Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Starmer now says she's not been barred but that's not to say she'll be selected. Strikes me there's a lot of face-saving going on here. There's good chance Corbyn will get elected, I'm sure Starmer doesn't want a repeat of that in Hackney.
Fromm the BBC...
Earlier today, Abbott texted the BBC's Joe Pike to say: "Although the whip has been restored, I am banned from standing as a Labour candidate"
Now, she's written on X: "I am very dismayed that numerous reports suggest I have been barred as a candidate"
Her first comment suggests she hadn't been told she couldn't stand but had simply heard as much. Her second comment is a bit more measured and probably reflects the facts better.
God help us....
Sir Keir Starmer described the Welsh Government as providing a “blueprint for what what Labour can do across the UK”.
The Labour party’s UK leader spoke at Welsh Labour’s conference in Llandudno, the first in-person conference for two years but which has been largely dominated by developments in Ukraine.
Meh.
Nothing will change really will it? Labour are no more conjurers of the impossible than the Conservatives.
We'll get what we deserve.
Oh yeah, people will be happy for a bit but it will make bugger all difference to our lives in any significant way.
Itll be a while before its fixed Labours 5 year target to get waiting lists down is at least a realistic timeframe
A long way to fix the damage of the last 14 years
That yougov poll is the first since Tories announced national service & quadruple lock, its not good for them at all an their under 50 numbers are bonkers
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1795751549681184796
Starmer now says she’s not been barred but that’s not to say she’ll be selected. Strikes me there’s a lot of face-saving going on here. There’s good chance Corbyn will get elected, I’m sure Starmer doesn’t want a repeat of that in Hackney.
Sounds very pragmatic.
And even if they did both get in as independents, what difference would it make, they were both un-whipppable anyway. All that changes is Starmer wouldn't have to deal with Mail/Telegraph headlines "2 Labour MP's rebel already over his 1st Kings Speech".
Hope Andrew Fienstein kicks Starmer in the nuts (figuratively, but literally would be acceptable) in Holborn/St Pancras and Diane Abbot stands as an independent in Hackney and wins, top it off with a Corbyn win in Islington and that's about it for my Election wishes south of the border.
Hope Andrew Fienstein kicks Starmer in the nuts (figuratively, but literally would be acceptable) in Holborn/St Pancras
Abbot & Corbyn I could see winning as independents (Abbot especially)
seems absolutely bonkers to think Starmer wont win his own seat tho https://ig.ft.com/uk-general-election/2024/projection/?constituency=E14001172
Interestingly Sunak is far more vulnerable
https://ig.ft.com/uk-general-election/2024/projection/?constituency=E14001444
its strange that none of the polls include this mysterious hard left mini-party which so many think is going to be a real thing.
short memories - whatever your personal thoughts on Corbyn's Labour, the electorate demonstrated very very clearly that it was unelectable.
I doubt that would be any different in 2024.
Hope Andrew Fienstein kicks Starmer in the nuts (figuratively, but literally would be acceptable) in Holborn/St Pancras and Diane Abbot stands as an independent in Hackney and wins, top it off with a Corbyn win in Islington and that’s about it for my Election wishes south of the border.
I'm conflicted on Fienstein.
On the one hand I can see why protesting against Starmer is the logical thing to do if you want to influence Starmer and Labour.
On the other hand, why split the vote? Why not go upto Yorkshire and kick Sunaks nuts?
It's opposition politics in a nut(kicking)shell. Would he rather be in opposition complaining about everything, or in government doing something but not everything he wants?
If in the unlikely event he wins, he doesn't "win" anything. We'd have a non-existent constitutional crisis, and Starmer would have to be elected in as an MP by having someone in a safe seat quit. Technically he doesn't even have to do that (you can be PM from the Lords), it'd just require a reimagining of how PMQ's, statements to the house and liaison committees would work if he wasn't an MP and 5 years of Mail/Torygraph/Murdoch headlines about it.
short memories – whatever your personal thoughts on Corbyn’s Labour, the electorate demonstrated very very clearly that it was unelectable.
Not as short as your memory. Corbyn 262 seats, May 318 seats - hardly what I would call a very, very clear deomonstration that Corbyn's Labour was unelectable.
short memories – whatever your personal thoughts on Corbyn’s Labour, the electorate demonstrated very very clearly that it was unelectable.
A concerted and organised media campaign throwing shit at him had a lot to do with it
On the other hand, why split the vote? Why not go upto Yorkshire and kick Sunaks nuts?
