Bye Bye Sunak..

[IanF]

Spain is a PR country and the two parties PSOE and PP have been the leaders since the early 80’s with support provided by a multitude of smaller parties providing the required numbers in a coalition. But PSOE and PP have always been the big two and recently have had to have numerous elections to form a workable government.. it doesn’t seem an improvement.

Could you explain what you think would be the benefits, because I honestly think any change to our system will only end up with people continuing to vote as they do currently, ie the majority for the big two, plus there’ll be plenty of spin off engineering to fatten the coffers of a few that we could do without. Then you have the issue of Scotland and Wales voters - how do you determine weighting? If it’s one person, one vote then they become insignificant. If it’s more, then you’ll end up with a very isolationist England who will go far-left and right, as the media will spin and get everybody frothing..

It’s a noble idea, but I think it ignores the ignorant behaviour that our compatriots display daily.

[IanF]

You'll get extreme representation (look at what the Danish People's Party managed to do), but with PR you'll get likely get coalitions which by their nature should temper things. Not perfect, but nobody claimed that.

The solution to effective progress is to look at what other countries do. One example is the infrastructure commission in Denmark (and other equivalents elsewhere). They're apolitical and have as remit the long-term development of national infrastructure divorced from the election cycle. Still government funded though, but less of a hot potato.

Nah, politicians are self serving hypocrites “we didn’t want to, but didn’t have a choice” was the theme of the Lib Dem’s whilst in coalition. Anybody who wants to be a politician should be immediately banned from holding a political position of authority has never been truer!

[dinny_g]

Spain is a PR country and the two parties PSOE and PP have been the leaders since the early 80’s with support provided by a multitude of smaller parties providing the required numbers in a coalition. But PSOE and PP have always been the big two and recently have had to have numerous elections to form a workable government.. it doesn’t seem an improvement.

Same in Ireland - it’s either Fianna Fáil + Others or Fine Gael + Orhers.

The others never have sufficient seats to to force anything but a handful of their policies in so it’s still a two party system.

In fact the Green Party largely killed themselves as a party in Ireland by going into coalition and having to support massive austerity because it was the only choice when you’re in Power and have all the facts

[GG.]

Basically you're going to have the Con-Lib or Lab-lib government + ad hoc fringe nutters as the new norm. Who here thought the Con-Lib government was a roaring success for example?

[DeskJockey]

The benefits of PR very much depends on what flavour is being implemented (e.g. how many controls are put in place, such as minimum limits, and the like). However, in principle I think it boils down to a system of elections that is

- less prone to gerrymandering and bias towards one party (e.g. lib-lab splitting the non-tory vote effectively gifting them a seat they don't deserve because there is no other realistic alternative on the right).
- no more swing seats being the only thing that matters because all votes count, so there is (should be) nothing like a safe seat.
- all votes count. If you vote for a party that is standing, your vote goes towards their total at the national level. Yes, that potentially opens the door to fringe parties, but that is part of the price of allowing everybody to make their choice in a fair contest, and it is generally tempered by the fact they tend to be small because there will be far more parties to vote for.
- the chance to vote for a party that more closely aligns with your beliefs or aims, rather than tactical voting or voting against.
- the opportunity to reinvigorate the voters because there is choice and it matters.
- a way to (possibly/hopefully) rebuild faith and trust in politicians as opposed to the current Kafkaesque downwards spiral of doom, where the tories and government seem to be competing to be the most awful/inept/incompetent/corrupt/shameless/appalling.

I'm not saying it will be movie montage easy and slick and suddenly it will all just pan out magically. But I genuinely cannot see how things can carry on with a system that is so fundamentally broken. Even if the tories are wiped out for good in the next GE it is still effectively a two party state, and the binary oppositions restrict debate and opportunity to evolve the system when you can only ever be for, against or sidelined. A more coalition based style of goverment will give broader representation and hopefully better solutions, but at the risk of being bogged down or compromise the outcome.

But I would frankly prefer that to the curent insanity.

[V8Granite]

I just wish they would work as a team, stop slagging people off in their own party and all agree to work towards a common plan from the PM.

We don’t know if any plan will work as people have their own vested interests. Which doesn’t work in any other area at all, which even a child knows but seemingly politicians don’t.

Dave!

[Rich B]

I actually don't think it will be as dramatic a fall for the Tories as this. They seem to be moving away from the disgusting self serving incompetent "characters" like Jacob Rees Mog, BoJo, Preti Patel, etc and settling down a bit with (slightly dull but not batshit) Sunak and Hunt (obviously Braverman is still a dick).

They'll spend the next year trying to win over every group they can one at a time (as they've started already with the motorists). All the time distancing themselves from the last 13 years. Whilst labours lead will just get eroded away because their policies will be presented as wishy-washy.

Then in a years time we'll (we as a country) somehow get hoodwinked into thinking they're still the "safe pair of hands" and vote for them again.

And repeat.

[dinny_g]

I’ve said it before, Labour need to be given a go.

