Labour ?

I must say this does seem OTT, what  KL said was basically true, maybe he said it too many times though. AF was quite happy for Israel to be formed and populated with ALL the european Jews, he also said any country could have them too, we all know how well that worked.  If you were inventing new ways to kill fellow humans you were welcome.

One of many solutions offered, but he did indeed finish with the Final one.

My take on the whole incident (looking at what Ken said specifically rather his continued defence of what he said) ...

Ken's comments about Hitler and Zionism ... would be like using Harold Shipman as a example of a good GP ... he was a great example of the care and attention a GP should give to his patients: right up to the point he started killing them!

When he was interviewed on TV KL said that he wasn't thrown out of the party because they knew that if he took legal action to challenge the decision he would win because a judge would look at the factual accuracy of what he said (presumably rather than the inferences drawn and the apparently affront to political correctness).  KL's argument had a ring of plausibility to me.  

Yes, factual accuracy is important. How often do we, the general public, get presented with the facts by the media, be that Radio, television, internet or newspaper ? Not often, is my opinion.

We get a snippet of what was said, quite often taken out of context and then heavily loaded with the reporter's "opinion" of what this snippet means.

I haven't specifically followed this story, but I presume the factual accuracy of what Livingstone said, the context in which it was said, and the intended meaning of what he said are easily verifiable ?

^ You old Marxist Don, blaming the capitalist media! Tony Benn used to tape his interviews in their entirety so that he could come back at editors and producers if he ever felt he was quoted out of context. Good for his diaries too, allegedly.

C.

I see Jeremy Corbyn is engaging in the politics of envy once again.  VAT on private school fees to fund free school dinners in the state system perhaps popular in some quarters. Well I would respectfully remind Mr C that for many of us who elected to invest in our children's education at the expense of not moving up the housing ladder, having new cars or taking overseas holidays (term time or otherwise), and yes hi-fi investment was on hold�� It was not a question of being one of the privileged few.

.... but a little bit of VAT on top to help give universal child nourishment isn't that much to ask. Some children only get properly fed while at school. Besides there will be grammar schools everywhere soon so private schools will become pointless 

Whilst at school my main and only meal was provided by the state via the 'free school diners' policy and I believe anybody with the means to privately educate their children would be happy to pay a bit of VAT on top to fund free school diners.  It should be a fundamental right in our society for every child regardless of anything else to be fed ENOUGH the same as any other child END OF!

The VAT bit on private school fees is a tricky one. Parent who choose private education probably already pay into the tax system; probably, because there will be a large number of high wealth individuals who manage to run their affairs in an efficient manner so as to avoid tax. And I assume that children of serving officers in the Armed Forces can also take advantage of private school fees being paid.

I am not sure I believe education is a service anyway. And it would be better to simply end this charitable status nonsense and still not charge VAT. I wonder (ie I can't be arsed to find out) what happens in other countries, the private system is not unique to the UK?

There are free school dinners now for those that are needy of it. I thought this was about giving free school dinners to all whether they can afford it or not.. doesn't make sense to me. It's like the OAP bus pass and TV licence, I believe those that can afford it should pay. Why should the state subsidise the wealthy.

if this is about managing any perceived stigma associated with current free school dinners, then be honest and say that. I am sure there may more subtle ways of providing help to those that need and benefit the most with regard to school dinners.

And if one wants to add VAT to private schooling to help pay for the NHS or current social security or more importantly the increasing old age social security benefits then be honest and say that.. and perhaps introduce it with an initial 5% such as applied to household energy. 

Grammar schools will not expand - I doubt they'll be much desire for them locally.  It's not a little bit of VAT it will serve to make the fees unaffordable for many (like us) who chose to put our children through private education up to age 11.  But you raise a point worth considering .  Perhaps all those who privately educate should for one term put all their children in the state system - well the state system would sink under the pressure. 

Equally, your point about nourishment is valid. However, as a parent no matter my income level I considered it my responsibility to ensure my children were well nourished not the school.    We've arrived at a point where people are being allowed to avoid their responsibilities.  

