive Pay has risen over the past 40 years?

Jesus Jas,
66k is not very much to be in the top 10% of a country's top earners and seems harsh to place an extra taxation burden on and to tax as if somehow this level of earning is seen as so "wealthy" by you is pretty funny.

I wasn't implying it was a paltry amount I meant it was a paltry amount to be in the top 10%, which means we can turn your claim round and show that being in the Top 10% doesn't mean you're sitting on wads of cash. You're in the Top 10% I presume, do you consider yourself fabulously wealthy and willing to pay yet more tax for worsening services? That's the problem with socialists, they want everyone else to be socialist, just not themselves.

As already stated the top 10% already pay 60% of the tax, why not focus on making better use of efficient work practices like solving council and NHS inefficiency first? If you just tax more, it just gets wasted more.
The NHS actually has had something like an extra 40bn a year in the last two years, and it's still getting worse and worse, so more money doesn't improve it.

The very first thing that Labour should do is streamline the NHS and maintain free at the point of delivery only to core health issues such as A&E, Psychiatry, Elderly, Heart, Cancer etc and things like fertility, breast reduction, nose jobs, vasectomies etc should be provided on a not for profit cost to the patient.

Fortunately Streeting seems the only left winger who is not content to treat the NHS as an untouchable shrine and actually want to reform it, which it so drastically needs.

[JAS]

Anybody else thinking Rishi’s advisors are already thinking about the post defeat/post Rishi landscape? What sane advisor would say, “skip the D-Day commemoration international leaders bit, more useful stuff to be getting on with back home” OR if it was his idea not say “FFS Rishi, you can’t do that, you’ll quite rightly get absolutely pilloried if you do”

The polls had to start moving for him not against him. Starmer is going to end up with a Blair/Thatcher like majority but without a charismatic & positive offering. “More of the same but delivered with a little bit more competence and consistency whilst better than the current shambles is NOT what the country needs. The big concern here is that he gets in and gets totally owned by forces he can’t control unless he is really radical, the ultimate consequence of which will be a wider lurch to the right than we have EVER had before in 5 years time.

[super_realist]

I think Jas that he's already planned his exit. He hasn't the stomach for a fight and knows he's out.

Starmer needs to keep on top of the loony far left element of his party, and he shouldn't have backed down on Flabbot because now he looks weak.

If he can improve the outdated NHS by 10% and reduces immigration to a sensible level he will have had a relatively successful first term. I don't anticipate much growth.


The trouble comes if he bows down to the woke, open borders, gender ideology crap, fails to increase defence spending and simply tries to throw money at the NHS instead of reforming it.

Seems his stupid VAT on private schools isn't going to fly either and might be the first of many things he u-turns in government.

[navyblueshorts]

Anybody else thinking Rishi’s advisors are already thinking about the post defeat/post Rishi landscape? What sane advisor would say, “skip the D-Day commemoration international leaders bit, more useful stuff to be getting on with back home” OR if it was his idea not say “FFS Rishi, you can’t do that, you’ll quite rightly get absolutely pilloried if you do”

The polls had to start moving for him not against him. Starmer is going to end up with a Blair/Thatcher like majority but without a charismatic & positive offering. “More of the same but delivered with a little bit more competence and consistency whilst better than the current shambles is NOT what the country needs. The big concern here is that he gets in and gets totally owned by forces he can’t control unless he is really radical, the ultimate consequence of which will be a wider lurch to the right than we have EVER had before in 5 years time.

Yes. What a plank. "We will fight them on the beaches..." unless, that is, there's money to be made, lies to support or juicy interviews to give back in the UK. Which demographic are most likely to be all in on the D-Day commemorations? Those that either fought in WWII, or are the children of those that did so. Way to go Rishi! As own goals go, hard to think of one that's more of a screamer into the top corner from 40 yards...

I think Jas that he's already planned his exit. He hasn't the stomach for a fight and knows he's out.

Think he needs to accept his political career is truly kaput, beyond that of no longer being PM in a few weeks. He might even lose his seat as an MP, his D-Day screw up was that bad.

...Seems his stupid VAT on  private schools isn't going to fly either and might be the first of many  things he u-turns in government.

