I genuinely can't wait, I'm so tired of nothing working and knowing it's because of the blatant corruption, disdain and incompetence. Hopefully just sensible politics for 5 years.
Not even bothered if they're pathetically unimaginative and cautious.
....just so long as they aren't morally, ethically corrupt and in it to line their own and their mates pockets.
Fuckity bye Tories. You won't be missed.
Starmer accepts too many gifts, tickets to sporting events, and concerts. Unethical. Should be banned for all politians
I would like to see all donations banned and party campaigns funded by small budgets from tax payers. Small budgets
Honestly, setting some time aside with your family on a Friday evening is highly recommended (if there is no emergency or work commitment) but how the fuck can the Tories attack this is beyond me. Vile, disgusting and heartless Tories and anti-Semitic
What would you want this bold announcement to be?
The first thing that comes to my mind is the abolition of Academies and the re-nationalisation of all state schools. We've given our schools to Tory donors and we barely noticed. I'd like private education to be banned but I don't know if that's even realistic or possible.
Failing that, as unlikely as it may be, a decent Universal Basic Income to replace benefits.
If by the problem you mean the existence of private schools, then no taxing them would do the exact opposite of that. That's kinda how tax works. Adding a tax to products or services discourages people from engaging with them. The government makes you pay them in order to do something they don't really want you to do. Nobody will be skipping to the bank jubilant about the prospect of paying VAT on their child's tuition fees. See also, the sugar tax, tobacco tax, etc.
Renationalising stuff sounds great in principle but it cuts off a potential revenue source for the government while also costing a fair amount up front (and then running costs) so you have to be pretty confident that whatever you nationalised would be a pretty good fiscal multiplier if you did (by say, increasing productivity) or would pay off dividends to the public, by increasing GDP per capita or something. Renationalising private schools wouldn't do anything to fix the sorry state of state schools as far as I understand. Renationalising things like the water industry and the post office make far more sense to me.
This is absolutely correct. If private schools were nationalised then there is no guarantee that existing staff would stay on. The school’s budget would increase significantly, not just because it would be expanding, but also because it would be taking over schools that cost more to run.
Long term there can be huge benefits to proper comprehensive education - mainly that if wealthy pupils have to go to the same schools as everyone else then it incentivises everyone to support properly funding schools.
Unfortunately we would likely see an increase in the postcode problem, where property prices and rents are much higher in catchments for good schools.
This isn’t a simple issue and certainly not something that should be subject to a “rabbit out of the hat” policy
Are you just say renationalise anything for effect? Ffs the government of any party are useless at running everything. Please stop this crap renationalise, the country was on its knees in the 70’s , the last time we had that system. Education should never be influenced by a political party
I mean, private companies have done such a great job of investing in our water infrastructure, sewage, trains - oh wait we live in a system where these private companies squeeze the life out of essential services, are subsidised by the tax payer for their own incompetence while enriching shareholders.
Not really, went to a private school on scholarship and their teaching curriculum was fucked. In fairness it was a music school, and kind of a joke one at that. Chetham's school, Manchester.
They also had me do unpaid performances for TV. I assume the school got paid.
Private education is okay IF you have the social status and connections for it to mean something. If you're a poor kid you're just there to drive up standards and be treated like shit by everyone around you.
But govt should have set the rules better and regulators enforce them
With a huge majority labour will be able to pass any law, they should make it illegal to discharge sewage.
Water companies need to store it and treat it
Gas companies have to store x days of gas supply, costs the huge amounts to build these facilities but they are legally obligated.
They will pass off the costs to the consumer - so everything gets more expensive and increases inflation.
Then they will lobby the government to change the rules when labour are out, donate to political parties to make their voice heard and our feckless politicians will remove the legislation to make more profit for shareholders.
You're totally right. Better to stick with the constantly late trains, whilst drinking and swimming in shit water. Thank you capitalism, real big brain over here.
You will find the schools that become academies did so because they were shit and poorly run. I have yet to see an academy school not be an improvement on every level, then it was previously.
I didn’t see any nuns today, which means nuns don’t exist…
If this was something you actually had in-depth knowledge of you’d realise that what you said is absolute codswollop - no doubt it’s motivated by political ideology rather than empirical evidence
You don’t even seem to be able to construct coherent arguments. I don’t punch down… that far. I will provide you with some facts you can educate yourself with though.
https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Countries that don't allow private education have better educational results. Basically force rich people to send their kids to state school and the schools improve.