Given what Starmer is/stands for and how he’s an authoritarian arsehole I feel it’s entirely justifiable,
Corbyn 262 seats, May 318 seats – hardly what I would call a very, very clear deomonstration that Corbyn’s Labour was unelectable.
Sorry.. which party was elected to govern the country?
Interestingly Sunak is far more vulnerable
If only we could persuade a few more to vote Reform.
If only we could persuade a few more to vote Reform.
more likely to convince Lib dem or Green voters to vote tactically.
Sorry.. which party was elected to govern the country?
Neither party was.
Which is why one party had to seek the support of another party. Do you honestly not remember?
But be that as it may it is irrelevant to the point that was made, which was:
the electorate demonstrated very very clearly that it was unelectable.
In the general election being mentioned Labour did considerably better than it did under both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
Would you describe Labour under Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband as "very very clearly unelectable"?
Do you describe every political party which fails to win a general election as "very very clearly unelectable"?
Given what Starmer is/stands for and how he’s an authoritarian arsehole I feel it’s entirely justifiable,
That's the problem with 2 party politics, even if they actually stuck to some sort of consistent political beliefs you're still stuck with trying to represent a multi-dimensional ideology in a binary choice.
For example if we had an Authoritarian Left government then maybe our rivers wouldn't be so polluted.
But then you have to get into a nuance of what's even meant by authoritarian. A policy of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against an oppressively Israeli government would require a high degree of Authoritarianism too. And before long you're stuck in an Animal Farm sort of Authoritarianism where everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
There is no right answer. Unless you want to join a political party, build a coalition of likeminded people around you, launch a leadership bid, win, hang on for / pressure the incumbent government into an election and win that. If you can manage that you can mold the party whatever way you like as long as you take enough people with you, as that's how democracy works.
Reform still giving the Tories a headache
https://twitter.com/DavidParsley50/status/1795816122140479563
Given what Starmer is/stands for and how he’s an authoritarian arsehole I feel it’s entirely justifiable,
Authoritarian?
He's a bit boring, perhaps paying the price for trying to bully the left of the party into compliance, and obviously he's currently scared of his own shadow just in-case a well timed gaff costs Labour their poll lead. But I'm really not getting the "Authoritarian" vibe TBH...
Id say he's far more ruthless than anyone gave him credit for, you have to be to lead a political party, a large part of the Tory implosion has been due to internal divisions
arguably Cameron placating the headbangers with a referendum to 'settle the EU problem' has led them to the state the country and their party is in now
You need to look at the purge of progressives from the labour party, which many centrists seem to have welcomed with glee as a good thing. God forbid he should actually listen to some progressive voices instead of finding excuses to purge them from the party and replace them with disgraced right wing tories. But it is clear that it speaks to his political ambition and character and likely actions when stepping up to the big job.
Do you describe every political party which fails to win a general election as “very very clearly unelectable”?
no but JC4PM led to new and unexpected levels of tory voting particularly in the NW. I'd be surprised if i cant level the same accusation at Sunak in early July (although bit part credits to Boris' parties and Truss economic advisers)
Would he rather be in opposition complaining about everything
I mean, this sums up several regular posters on here.
You need to look at the purge of progressives from the labour party, which many centrists seem to have welcomed with glee as a good thing.
Still hardly Authoritarian though is it?
There probably is a bit of ruthlessness to his leadership, but British politics is a bit more centrists now, it has been for the last couple of decades. And of course the current goal is to get elected rather than being in permanent opposition, SKS is going to have to keep Labour within the Overton window.
If this is the flavour of Labour we are going to get for the entire next decade or not depends on a lot of things really, I think there's still some room for more progressive figures, but quite honestly keeping them quieter during this campaign fends off the sort of hyperbolic 'Anti-lefty' criticism in the RW press that definitely damaged his predecessor.
"Wrekin for Reform"
It's like Mystic Meg is writing the campaign pamphlet.
Shh don't be talking sense!
The problem for labour atm seems to be that it's all noise about Tory policies (not bad in itself if they are unpopular) and now it's all about Abbot
Whoever leaked this to the Times has done a very good job of undermining the Labour campaign
You need to look at the purge of progressives from the labour party, which many centrists seem to have welcomed with glee as a good thing.
I'd rather a centrist* government that wasn't doing things like Rwanda, Bibi Stockholm, neutering Renters Reform Bill (none of which have anything to do with actual left Vs right economics, and only the latter is related to curtailing the free market), cutting spending at every opportunity and generally doing everything in a way that I'd consider wrong.