I know you don't agree, but I hope the VAT on private schools stays, I don't think the right-wing (there's a surprise!) scaremongering re. increasing state school numbers will be anything like what's being touted and, perhaps more importantly, there needs to be a change as a point of principle.

[super_realist]

Admissions to Private Schools for 2024/5 are reportedly down 2.5%.
The entire vanity project is worth less than 1 billion anyway so it's a waste of time. They'd get a lot more if they taxed Christianity and Islam, why don't they do that? At least education is important, religion isn't.

What's next? Labour adding VAT on children's clothes for people they deem "too rich"? How about VAT on Fruit and Vegetables?

If you send kids to private schools, you are taking pressure off an already rubbish state system, same as if you have private health, why punish anyone for that? The assertion that it's just the likes of people at Winchester, Harrow or Eton that will be affected is ridiculous or  that if you send your kids to private school you must be rich . I've known plenty colleagues who send kids to private school but aren't earning all that much.
Furthermore it means scholarships will also be under pressure to end as schools themselves have to pay it.

We already don't have enough teachers, and now you want to flood a state school system with a conservative estimate of an extra 10-15% of the private school roll? It's an asinine policy.

What's the point of principle exactly?

[Duty281]

It's just a classic left-wing idea of making the better off a little worse off so that the worst off don't feel so bad about their situation.

[navyblueshorts]

Admissions to Private Schools for 2024/5 are reportedly down 2.5%.
The entire vanity project is worth less than 1 billion anyway so it's a waste of time. They'd get a lot more if they taxed Christianity and Islam, why don't they do that? At least education is important, religion isn't.

What's next? Labour adding VAT on children's clothes for people they deem "too rich"? How about VAT on Fruit and Vegetables?

If you send kids to private schools, you are taking pressure off an already rubbish state system, same as if you have private health, why punish anyone for that? The assertion that it's just the likes of people at Winchester, Harrow or Eton that will be affected is ridiculous or  that if you send your kids to private school you must be rich . I've known plenty colleagues who send kids to private school but aren't earning all that much.
Furthermore it means scholarships will also be under pressure to end as schools themselves have to pay it.

We already don't have enough teachers, and now you want to flood a state school system with a conservative estimate of an extra 10-15% of the private school roll? It's an asinine policy.

What's the point of principle exactly?

I wouldn't disagree, at all, with taxation of religion and/or removal of any charitable status it holds.

There isn't going to be any flood, but I could be persuaded that there should be investment in the state system alongside. Those paying for their children to enter private education are buying a product and, I'd argue, it should incur VAT. You make some reasonable points but, on balance, I'd rather VAT was charged on private school fees. You don't have to agree with me.

[navyblueshorts]

It's just a classic left-wing idea of making the better off a little worse off so that the worst off don't feel so bad about their situation.

Maybe, but the wealthy have had more than enough of feeling great at the expense of those they've helped make worse off. Sod them. It's not even like we're talking about abolishing private schools; just that those that send their children there should perhaps be charged VAT on their purchase. There's not going to be any flood into the state sector, because those that send their children to private schools primarily see it as a longterm gain re. networks, contacts etc.

[super_realist]

Education is the most important thing you can have, why would you tax that?
Fruit and vegetables are a product, children's clothes are a product but we don't tax those.
It might be a product, but it's a product for children, so why would you want to tax that?

Why are University fees exempt from VAT but Private School fees won't be? Student accomodation is exempt from VAT, student catering is exempt from VAT, so why punish children?

[JAS]

Education is the most important thing you can have, why would you tax that?
Fruit and vegetables are a product, children's clothes are a product but we don't tax those.
It might be a product, but it's a product for children, so why would you want to tax that?

Why are University fees exempt from VAT but Private School fees won't be? Student accomodation is exempt from VAT, student catering is exempt from VAT, so why punish children?

Equally why would you give tax breaks to the few people who can afford it when you don’t need to and when the majority are struggling?? Actually I suppose that’s the whole ethos of neo lib conservatism. “Never mind plebs, the benefits will trickle down to you…eventually…maybe….or maybe not, either way we don’t care as long as you vote for us every 5 years we’ll try and um um… aw Frak it stop complaining, we’ve had a war and a pandemic, we have to make sure our core vote and donors are ok first.”