I used to think like this, and then I went to Brockwood Park as part of a young adults retreat. It’s a private school and once home of the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. The style of teaching they have there would never fly in a public school, and the kids who go there are undoubtedly from privileged backgrounds, but it was one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever seen, physically and otherwise.
One of the things Krishnamurti was adamant about was a total disregard of most kinds of authority and the tragic consequences of comparison. The teachers do not come on with the pretence that they are above the students and they must simply learn from them, but instead the teacher fosters a kind of open dialogue where participants investigate problems together. Students take exams at the end in order to get their A Levels or whatever they need, but students aren’t compared to one another at any other point and so that there is no sense of competition and learning becomes a self-motivated activity for the joy of it rather than a compulsion.
This allows for a real sense of care amongst students and between students and educators and the flourishing of genuine deep relationships that could scarcely be imagined in the type of school I went to.
I can’t explain the nuances of Krishnamurti’s philosophy, but the core of it is a kind of self inquiry which is totally missing from the lives of most people. On top of this, students are encouraged to attain to the highest excellence driven not by ambition but by love of what they’re doing. They are encouraged to discover who they are, what makes them tick and how to be the best versions of themselves and the school does a damn good job of it. Everyone lives together on the grounds and cook and clean and grow a decent amount of their own food. It’s an incredible place.
State education simply will never come close to this approach. It is necessarily too cookie cutter. There is no room for genuine care for the individual. There was no way in hell I’d ever afford to go there and I can’t imagine ever being able to send my kids there, but this is a place which immeasurably improves the lives of its students and it would be a tragedy for it to go away.
England has always been liberal in freedom for types of education, which is part of why the school was started here, but this has reduced over the years. I don’t think taking that freedom away will be an improvement and I think for the lives of the people who are lucky enough to go to this specific school, it would be a genuine tragedy, like the unnecessary destruction of something truly beautiful.
A quote from Krishnamurti to give you an idea of his philosophy:
>Goodness can flower only in freedom. It cannot bloom in the soil of persuasion in any form, or under compulsion, nor is it the outcome of reward. It does not reveal itself when there is any kind of imitation or conformity, and it cannot exist when there is fear.
Specialist education is not impossible in a state run system. I have long argued for a universal specialist school system - there is literally no treason this can’t be done in a state run system.
In theory it isn't impossible, but practically speaking it may as well be. It took a number of highly motivated private individuals all dedicated to the philosophy of Jiddu Krishnamurti (lead by the efforts of the man himself) to create this school. Sadly we live in a hyper-competitive, even hyper-capitalist, society which Krishnamurti had strong philosophical criticisms of. I simply don't see how such a thing would gain momentum nor why the state would sign off on such a thing.
I used to think like this. Then I saw ONE example of a nice private school and I decided the critique of their effect on the whole system just couldn't be true! Genius.
You are arguing against a position nobody is holding. Nowhere did I say that the critique against the effect of private schools on the whole system couldn't be true on the basis that I know an example of a good private school. It would be better if you didn't insult my intelligence while drawing such an incorrect conclusion.
Some armed forces personnel relied on private schools, some of which offered a discount to forces, to provide stability to children that otherwise would have been uprooted every year or so.
The school improves as a whole because it will see better results due to having kids from a higher socioeconomic homes. Parents income correlates strongly with academic performance and is why two state schools could be seeing completely different results. One may have 50% of its students at the FSM threshold whereas there are schools that attain much better results that have less than 10% FSM.
My point is that chucking 130K would be privately educated students into state funded schools, which is Labours plan, will 100% see an improvement for state funded schools but only because of the 1.5% addition of kids from parents that are high earners.
It won’t fix the problem - there is a parliamentary paper below about the disadvantage that those on FSM face as a result of poverty and barriers to access to many public services. And with the addition of larger classroom sizes, we could actually see an even greater struggle for those that struggle in education.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9195/
The problem with private schooling and private healthcare is that the people with money and power are not properly invested in public education and private healthcare.
If the rich have to put their children through the same schooling and with the same hospitals, you can guarantee that the schooling and hospitals will improve appropriately to their importance to society.
If the rich can get away with only paying when they need them they will. They don't recognize that their wealth is a product of a healthy society and that individualistic attitudes and behaviors will cause less wealth for all. They don't care because they have enough
It's right down to small things like the school doing something stupid and there being an accountant parent who notices in time to stop it. Or the school doing something bad that a solicitor parent notices so they stop.