*I mean, we've still discussed nationalizing, or taking large steps away from fully privatized models, more of the economy than at any point in the last 30 years, but if you still want to call that centrist then carry on. Although I'd like to know what policies you'd like to see that could definitively be more left and still leave them electable?
Whoever leaked this to the Times has done a very good job of undermining the Labour campaign
Fair point, I think they're weak on the handling of Abbots case. But perhaps it's better to get it out of the way this week than in another two.
Bit of a gamble perhaps, but it's a Wednesday and Lil' Rishi will no doubt want to chuck another dead cat down on Friday to "control" the weekend news cycle...
When's the first TV debate?
Neither party was.
Which is why one party had to seek the support of another party. Do you honestly not remember?
Quite. The point made was that Corbyn was unelectable. I'm not sure pointing to an election where he wasn't elected as evidence that he was in fact electable is terribly convincing.
Still hardly Authoritarian though is it?
What about his treatment of anyone who early on raised concerns about the Israeli bombing in Gaza?,
Quite. The point made was that Corbyn was unelectable. I’m not sure pointing to an election where he wasn’t elected as evidence that he was in fact electable is terribly convincing.
No, the point made was that Labour under Corbyn was "very very clearly unelectable".
I'm not sure that doing better than under both Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband is terribly convincing.
Unless we all agree that under Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband Labour was very very clearly unelectable?
Corbyn himself is perfectly electable, which is why he has been an MP far longer than just about anyone else. And why he still stands a fair chance of being an MP after July 4th.
Look, I'm not saying he's perfect, far from it, but five weeks out from a GE I'm more comfortable with Starmer than Sunak as a future PM. And a socialist Labour would just be too scary for those swing voters they've coaxed back.
Nuance has gone from public discourse, He's afraid of the picture the press will paint, and they're still merrily labelling anyone marching against Israeli air strikes on refugees as "Hamas supporters" so yeah SKS' statements over the last year have been very disappointing at times.
Labour is as factional as any other party, to have wrestled them into something that looks almost like it's unified in time for an early election is a feat. If Sunak had gone long the infighting could have helped erode Labours lead.
What about his treatment of anyone who early on raised concerns about the Israeli bombing in Gaza?,
That's just political expediency. Because like it or not the Labour Party has had a problem with anti-Semitism recently. They don't have the moral capital to expend on that issue. And what would they do anyway. Better to keep your mouth shut and appear powerless to stop something than open it and remove all doubt?*
You can argue till you're blue in the face that being pro-Palestine is not the same as being pro-Hammas or anti-Israel and that being anti- the current Israeli Government isn't inherently anti-Semitic. But it will just drive voters away, and then we'll spend another 5 years in opposition and things we can actually do something about like the Rwanda scheme, health and social care, and education will keep going in a direction we don't like.
*"All that's required for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing" is all well and good, but in this case either way we're not going to do anything beyond support the humanitarian relief effort. We can't stop Israel's bombing, but we could lose an election and then really would be doing nothing.
Is there any chance we can keep the Gaza discussion on the Gaza thread?
Nuance has gone from public discourse,
There is absolutely zero nuance in current Labour policies, voters are effectively being given the choice of two right of centre parties that both seem hellbent on NHS privatisation
To believe that Labour are for any sort of change of direction is delusional, they are openly and explicitly taking us down the same path Thatcher started us on.
They have told you they will deliver more privatisation, they have told you there will be more deregulation and they have been quite open that there will be more public spending cuts.
They are telling you loud and clear that they will deliver “ironclad” Thatcherism, you are giving a mandate to more privatisation of the NHS, look at Peter Theil/Palintir’s interest in NHS data, more public money going into private pockets, less public money going into public services, deregulation to enable more profits. You are giving a mandate for more of the self same neoliberalism that has taken this country down for decades.
Labour have already told you that any of their promises are conditional on growth, this is the self same trickle down economics we’ve had for 50 years. Labour’s self imposed fiscal rules are identical to the Tories and can only have the same effects because of that with the addition that Rachael Reeves had made an ”ironclad” promise that will not permit public money to be spent on public investment, she has promised to pay down the deficit and the debt, which will mean less money going into the economy, not more.
I’d love to believe that once Starmer gets in to #10 we see the real Labour emerge but that’s not going to happen, what we see now is exactly what we are going to get.
That’s just political expediency.