[super_realist]

Education is the most important thing you can have, why would you tax that?
Fruit and vegetables are a product, children's clothes are a product but we don't tax those.
It might be a product, but it's a product for children, so why would you want to tax that?

Why are University fees exempt from VAT but Private School fees won't be? Student accomodation is exempt from VAT, student catering is exempt from VAT, so why punish children?

Equally why would you give tax breaks to the few people who can afford it when you don’t need to and when the majority are struggling?? Actually I suppose that’s the whole ethos of neo lib conservatism. “Never mind plebs, the benefits will trickle down to you…eventually…maybe….or maybe not, either way we don’t care as long as you vote for us every 5 years we’ll try and um um… aw Frak it stop complaining, we’ve had a war and a pandemic, we have to make sure our core vote and donors are ok first.”

The idea that "many are struggling" is completely irrelevant to the niggardly revenue generated from this mental scheme.
It's a tax on children FFS, and again, this doesn't include faith schools that charge fees, I wonder why that would be? Doesn't include Uni fees either. It's not a "tax break" because not a single other aspect of education is taxed. Even books and textbooks don't pay VAT, not even newspapers and magazines pay tax.
Also, Labour seem to have spent this pittance about 100 times.
It's as stupid a scheme as the "windfall tax" and will simply cause more problems than a miniscule short term gain.

[navyblueshorts]

Education is the most important thing you can have, why would you tax that?
Fruit and vegetables are a product, children's clothes are a product but we don't tax those.
It might be a product, but it's a product for children, so why would you want to tax that?

Why are University fees exempt from VAT but Private School fees won't be? Student accomodation is exempt from VAT, student catering is exempt from VAT, so why punish children?

I'd be happy w/ taxing fees for private education, not any state provision. Universities aren't private HE institutions - anyone achieving the necessary entrance qualifications can get into any of them; even Oxbridge. All private residential letting is VAT exempt, so that's got nothing to do w/ university education. University-owned lettings are considered by HMRC to be 'closely related' (I think) to education, so VAT-exempt.

No-one is 'punishing' children, and certainly not all of them. It's only a minority, and broadly those of parents who're relatively, or definitively are, wealthy.

As for clothes and food, I don't care. Just because not all things are charged VAT, doesn't in my book mean that this one case where it's demonstrably to the benefit of the already loaded shouldn't incur VAT. I couldn't care less if it won't raise very much meaningful capital.

[JAS]

Education is the most important thing you can have, why would you tax that?
Fruit and vegetables are a product, children's clothes are a product but we don't tax those.
It might be a product, but it's a product for children, so why would you want to tax that?

Why are University fees exempt from VAT but Private School fees won't be? Student accomodation is exempt from VAT, student catering is exempt from VAT, so why punish children?

Equally why would you give tax breaks to the few people who can afford it when you don’t need to and when the majority are struggling?? Actually I suppose that’s the whole ethos of neo lib conservatism. “Never mind plebs, the benefits will trickle down to you…eventually…maybe….or maybe not, either way we don’t care as long as you vote for us every 5 years we’ll try and um um… aw Frak it stop complaining, we’ve had a war and a pandemic, we have to make sure our core vote and donors are ok first.”

The idea that "many are struggling" is completely irrelevant to the niggardly revenue generated from this mental scheme.
It's a tax on children FFS, and again, this doesn't include faith schools that charge fees, I wonder why that would be? Doesn't include Uni fees either. It's not a "tax break" because not a single other aspect of education is taxed. Even books and textbooks don't pay VAT, not even newspapers and magazines pay tax.
Also, Labour seem to have spent this pittance about 100 times.
It's as stupid a scheme as the "windfall tax" and will simply cause more problems than a miniscule short term gain.

Well you see "many are struggling" is the predominant undercurrent driving opinion in this election. So it's not irrelevant at all when there's any discussion about the collection and/or distribution of revenue. For all the panic driven lies that the Tories have spouted the polls haven't moved an inch toward them why? Because many are struggling and that struggle forces people to listen a wee bit more and question a wee bit more and they know they're being lied to, they can see through it this time.