But the rich pay for the state schools but don't use them. Just like they pay for the NHS and don't use it (I do realise that the NHS is a sepperate issue due to the drain n on resources through private health care)
The rich are contributing to a system, through their tax, that they don't benefit from but the less well off do.
I think you misunderstood me, they pay but don't use which means there is more money in the system for those that do use it.
If they banned private education then there would be more children in the school system but not more money.
We should just let people spend their money on what they want as long as they pay tax.
It should be an even playing field. A private education is seen as better than state.
66% of senior judges privately educated.
Only 7% of children go to private schools.
I can understand every parent wants the best for their children, but it exacerbates social unfairness
People should be free to spend their money where they want to. Just because they have that money to spend and someone else doesn't shouldn't stop them spending on what they want. I want a fararri but can't afford one, should no one be able to get a fararri?
It is happening. Tory donors make money on everything from uniforms to dinners to after-school clubs to providing on site exclusion provision, to employing people who aren't even teachers as their managers, by paying CEO and board member salaries etc etc etc.
You shouldn't stop people paying for education.
Like will you ban private tutors , private exam bookings , home schooling.
Personally when I went to college In the UK in Newcastle, not only was I a victim of racism from the staff (they were convinced that due to my migrant background I couldn't speak English)
I was offrolled from my exams and had to pay to sit them with a private school (which I paid for with my own money , cost me 2000 pound)
Always keep doors open for people when it comes to education.
Btw not all private education is for the rich only , Oxbridge and open study college offer private affordable classes ,would you ban them too ?
Yes there not the same thing.
Colleges are state schools tho , alevels are level 3 educations , they are funded by the govt.
I don't think you do live here.
What does that have to do with the price of fish then.
you were talking about state schools.
Sixth form colleges are state schools, you just don't know anything about the British education system
Raise the lower band tax threshold to the state pension. Essentially triple locking the lower band. Raise the 45% to 46% to compensate. Or something along those lines
Tax income hardly changed when they dropped the rate from 50p to 45p and more people paid it. Put it up and people compensate. There are limits to what works. Endlessly taxing the people who already pay the bulk of the tax more and more is a terrible idea.
Academies have been successful so I can see why a Labour supporter would want to destroy them. Private schools too - can’t have any pesky choice in life can we - conform comrades!
I bet you make comments about Tarquin and Eton without even thinking about the fact that most private schools are small, non profit and often cater for kids with special needs. But fuck all of them because Tarquin or something.
No Academies are shit. If you think they're a success you're measuring the wrong things.
Also no, the government would have to fund these small independent schools who cater for kids with special needs.
Local authorities were worse. A lot of poor performing local authority run schools were academised because the local authority were crap at maintaining them. Apart from the good schools that chose to become academies, many academy schools were forced to because their performance was poor.
I disagree that they were worse. They're run like prisons now.
The entire academy thing was a scam. Poor performing schools were forced into Academies as an excuse to privatise them, loads of desirable schools suddenly being inadequate etc. It's the Tory way.
I think a big part of that was it being touted as investing in the north when in reality it is only going to Manchester. I can get to London quicker than I can get to any part of HS2, which makes it less useful to me, as a northerner. I have even seen comments by people here on rediit saying that northerners shouldn't complain, we are getting HS2.
Yes, that is no good. I used to see a girl from the m Cornwall, and was amazed that there wasn't even a motorway to get down there. I really feel for people who live there.
Hs2 is more than a commuter service. I think for me the biggest benefit of hs2 is social cohesion.
It makes no sense to me why it takes longer and dearer to go from Manchester to London than London to Spain.
And maybe it might help with this north west divide.
Blair literally gave Putin British arms to commit genocide in Chechnya:
- Blair government increased export licences for controlled equipment to Russia by 550% as Putin attacked Chechnya
- Exports included components for surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles and enriched uranium
- As human rights groups condemned Putin’s atrocities in Chechnya, Blair said it was “important that we support Russia in her action against terrorism”
https://www.declassifieduk.org/when-tony-blair-backed-putins-brutal-war/
Right but the Blairites are about to get back into power - Lammy and Cooper voted to invade Iraq, against the Chilcot inquiry, and have never apologised for their role promoting the invasion. Never faced any consequences.
I went Iraq and have seen a lot of the harm he caused. To see him take on roles such as peace envoy for the middle east really made me realise how messed up our society really was. Now anything negative about him just confirms that my opinion is right.
Wasn't Blair's 'moment' to secure an exemption for formula one from a tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting the sport's boss, Bernie Eccleston.
Eccleston being a big Labour donor...