The Conservatives have been in Power for too long and a lot of people think they’re failing mahoosively

So give Labour a go to see if they can do better or if in fact, running the country has been so challenging since 2098 that in truth, the Conservatives weren’t as bad as people think.

Either us very good for the country

[jamcg]

With regard to the conservatives- It all feels like a party that doesn’t want to be in charge, but doesn’t want to admit they don’t want to be in charge, so are trying to push labour into calling for a general election- that way it’s not “their fault” if they get removed

[GG.]

Yes agree. It has been an epically long stint in government if you think about it - back to Cameron via the coalition in 2010. Just as long as the Blair-Broon era.

Ironically, normally the most significant issue with Labour is their tax and spend policies bankrupt the country but here the conservatives have already done it for them courtesy of Covid... Still, Labour's class warfare tax on independent schools will immediately cost a lot of people c.£400 a month per child (!) extra in tax for the outrageous act of saving the state sector money. £800 a month pre tax salary, £8,600 a year per child - £25,000 a year extra tax for some with 3 kids in private school on top of what they're already shelling out in a high inflation environment when they're tax bill has been continuously going up over the last few years.

That will be immediately disastrous as you can plainly see tens of thousands of kids are going to end up back in overflowing state schools - 30% of parents with kids in private schools have said they'll "definitely" be pulling their kids out when polled. That's before considering all the bursarys for kids in deprived areas. Sad as it is, the most sensible thing the private schools could do to maintain their income is to axe all bursaries overnight and keep the fee increase to a minimum - social progress comrades!!

So naturally they're still stupid and vindictive enough that I'd never vote for them and that's without the repugnant race and gender baiting and virtue signalling on a whole gamut of social matters.

[Jobbo]

I actually don't think it will be as dramatic a fall for the Tories as this. They seem to be moving away from the disgusting self serving incompetent "characters" like Jacob Rees Mog, BoJo, Preti Patel, etc and settling down a bit with (slightly dull but not batshit) Sunak and Hunt (obviously Braverman is still a dick).

They'll spend the next year trying to win over every group they can one at a time (as they've started already with the motorists). All the time distancing themselves from the last 13 years. Whilst labours lead will just get eroded away because their policies will be presented as wishy-washy.

Then in a years time we'll (we as a country) somehow get hoodwinked into thinking they're still the "safe pair of hands" and vote for them again.

And repeat.

Sunak became PM by default - he was beaten in popularity by the inept Truss and nobody else really wanted the job. The competition was awful so there’s no great depth to the talent.

Hunt has hidden away and was never liked beforehand. He’s not popular, just seen as a backroom boy with a steady hand so better than we’ve suffered previously. If he ever wanted real power, his track record with the NHS would destroy his chances.

Even some of the seemingly decent MPs such as Mark Harper and Alex Chalk have put their backing to fairly indefensible policies in the past so as they rise that could come and bite them. The Tories have a pretty unfortunate legacy which will taint them for a generation.

Saddens me to say it; I’ve never voted Labour.

[Rich B]

Yes agree. It has been an epically long stint in government if you think about it - back to Cameron via the coalition in 2010. Just as long as the Blair-Broon era.

Ironically, normally the most significant issue with Labour is their tax and spend policies bankrupt the country but here the conservatives have already done it for them courtesy of Covid... Still, Labour's class warfare tax on independent schools will immediately cost a lot of people c.£400 a month per child (!) extra in tax for the outrageous act of saving the state sector money. £800 a month pre tax salary, £8,600 a year per child - £25,000 a year extra tax for some with 3 kids in private school on top of what they're already shelling out in a high inflation environment when they're tax bill has been continuously going up over the last few years.

That will be immediately disastrous as you can plainly see tens of thousands of kids are going to end up back in overflowing state schools - 30% of parents with kids in private schools have said they'll "definitely" be pulling their kids out when polled. That's before considering all the bursarys for kids in deprived areas. Sad as it is, the most sensible thing the private schools could do to maintain their income is to axe all bursaries overnight and keep the fee increase to a minimum - social progress comrades!!

So naturally they're still stupid and vindictive enough that I'd never vote for them and that's without the repugnant race and gender baiting and virtue signalling on a whole gamut of social matters.

I don't disagree with that, but I still don't see why the top private schools like Eton should be classed as a charity and all the benefits that brings for funding and tax.

I think the answer will be that some of the private schools will have to lower their prices and costs to keep the kids there. If you're saying that 30% of kids will leave then they'll have no choice but to cut some costs.

If the extra 20% costs you £25k extra a year, then you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy as you can happily afford the other £100k.

[Mito Man]

Yes agree. It has been an epically long stint in government if you think about it - back to Cameron via the coalition in 2010. Just as long as the Blair-Broon era.

Ironically, normally the most significant issue with Labour is their tax and spend policies bankrupt the country but here the conservatives have already done it for them courtesy of Covid... Still, Labour's class warfare tax on independent schools will immediately cost a lot of people c.£400 a month per child (!) extra in tax for the outrageous act of saving the state sector money. £800 a month pre tax salary, £8,600 a year per child - £25,000 a year extra tax for some with 3 kids in private school on top of what they're already shelling out in a high inflation environment when they're tax bill has been continuously going up over the last few years.