[super_realist]

JAS, you can say at any point in time that "many are struggling".
It's always been the case and it always will but taxing CHILDREN for their education when nothing in Education is taxed to raise a paltry amount which won't even reach 1bn is just petty politicking and you've swallowed it. They aren't benefitting from any "tax break" because education isn't taxed

You seem to be under the impression that anyone sending their child to a private school is wealthy. You're always going on about the "race to the bottom" but taxing hard working parents out of the ability to send their kids to private school and add it to a strained state school system achieved what exactly? Making a few plebs feel better? Doesn't help a single child's education, and isn't that what matters instead of some classist socialist point?

Why aren't you asking for VAT on University fees, university accomodation, faith schools, private tutors etc? Shouldn't you be in favour of that, after all "many are struggling" aren't they and higher education is simply "decadent" isn't it?
Seems you're more jist against any private provision. What next? Extra tax for having a private house, car? Maybe tax you if you own a set of clubs clubs instead of hiring them?

Every private school pupil saves the government about £7460 a year.

[navyblueshorts]

Maybe it's not the private schools per se, but the fact that in contradiction of the actual evidence in front of employers' eyes, many from private schools are employed in roles, and enjoy pay/perks, far beyond their capabilities because of the assumption that private schooling = awesome intellect/ability.

I'd hazard that many send their kids to private school, not for the assumed excellence in education (which may have no relation to fact), but for the presumptive access to an 'old boys' network that gives their kids a leg up which is unavailable to the majority.

[superflyweight]

Maybe it's not the private schools per se, but the fact that in contradiction of the actual evidence in front of employers' eyes, many from private schools are employed in roles, and enjoy pay/perks, far beyond their capabilities because of the assumption that private schooling = awesome intellect/ability.

I'd hazard that many send their kids to private school, not for the assumed excellence in education (which may have no relation to fact), but for the presumptive access to an 'old boys' network that gives their kids a leg up which is unavailable to the majority.

I interview graduates for our firm and the main difference between privately educated kids and state school kids is polish, presentation and the ability to talk with confidence (even though they might not know a huge amount about what they are talking about). The privately educated kids are clearly taught how to sell themselves and outwardly present confidence and competency, whereas with the state school kids the interviewer has to work a bit harder to get them to sell themselves. It doesn't always make for the best lawyers, but it's definitely a foot up on the career ladder. The real academic stars tend not to privately educated though and people with real drive and determination are often the first in their family to go to University.

[super_realist]

Maybe it's not the private schools per se, but the fact that in contradiction of the actual evidence in front of employers' eyes, many from private schools are employed in roles, and enjoy pay/perks, far beyond their capabilities because of the assumption that private schooling = awesome intellect/ability.

I'd hazard that many send their kids to private school, not for the assumed excellence in education (which may have no relation to fact), but for the presumptive access to an 'old boys' network that gives their kids a leg up which is unavailable to the majority.

Oh right, you mean that the assumption and misapprehension that going to private school means you're rich ? If you hadn't noticed lately, specifically your favourite BBC that they actively recruit disproportionately now from ethnic minorities, who certainly won't be the most likely to attend private school. The RAF also got hauled over the coals for this absurd (and racist) policy.
The two richest people I know now, came from incredibly humble beginnings and neither of them went to private school.
I work in one of Europe's biggest companies and private school is really not even a consideration in most European countries. If anything, the failure is not a class system or private school hierarchy, but a failure of state schools. This tax isn't going to make them any better.

I've no doubt that Private Schooling might produce a different type of adult, and it may also in fact open some doors within a small number of institutions, but I don't see that as a justification for dumping thousands of pupils into the failing state school system. Much like the NHS, the education system needs reforming.

[navyblueshorts]

Maybe it's not the private schools per se, but the fact that in contradiction of the actual evidence in front of employers' eyes, many from private schools are employed in roles, and enjoy pay/perks, far beyond their capabilities because of the assumption that private schooling = awesome intellect/ability.

I'd hazard that many send their kids to private school, not for the assumed excellence in education (which may have no relation to fact), but for the presumptive access to an 'old boys' network that gives their kids a leg up which is unavailable to the majority.