Bob the Builder posted:

Whilst at school my main and only meal was provided by the state via the 'free school diners' policy and I believe anybody with the means to privately educate their children would be happy to pay a bit of VAT on top to fund free school diners.  It should be a fundamental right in our society for every child regardless of anything else to be fed ENOUGH the same as any other child END OF!

I tend to agree with your comments, I suppose the only question is where the money comes from, yes those that can afford private education are most likely in a position to pay a little more but this policy of the the better off paying for the less fortunate is running a little thin with me.....

The amount of tax I have paid over the last few years could have brought me a Statement system a couple of times over....

It's all abit Robin Hood policy?

It is Wenger it's just that.  On my way home from work in the evening I drive past a pub which goes by the nickname of "the Benefits Arms".   Apparently the clientele drink in there several nights a week and all smoke.  And others who are choosing to invest in their children's future should pay even more tax.  The hypocrisy of Labour knows no bounds.  

Private schools are clearly businesses and not charities and should therefore be obliged to pay VAT. However, the plan to spend the money on free school meals for all is dubious. The research so far cannot establish a clear causal connection between extending the meals to improvements in academic attainment. This was the conclusion of one of the researchers involved (interviewed on R4), who also pointed out that the research she was involved with extended school meals in an area of relatively high deprivation. In other words if there was a causal effect then it would probably have more effect in such an area where a higher proportion of children above the borderline for free school meals might be expected to benefit from receiving them. I think there is no dispute that children who are poorly fed struggle to learn. This is why I understand that breakfast clubs for primary school children are not uncommon in this time of austerity and new deprivation. Osborne's welfare cuts just coming into effect will significantly exacerbate these problems. 

I am sorry to disagree, but the phrase 'the politics of envy' is just right-wing propaganda intended simply to undermine any policy that seeks to make society fairer and more equal - like 'social engineering', as if the right didn't use government policy to seek to change society in order to meet their ideals.

As for Labour, I really cannot see that Jeremy Corbyn is a wonderful and effective leader whose qualities would become clear to the electorate if it weren't for back-stabbing Blairite MPs and the right-wing press. Labour will always struggle in the teeth of a generally unsympathetic or hostile press, but the leadership must therefore set a very clear and coherent set of policies that make sense and can be implemented - something sorely lacking currently. Yes, the PLP did try to stab Corbyn in the back but I think that was a lot more about competence than ideology - and how many really are Blairites anyhow, years after he left office. The current Labour approach of completely disowning the Blair years of government seems politically inept to me. Why would the populace want to elect a party that is essentially saying that while we won three elections, our government is best forgotten.  (Please note that I hold no brief for Blair and his neoliberal approach, and I was out on the streets marching against the Iraq adventure.)

Finally, I gather that many of those Corbyn enthusiasts are not renewing their memberships and overall Labour membership is falling again.

Clive 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

It is Wenger it's just that.  On my way home from work in the evening I drive past a pub which goes by the nickname of "the Benefits Arms".   Apparently the clientele drink in there several nights a week and all smoke.  And others who are choosing to invest in their children's future should pay even more tax.  The hypocrisy of Labour knows no bounds.  

I suspect they are all in their having a bet on the horses and watching Sky TV......!!!! 

CPB - 80% of contributions to the state come from the top 20%.   Putting VAt school fees will not just hit the so called "privelidged fe" it will impact many middle income earners who are already paying enough tax.   I repeat it's the politics of envy.  Labour - old or new - have to be  put in the political dustbin.   

The Strat (Fender) posted:

  Labour - old or new - have to be  put in the political dustbin.   

Can they be binned or do they have to be re-cycled?

And if they are going to be binned, when can they be collected?  Is it every 2 weeks or 3 weeks now? 

Sorry, I'm going on to another of my pet hate topics...

The Strat (Fender) posted:

CPB - 80% of contributions to the state come from the top 20%.   Putting VAt school fees will not just hit the so called "privelidged fe" it will impact many middle income earners who are already paying enough tax.   I repeat it's the politics of envy.  Labour - old or new - have to be  put in the political dustbin.   

Has it occurred to you that is merely a measure of how unequal a society we have become? And do you really want to live in a single party state?

Could you define what exactly you mean by the politics of envy?