Nah, in my book that is ****ing cowardice and bowing down to the likes of Mencer and his goon squad
A question: Would now be a good time to 'grass up' / make public some really shitty Tory behaviour around enabling the selling off of national assets which were provided for the benefit of children? Just wondering whether to speak to an appropriate journalist, or if it would be lost in the election stooshie
Because like it or not the Labour Party has had a problem with anti-Semitism recently.
Nonsense. The Labour leader before Corbyn was a Jew and it was a complete non-issue - not once was it suggested that Ed Miliband being a Jew posed any sort of problem at all.
Find me links from that period which suggests that it was. If a Jew can become the leader of the Labour Party without causing any sort of issue then anti-semitism obviously isn't a problem.
Obviously right-wingers and newspapers such as the Daily Mail are going to make those sort of allegations but they shouldn't be taken anymore seriously than the allegation that multiculturalism has failed.
What did occur under Corbyn was greater criticism of Israel. To suggest that this was proof of anti-semitism is no more true than Israel's current wild allegations that the UN, the International Criminal Court, and the International Court of Justice, are all guilty of anti-semitism because they won't approve the killing of innocent women and children.
Nah, Spill the beans Matt!
Nah, Spill the beans Matt!
I think so.
My boss doesn't.
And my Trustees at work are divided too.
I reckon Monbiot would pick it up fast....
what we see now is exactly what we are going to get.
Is that better, the same, or worse than we currently have and have had for the past decade and a bit?
Labour have already told you that any of their promises are conditional on growth, this is the self same trickle down economics we’ve had for 50 years. Labour’s self imposed fiscal rules are identical to the Tories and can only have the same effects because of that with the addition that Rachael Reeves had made an ”ironclad” promise that will not permit public money to be spent on public investment, she has promised to pay down the deficit and the debt, which will mean less money going into the economy, not more.
Because that's what the majority of people believe in.
Trying to explain to people that it's not a zero sum of tax = spending. And is in fact more like tax + interest rates + inflation = spending + QE , and that even that is way too simplistic (it ignores the bond market for starters). Even* Hunt knows that if you read his notes on the budget. Balancing the budget does sort-of work because the other factors are either the outcomes (inflation) or have other negative consequences. You can't just in isolation spend money. That's not how it works whether you subscribe to MMT or not.
We've had 14 years of austerity government, that's probably in part been what's kept interest rates low (because there has to be money being pumped in somewhere otherwise the economy stagnates) . Liz Truss ended that by (almost) cutting taxes, which would have meant too much money floating around, which meant that interest rates had to go up. There were winners (people who browed money ~2010) and loosers (people with debts ~2022) to that period of austerity.
In a parallel universe where Ed Miliband can eat a Bacon sandwich we might not have had all that austerity and spent our way out of the recession. But the payback for that may well have been higher interest rates. Which may well have lead to less private sector growth (and that's been bad enough as it is, productivity and wages have stagnated). And would probably have meant lower house price inflation (again, winners and loosers to that). Bit it's a very difficult sell to an electorate that the "What would you have done differently?" Is "your house would have been worth less, mortagages would be the same, and your wages might still not have grown, but the public sector might have been better off, and the (fictional or not) debt would have been higher at least initially".
*there's still an element of technocracy, one way or another these people tend to be cleverer than most of us even if ideologically very different. Even if the occasional Truss or Reese-Mogg proves otherwise.
I reckon Monbiot would pick it up fast…
The Sun might pay better money! Start a bidding war with the Daily Mail. It might involve a Tory politician but they'll pay good money if they think their rivals might get the story instead of them.
Edit: For clarity this is not a serious suggestion.
Find me links from that period which suggests that it was. If a Jew can become the leader of the Labour Party without causing any sort of issue then anti-semitism obviously isn’t a problem.
Would you confidently state that the Tory party is not racist?
But it is clear that it speaks to his political ambition
yes, he's trying to win an election
Would you confidently state that the Tory party is not racist?
I think that we can probably find evidence of racism within the Tory Party, as indeed we can within the Labour Party - the Forde Report makes that crystal clear.
Do I believe that Rishi Sunak being brown has exposed the level of racism there is in the Tory Party? No. I think Sunak's skin colour is fairly inconsequential with regards to his position as Tory leader.
Remember we are talking about the 2010-15 period when anti-semitism was a complete non-issue in the Labour Party (despite the fact that the Labour leader was Jewish) and the 2015-20 period when suddenly, and mysteriously, anti-semitism allegedly became a huge issue within the Labour Party.