That will be immediately disastrous as you can plainly see tens of thousands of kids are going to end up back in overflowing state schools - 30% of parents with kids in private schools have said they'll "definitely" be pulling their kids out when polled. That's before considering all the bursarys for kids in deprived areas. Sad as it is, the most sensible thing the private schools could do to maintain their income is to axe all bursaries overnight and keep the fee increase to a minimum - social progress comrades!!

So naturally they're still stupid and vindictive enough that I'd never vote for them and that's without the repugnant race and gender baiting and virtue signalling on a whole gamut of social matters.

I don't disagree with that, but I still don't see why the top private schools like Eton should be classed as a charity and all the benefits that brings for funding and tax.

I think the answer will be that some of the private schools will have to lower their prices and costs to keep the kids there. If you're saying that 30% of kids will leave then they'll have no choice but to cut some costs.

If the extra 20% costs you £25k extra a year, then you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy as you can happily afford the other £100k.

I don’t know about day private schools but boarding schools will happily raise prices and just ended up with a larger proportion of overseas pupils.

[dinny_g]

If the extra 20% costs you £25k extra a year, then you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy as you can happily afford the other £100k.

Not saying you’re Left Rich but this is the fallacy of the left.

Just because you can afford £100k for schooling, doesn’t mean you can easily afford another £25.

The belief that “the rich”

a. have endless supplies of money that can be taxed
b. wont make decisions (by choice or by necessity) that will reduce or eliminate the tax increase

[GG.]

If the extra 20% costs you £25k extra a year, then you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy as you can happily afford the other £100k.

Not saying you’re Left Rich but this is the fallacy of the left.

Just because you can afford £100k for schooling, doesn’t mean you can easily afford another £25.

The belief that “the rich”

a. have endless supplies of money that can be taxed
b. wont make decisions (by choice or by necessity) that will reduce or eliminate the tax increase

Exactly - very much so. A couple of our friends have three kids - two at our school. They’ve just moved house and the wife has lost her job. They now have some very painful decisions to make. Taking the attitude that ‘you guys can afford it’ is exactly the sort of cuntish attitude that those on the left attribute to right leaning middle class people.

Meanwhile we’ve been having a chat around the dinner table about moving out to Hong Kong. It wouldn’t be easy but each year that passes is making it more of a tangible option.

[Rich B]

If the extra 20% costs you £25k extra a year, then you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy as you can happily afford the other £100k.

Not saying you’re Left Rich but this is the fallacy of the left.

Just because you can afford £100k for schooling, doesn’t mean you can easily afford another £25.

The belief that “the rich”

a. have endless supplies of money that can be taxed
b. wont make decisions (by choice or by necessity) that will reduce or eliminate the tax increase

Exactly - very much so. A couple of our friends have three kids - two at our school. They’ve just moved house and the wife has lost her job. They now have some very painful decisions to make. Taking the attitude that ‘you guys can afford it’ is exactly the sort of cuntish attitude that those on the left attribute to right leaning middle class people.

Meanwhile we’ve been having a chat around the dinner table about moving out to Hong Kong. It wouldn’t be easy but each year that passes is making it more of a tangible option.

you have choices. I have choices. I'm an additional rate tax payer and I realise I'm in a privileged position. even so, money is not endless and plenty of the time I wish I could afford x or y, but the reality is - I have the choice to spend my money on what I deem important rather than having to decide whether I have food or heating.

The schools will have to adjust their model to suit if we decide that private schools shouldn't be treated as charities. Normal schools get their funding cut all the time and have to make hard choices.

[Swervin_Mervin]

I'm sure it's just carrot dangling from Starmer - trying to.play up the politics of envy angle which he hasn't really done so far whilst he's headed up Lab. Any revenue it raises will be piffling in the grand scheme, even before you factor in the additional cost to the state to accommodate tens of thousands of new pupils.

To be clear, Starmer has rowed back on the charity point and is now just suggesting VAT will be levied. Although there's been suggestions that may be against retained EU laws which specifically dictate that education services can't be taxed! Oh the irony

[Jobbo]

If the extra 20% costs you £25k extra a year, then you're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy as you can happily afford the other £100k.

Not saying you’re Left Rich but this is the fallacy of the left.

Just because you can afford £100k for schooling, doesn’t mean you can easily afford another £25.

The belief that “the rich”

a. have endless supplies of money that can be taxed
b. wont make decisions (by choice or by necessity) that will reduce or eliminate the tax increase

Free market economics does not mean favouring particular business sectors. That’s not a left wing view; I’d say it’s a right wing view. It’s not as if Rich is suggesting banning private schools.

[dinny_g]

That’s not what I was saying

[Jobbo]

It is the corollary of what you’re saying though. If you want to run an alternative to the state school system, why is it fair to get a tax break? A private school is just a business.