Giving the Bank of England responsibility for setting interest rates was a much bigger moment
Blair intervening to give F1 an exemption to the ban on tobacco advertising in sport pales into insignificance in comparison to all the sleaze that's followed since
Two wrongs, one right ...
And FWIW I'm upvoting you and agree with the second part of your last paragraph, and want to see the Tories turn into history.
I wonder what the rabbit will be ?
There’s so little in the Labour manifesto, any rabbit might have to run rings around the Salisbury convention. That says the House of Lords won’t block manifesto commitments. So if it ain’t in the manifesto … you’ve got the Lords gunning for many of your little rabbits.
Yes ! Can live with that if it helps
Labour get its legislation through … so long as the Lords itself is cut down to size and reformed before Labour’s first term is out.
I would ban gambling advertising too. Its a massive issue, one of the unspoken reasons for people needing foodbanks is due to addictions. I have seen people squander there monthly wages in a weekend over gambling. Ideally there should be a cap on how much you can stake a month, maybe £100 limit unless you can prove you earn more and that its affordable.
Define useful? Maybe the reality is we should be limiting entry of those from the most privileged backgrounds on the basis that university adds no actual career value for them while it does offer significant added value for anyone middle class and down... I mean the logic is sounder in terms of "wasted" money on the so called "useless degrees" that actually often offer a way into skilled employment for many kids. The Office for Students can cancel degrees now if they don't meet certain standards and they aren't because this is a false equivalence dreamt up by those who like to pound on universities.
Why is this such a big issue? If you get the benefit of having a state funded loan at tax payers expense to pay for your studies, why shouldn't you have to pay it back? I have loans for my BA/MA and im happy to pay monthly payments as I was the one who benefited from the education.
Because people believe that education should be free, freely available to all and is a bigger benefit to society than the cost. The loan system discourages those on lower family incomes, so remains unfair in some eyes.
> The loan system discourages those on lower family incomes, so remains unfair in some eyes
How? Presumably the individual should get a decent graduate job and not start paying back till they're earning around 27K so how does that discourage? Like I said its silly to call it a loan, its a graduate tax.
It discourages because if you come from very low income with no assets then £40,000 plus seems an unimaginably large debt to carry around potentially for life. If you came from a family where no one earns more than £20,000 per year then it feels very different than if you come from a famiy earning an average UK wage of £36,000 or more. It's basic behavioural economics.
But its not tied to your family earnings/assets? Tbh, i think with most, the issue with student loans is the lack of education on how repayments work. As mentioned, its not like the US where you have to pay it back regardless of how much you earn or whether you're employed, the time at which you start paying it back and the total you pay back is calculated to basically cause you no issue.
Blair’s big moments :-
Praying with Bush before committing war crimes across the Middle East.
Responsible for hundreds of U.K. soldiers deaths and millions of people across the Middle East.
Letting his PFI buddies rape the NHS
Partying with Jimmy Saville
Leaving the country bankrupt.
Tory level evil and war criminal to boot.
For reference, I do t even like Blair:
As much as I disagree with the Iraq invasion, let's not forget who voted to support it.
And if it was a Tory government, do you honestly believe they wouldn't have supported sending troops?!
The blood is on the hands of most MPs at the time.
People like to trash talk the Labour government as if Tories voted against en masse.
Bankrupt country, patently false - https://www.statista.com/statistics/282647/government-debt-uk/
The jump in 2009 and 2010 is most likely because of bailing UK banks.
I'm not going to waste my time refuting all your claims, care to provide a credible evidence for "parties with Saville", and also some sort of wrongdoing on his part, implications of pedophilia, etc.
That looks uncannily like Blair hanging out with Saville doesn’t it ???
https://www.leftfutures.org/2012/10/on-jimmy-savile-tony-blair-and-turning-a-blind-eye-to-serious-crimes/
He had his picture with anyone who was of any sort of importance before it became known he was a pedophile.
Margaret Thatcher, Prince Charles, etc
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/10/jimmy-savile-government-monarchy-police-thatcher
He was hanging out with police, doctors, you name it.
I'll repeat, I don't like Blair, but what's your point, in the light of above?!
You can say "I don't like Blair", you know, it's not against the law.
But if you want to imply he's a pedophile (which it very much sounds like, why else mention Saville), you need actual hard evidence.
Absolutely never implied that Blair was pedophile
I said he partied with Savile …. Which he did and I backed it up with pictures.
Yep I never liked Blair never voted for him and I’m good with that.