Oh right, you mean that the assumption and misapprehension that  going to private school means you're rich ? If you hadn't noticed lately, specifically your favourite BBC that they actively recruit disproportionately now from ethnic minorities, who certainly won't be the most likely to attend private school. The RAF also got hauled over the coals for this absurd (and racist) policy.
The two richest people I know now, came from incredibly humble beginnings and neither of them went to private school.
I work in one of Europe's biggest companies and private school is really not even a consideration in most European countries. If anything, the failure is not a class system or private school hierarchy, but a failure of state schools. This tax isn't going to make them any better.

I've no doubt that Private Schooling might produce a different type of adult, and it may also in fact open some doors within a small number of institutions, but I don't see that as a justification for dumping thousands of pupils into the failing state school system. Much like the NHS, the education system needs reforming.

More or less agree with the last bit, but not sure what you're on about in your first sentence. I'm just sure that Eton, Winchester etc disproportionately recruit from ethnic minorities. Even if they do, it might very well be that those are simply very wealthy minority examples. Ethnicity is irrelevant here; it's money we're talking about and being able to effectively buy a jump start in life.

We aren't talking about the situation in the rest of Europe; just the U.K. I'm not sure why you mention two wealthy acquaintances who didn't attend a private school - I didn't for a second suggest that those attending a state school can't have a successful or wealthy career.

I'm not against those with money as a result of success trying to get what they perceive as the best for their children; that's only natural in most cases. However, there's a role for the State in trying to ensure a fair and equitable society, where opportunities are merit-based. It seems to me that UK society is becoming more and more unequal. VAT on private school fees may be relatively small beer and is probably flawed, but overall, it's a step in the right direction for me. I know you don't agree, but that's OK.

I don't disagree that more should be done for state education to make that excellent. It's arguably one of the best things any State can ensure for its people. We're back to taxes etc again...

[JAS]

Jesus HC Supes, have you got some kind of high stakes bet on the election outcome that you made over 4 years ago, you sound utterly desperate and panicked in trying to ridicule proposals to take us away from the current failing status quo. You’ve also made wild assumptions about other things I would and wouldn’t support and my view of private provision in general. Navy’s response above pretty much nails it
I have no objection to private schools and if any of my daughters wanted to send any of my grandkids to private schooling, fair enough I wouldn’t berate them for doing so, why should I? That does NOT mean however that I think private schools should be VAT exempt. Seriously what’s with the pathetic emotional Sunakisatiion “Taxing Children” FFS kids don’t pay tax!! Parents making choices do (or don’t)

[JAS]

Jesus HC Supes, have you got some kind of high stakes bet on the election outcome that you made over 4 years ago, you sound utterly desperate and panicked in trying to ridicule  proposals to take us away from the current failing status quo. You’ve also made wild assumptions about other things I would and wouldn’t support and my view of private provision in general. Navy’s response above pretty much nails it
I have no objection to private schools and if any of my daughters wanted to send any of my grandkids to private schooling, fair enough I wouldn’t berate them for doing so, why should I? That does NOT mean however that I think private schools should be VAT exempt. Seriously what’s with the pathetic emotional Sunakisatiion  “Taxing Children” FFS kids don’t pay tax!! Parents making choices do (or don’t)

Speaking of bets on elections…The Tories really are the gift that keeps on giving, what a complete spiv!!!

[navyblueshorts]

Jesus HC Supes, have you got some kind of high stakes bet on the election outcome that you made over 4 years ago, you sound utterly desperate and panicked in trying to ridicule  proposals to take us away from the current failing status quo. You’ve also made wild assumptions about other things I would and wouldn’t support and my view of private provision in general. Navy’s response above pretty much nails it
I have no objection to private schools and if any of my daughters wanted to send any of my grandkids to private schooling, fair enough I wouldn’t berate them for doing so, why should I? That does NOT mean however that I think private schools should be VAT exempt. Seriously what’s with the pathetic emotional Sunakisatiion  “Taxing Children” FFS kids don’t pay tax!! Parents making choices do (or don’t)

Speaking of bets on elections…The Tories really are the gift that keeps on giving, what a complete spiv!!!