The feasibility of that scenario isn't great.
Sorry.. which party was elected to govern the country?
That's just a small-minded, power-grabbing mentality where you think you have to change things in reality to make a difference. What is really important is that we were on the right side of history.
What is really important is that we were on the right side of history.
Right on comrade!
Nope, getting elected is what it's all about and get the foreman's job at last.
Balancing the budget does sort-of work because the other factors are either the outcomes (inflation) or have other negative consequences. You can’t just in isolation spend money. That’s not how it works whether you subscribe to MMT or not.
You don't need to subscribe to MMT. MMT is the description of our monetary system.
A framework for analysis.
Balancing the budget means you didn't leave any extra money in the economy which is why out of the last 45 years or so we run deficits nearly all the time. Deficits are pretty normal for many Fiat based economies.
Inflation - if created by government spending has a control measure - it's called taxation which simply deletes money. So we have the capacity to deal with it. (Unlike the recent inflation.)
You absolutely can spend money in isolation - because the country currently needs it, and the only time you wouldn't consider spending loads o' money is if we were actually at full employment.
Who do you think creates the money that we pay our taxes with; what your wages are paid by and money invested in the public sector. And also the money to purchase the bonds. Yeah it's public money created at the BoE. Base money/reserves.
Our country fails to function without it.
If you balance a budget things tend to grind to a halt.
Country desperately needs bringing up to scratch so excusing Rachel Reeves for her appalling fiscal 'irresponsibility' - is not a solution or pragmatic.
We’ve had 14 years of austerity government, that’s probably in part been what’s kept interest rates low (because there has to be money being pumped in somewhere otherwise the economy stagnates)
Because there hasn't really been austerity. The Tories are good at spending money and running up deficits. They just don't like spending the money on the correct things. BTW the economy has stagnated for the best part of a decade.
So yeah just spending money on random things for a few select people is bad - but balancing a budget is the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility.
Forgive me on this but half the problem is senior economists don't have a clue about the monetary system.
Here was a recent viral clip in a film about MMT with one of Biden's senior advisors trying to explain how it works by using conventional economic language - and then sort of blaming MMT for his own ineptitude.
I know it's a bit off topic but if the economists that make decisions can't articulate how we do things - where do you think it leaves the economy?
Rachel Reeves is going in this direction.
Labour have already told you that any of their promises are conditional on growth, this is the self same trickle down economics we’ve had for 50 years.
I'm not disagreeing, but like I said a couple of posts ago, five weeks till the GE. If you reckon you can undo five decades of "economic authodoxy" and re-educate the great unwashed before they go to the polls crack on.
Otherwise why would Labour start a debate around "Growth" knowing they'd lose a good chunk of swing voters.
I think the problem is that this other, well to the left of centre, progressive, social-democratic party you want vote for isn't really going to appear on many ballots. The headbangers and Rascists have plenty of choice and those of us more keen to eject the Tories than examine the current state of the PLP have made a pragmatic compromise, for now. Like all elections it's a gamble, what we get may well not be what we wanted. But what we currently have is pretty dire too.
I know it’s a bit off topic but if the economists that make decisions can’t articulate how we do things – where do you think it leaves the economy?
I seriously doubt that guy makes any decisions without an aide assisting, as for MMT, nobody knows how it works, as it's never been used in the wild, the theory looks good, but that was the same for communism, the weird thing is, if MMT was to work, the US is probably the best place for it to be trialled, as the $ is the greatest currency and the US have influence/power over most.
A question: Would now be a good time to ‘grass up’ / make public some really shitty Tory behaviour around enabling the selling off of national assets which were provided for the benefit of children?
We already know about HS2, but give it a try you might get some money from the press....
Loved the footage put out on the news of the Little Fella purposefully getting off a train, as if it’s something he always does. There was nobody else on said train obviously.
I’m sure he was quickly back to the helicopter and private jet
MMT Magic Money Tree for anyone who's wondering 😋 Several countries have tried it, notably Germany after WW1 and that didn't end too well.
Current guess for kids who will be forced out of private education by Pull-the-ladder-up Sir Kneeler is somewhere between 250,000 - 500,000, and it will be the families with the least money who are hit.
Luckily there isn't a problem finding places at decent state schools these days.
and it will be the families with the least money who are hit.