Clive

Stats below from the Equality Trust website.

The graph below shows how income is shared amongst households. The poorest fifth of society have only 8% of the total income, whereas the top fifth have 40%.

GB Wealth Inequality

Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. The richest 10% of households hold 45% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 8.7%.⁶

Very well put!

It is completely unacceptable, in my view, that the distribution of wealth in this country is so inequitable.

My pet hate is the fact that the Executives, Boards, Directors and senior managers of large companies continue to award themselves ever increasing percentage wage rises largely determined by carefully manipulated targets and bonuses. This whilst  arguing that their companies cannot afford anything like inflation scale wage rises for their employees. It is a scam, a cartel, and one that has been perpetuated and accepted for far to long.

This is not a 'loony left' observation and assessment, and it is certainly nothing to do with any 'politics of envy'. It is simply a statement relating to plain decency and fairness.

Well firstly I have no desire for a one party state.  I truly wish for a strong Liberal party as an alternative.  Politically I have always aligned with free market liberalism/one nation conservatism.   I'm deeply political and Asquith and Lloyd-George have probably had most influence on my thinking than any other politicians  

But as far as disparity of wealth is concerned surely some organisations have got their remuneration policy entirely wrong.   But you can pass an opinion on the worth of any individual - footballers, film stars???  It's the thin end of the wedge when a politician or anyone else  believes they can pass judgement on the worth of someone else. 

Equality in my opinion is entirely the wrong aspiration in my view and never achievable. Far more we should encourage opportunity and freedom of choice across all aspects of society. 

Regards,

Lindsay

The Strat (Fender) posted:

But as far as disparity of wealth is concerned surely some organisations have got their remuneration policy entirely wrong.   But you can pass an opinion on the worth of any individual - footballers, film stars???  It's the thin end of the wedge when a politician or anyone else  believes they can pass judgement on the worth of someone else. 

Lindsay

But politicians already do - they decide the 'worth' of those working in the public sector.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Well firstly I have no desire for a one party state.  I truly wish for a strong Liberal party as an alternative.  Politically I have always aligned with free market liberalism/one nation conservatism.   I'm deeply political and Asquith and Lloyd-George have probably had most influence on my thinking than any other politicians  

But as far as disparity of wealth is concerned surely some organisations have got their remuneration policy entirely wrong.   But you can pass an opinion on the worth of any individual - footballers, film stars???  It's the thin end of the wedge when a politician or anyone else  believes they can pass judgement on the worth of someone else. 

Equality in my opinion is entirely the wrong aspiration in my view and never achievable. Far more we should encourage opportunity and freedom of choice across all aspects of society. 

Regards,

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay

So is that the free market that almost destroyed the world's financial system in 2008? I must say that I don't associate one nation Conservatism with free market liberalism, although Cameron's supposed one nation conservatism was not the same as 1950s/60s one nation conservatism - that was I believe, destroyed by Thatcher's first steps towards neoliberalism. 

Anyhow I don't think we will agree politically but what we do have in common is quite a lot of hifi overlap and we live near each other - I'm just outside Stony Stratford. 

Clive 

I love what the Labour & Liberal party coalition in N Wiltshire did to support democracy when they got into power at a time of forced constitutional reform.

They re-wrote the rules for the Ethics and Oversight committee so that decisions made in cabinet couldn't be blocked, only referred back to the cabinet for re-consideration (with no onus on the cabinet to do anything other than dismiss the decision of the Ethics and Oversight committee).

On the other hand decisions of the council chamber or decisions of it's committees ratified by the council could be blocked and referred back to the full council; and then only a quorate vote of the full council could override the Ethics and Oversight committee.  The Ethics and Oversight committee were specifically prevented from referring a decision by the cabinet back to the full council for ratification by an elected body.

Labour / Lib democracy in action:  The Oligarchy rules... for they know best how everyone else should think.

I have Just been reading of the possibilities of Mr Blair and Straw being charged with war crimes over the lraq war? 

I hadn't even considered that a possibility, but I suppose if my son or daughter had been killed in the conflict??

?

According to the latest polls, it's not looking good for labour for June 8th, will they survive??