Yeah. This sort of repeated balls up seems to be indicative of a complete corruption of their Party. Not surprising though when you think about Johnson etc. A fish rots from the head and all that...

[Duty281]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

[navyblueshorts]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

I think you're missing at least a large part of the point in this case. Conduct unbecoming, but not a surprise from the current Tory shower. Also, it's actually illegal if as suggested.

[JAS]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

Don’t disagree with the first sentence

2nd sentence how ever… Doesn’t the term “inside knowledge” ring any alarm bells at all in your head about what has happened here? Actually I don’t know why I asked, I know the answer will be No. After 14 years of integrity annihilation by your lot, of course it’s going to be no.

[Duty281]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

I think you're missing at least a large part of the point in this case. Conduct unbecoming, but not a surprise from the current Tory shower. Also, it's actually illegal if as suggested.

Probably is illegal, but who cares with a gambling company losing out?

[Duty281]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

Don’t disagree with the first sentence

2nd sentence how ever… Doesn’t the term “inside knowledge” ring any alarm bells at all in your head about what has happened here? Actually I don’t know why I asked, I know the answer will be No. After 14 years of integrity annihilation by your lot, of course it’s going to be no.

No, not really. You can get inside knowledge in all sorts of ways. And if you can turn that to your advantage against a gambling company, then you're quids in...hopefully. He might have got found out. But I've found all sorts of little advantages against bookmakers and not been caught out. So, all power to those punters who manage to strike a blow. Gareth Craig (why did I think he was called Gareth?) tried it as well. He's not tried to con the elderly or vulnerable, he's tried to take £400 from a multi million pound company. Thought this would be right up your alley?

"Ladbrokes declined to comment. A spokesperson for the Gambling Commission said: “If someone uses confidential information in order to gain an unfair advantage when betting, this may constitute an offence of cheating under section 42 of the Gambling Act, which is a criminal offence."

Yes, they really don't like it when the tables are turned.

Oh...my lot? I despise the Conservative Party. Never supported them. Zero seats.

[JAS]

Ok fair point, little man steals win over unscrupulous multinational….except Craig/Gareth isn’t exactly “little man” is he? He’s inside the ropes. But to be fair there is some validity in your point.

Speaking of unscrupulous corporatism, wtf was all that guff on gmtv this morning about Euros fans potentially facing £4000 fines if they were caught wearing fake replica shirts!! Love sacks to that, why punish the buyer why not string up the seller? Why not tax the Frak out of the original extorters?? Why do ordinary people put up with such Poopie??

[JAS]

So as you’re not a Tory Duty, you’re obviously reform then…There is a LOT of reform ire that is valid, the thing is the only solution can ultimately only ever come from the left of center. The right can NEVER truly solve working class issues. If the left ain’t doing it…sort the left dont abdicate responsibility to the right, they will never satisfactorily solve the issues of ordinary working class people, even the aspirational ones.

[navyblueshorts]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

I think you're missing at least a large part of the point in this case. Conduct unbecoming, but not a surprise from the current Tory shower. Also, it's actually illegal if as suggested.

Probably is illegal, but who cares with a gambling company losing out?

Ah yes. Of course. Then again, who cares if Farage is milk shaked or has stuff thrown at him on his campaign bus, eh? Didn't I mention hypocrisy elsewhere on this site recently?

[Duty281]

Gambling companies are generally scum and will usually try to cheat punters any way they can.

But when someone has a bit of inside knowledge or beats the bookmaker regularly, oooh it's terribly unfair.

Pay Gareth his £500, I say.

I think you're missing at least a large part of the point in this case. Conduct unbecoming, but not a surprise from the current Tory shower. Also, it's actually illegal if as suggested.

Probably is illegal, but who cares with a gambling company losing out?

Ah yes. Of course. Then again, who cares if Farage is milk shaked or has stuff thrown at him on his campaign bus, eh? Didn't I mention hypocrisy elsewhere on this site recently?

Eh? There's nothing remotely comparable between assault of a political candidate and someone taking the bookmakers for a cheeky few hundred.

You did mention hypocrisy, but failed to back it up. I'd be interested to know how this is hypocritical?

[Sponsored content]