I’d imagine if you’re sending your kids to a private school, then you’re hardly likely to be seen at a food bank any time soon
Let’s all get the really, really small violins out for those who claim they will no longer be able to afford their offsprings fees for their private education.
I’m sorry but taxpayers funding, through tax breaks, a system which simply entrenches inequality from school age and massively limits the life chances of the majority is absolutely indefensible
Current guess for kids who will be forced out of private education by Pull-the-ladder-up Sir Kneeler is somewhere between 250,000 – 500,000, and it will be the families with the least money who are hit.
Oh no........thoughts n' prayers.
Current guess for kids who will be forced out of private education by Pull-the-ladder-up Sir Kneeler is somewhere between 250,000 – 500,000, and it will be the families with the least money who are hit.
Luckily there isn’t a problem finding places at decent state schools these days.
Newsflash - the families with the least money aren't going to private school, and Starmer very famously didn't pay to go to his grammer. State schools are on their arses because Tories.
I’m sorry but taxpayers funding, through tax breaks, a system which simply entrenches inequality from school age and massively limits the life chances of the majority is absolutely indefensible
Agreed.
Although I've an 8.30 meeting with one of the most expensive and hope that they don't cut back too quickly until I get paid for the work. 😉
There's nothing like hearing a plummy received pronunciation at a snotty rag comprehensive.
Current guess for kids who will be forced out of private education by Pull-the-ladder-up Sir Kneeler is somewhere between 250,000 – 500,000, and it will be the families with the least money who are hit.
With due respect, I’d suggest that is exactly that, a guess. Several reasons - firstly, what’s the denominator? There are about 7% if UK children at private school (compared with 40-odd% in Aus, interestingly). Secondly, children’s schooling is an emotive issue and I’d expect people will scrimp and save to keep their kids in private school once they’re there (though obviously a big increase in fees will put people off). Lastly, private schools are businesses and they charge what they think the market will bear. If they don’t think the market will take a big increase they’ll cut fees, either by swallowing it or making things that are currently included extras.
The long and the short of this is that we don’t really know what the effect of VAT will be - Eton/Winchester/other bastion of privilege for the very wealthy will be fine, a provincial day school that’s already struggling probably not.
Of course we should be funding state education better (IIRC private schools have about 3x the income per pupil as state)…
I’m sure the extra VAT on school fees could be covered by not taking the nanny along to the ski holiday, or even downgrading the Range Rover lease to a Discovery lease.
We all have to make compromises in life eh?
My mate works as the secretary/receptionist in the estate agents in town (kirkcudbright), she gets folks from down south all the time asking her about the choice of private schools in the area and they are always surprised that the nearest would be 100 miles away in Glasgow/Edinburgh area, I guess the private school idea is pretty much an English thing.
I’m more comfortable with Starmer than Sunak as a future PM.
Can the bar go any lower?
@towpathman While it’s an easy line of attack, realistically the majority of people with kids at private school won’t have a nanny to take on the ski holiday, if they have a ski holiday - the fees for a private day school are much less affordable than a generation ago, it’s likely both parents are working professional jobs to cover them, and we’re largely talking secondary children who can get themselves home and let themselves in.
The ****panzer on lease is however entirely fair criticism.
@somafunk For reasons I don’t quite follow the Scots appear to have a different attitude to this, and the proportion of kids at private schools in Scotland is lower.
Can the bar go any lower?
What are the options?
Good grief. After Jackie Walker's history of antisemitic pronouncements and the reason for Abbott's suspension you'd think she'd have the brains to choose different company
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1795880768721531354
After 37 years in pin a red rossette on a donkey Hackney, shouldn't she give someone else a go?
Same old Labour
The charitable staus of public schools is mainly based on their granting of subsidised places. These generally go to the children of the teachers or occasionally to the children of the impoverished but titled families to add a bit of snotty glamour.
EDIT or to kids who play unusual instruments for the school orchestra. So if you sing or play at a cathedral you get your kids trained up and they get the places.
@BillMC Again, I’m not sure that’s a stereotype borne out in reality. Maybe at Winchester, very unlikely there are distressed nobility at MGS, never mind Hulme’s Grammar School.
realistically the majority of people with kids at private school won’t have a nanny to take on the ski holiday, if they have a ski holiday.
Nah, they'll have a chalet girl instead. ESF do great business with British private schools late season in some resorts, as do the kayak outdoor adventure type places though Brexit has shut some of them as they can no longer employ Brits with dodgy qualifications prepared to work for peanuts. There's been quite a shake up/out.