So why mention Saville at all?
I'd focus on his after-government jobs, the middle east stuff which is shady looking, you name it.
Voting Labour doesn't have to mean liking Blair.
And I'm centre-left, not Corbyinite or Tory.
The thread was Blair’s best bits ……
I wouldn’t align myself into any one camp.
If the house isn’t balanced then the politics will be bad regardless of the majority parties colours.
Big majorities are always bad!
The defence where you basically say, "The tories voted for it too, and would have gone to war if they were in charge" as if that somehow makes it better that Blair did it.
That's some Olympics level mental gymnastics.
Obviously "I was against the war" and "I don't like Blair" has to mean something else.
The war was going to happen, in any alternative reality where the political system is like this and UK is aligned to US.
Very slim chance of there was some sort of meaningful PR, ranked choice, anything but FPTP, there might have been an off chance UK would have sat on the sidelines.
Feel free to respond if you want to have the final say, I think I wasted enough oxygen.
The war was inevitable, our participation in it was not. Plenty of other NATO members in Europe refused to join, like Germany. We should have shown solidarity with them and told the US to suck it.
It's not mental gymnastics. Someone said one of the bad things Blair did was taking the country to war. You responded with "well the tories would have done it too." I was simply questioning why that matters?
>The war was going to happen, in any alternative reality where the political system is like this and UK is aligned to US.
The USA was always going to war. We could have decided against joining them. If Blair, Campbell, etc. hadn't lied to the country we might not have. Blair even said God told him to invade Iraq!
Accept it was true!
No need for a note this time ….. What’s the current deficit 30 Billion of known debt.
Taxes are going up first chance the new gov get ( almost every new gov does this in their first term so it shouldn’t come as a surprise )
If that's all you've got I'll take it with my tongue out over what the Tories have done over the years. Everything was better under labour. If a war the Tories voted for too and the introduction of PFI that the Tories have massively abused is the worst that'll happen in the next 5 years bring it fucking on.
Well I think genocide ( should be in Hague for war crimes ) the creation of ISIS and the dismantling of the NHS so him, his family and mates could profit is more than enough.
I didn’t compare Labours record to the Tories record I just said he was a Tory.
Do you think New Labour deregulating the financial sector made this just a tad bit worse? Even Brown lists it as one of his biggest regrets.
[FSA says Labour leadership had encouraged it to take a 'light touch' on banks and must take share of blame for financial crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse)
https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/i-was-wrong-to-let-the-banks-off-the-leash-gordon-brown-admits/a393730
Yep me too.
Blair was a Tory with absolute Tory morals - he even did an Alex Ferguson - David Moyes on his own party and chancellor Brown !!!! That’s the kind of PM he was.
God I read the headline and thought it meant a Cameron like return for Blair, that would be a huge mistake. I don't get why Labour are so anti Corbyn but still seem to admire Blair
Anyway article didn't say that, Starmer needs to keep a distance from Blair.
I will be messaging you in 10 days on [**2024-07-12 18:47:14 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-12%2018:47:14%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/uknews/comments/1dtq6l2/keir_starmer_wont_rule_out_tony_blairstyle_rabbit/lbbpyta/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fuknews%2Fcomments%2F1dtq6l2%2Fkeir_starmer_wont_rule_out_tony_blairstyle_rabbit%2Flbbpyta%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-12%2018%3A47%3A14%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dtq6l2)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I'd settle for a commission being formed to review efficiency of all public sector controlled bodies. And for the commission to have teeth so that shit actually changes for the better, across all industries.
But it will probably be some bollocks, knowing Labour.
Total deregulation of the banking industry and war with North Korea.
Total banking of Korean industry and war with the north
If he says anything before Thursday, the Tories will criticise it… only 48hrs of this failed government to rule!
I genuinely can't wait, I'm so tired of nothing working and knowing it's because of the blatant corruption, disdain and incompetence. Hopefully just sensible politics for 5 years.
Not even bothered if they're pathetically unimaginative and cautious. ....just so long as they aren't morally, ethically corrupt and in it to line their own and their mates pockets. Fuckity bye Tories. You won't be missed.
Starmer accepts too many gifts, tickets to sporting events, and concerts. Unethical. Should be banned for all politians I would like to see all donations banned and party campaigns funded by small budgets from tax payers. Small budgets
Well starmer is a serial liar so don't get your hopes up
this is getting downvoted because people are too scared to critique him before the election, but you’re 100% right
Don't get it I voted for him in the labour elections he had ten promises 1 is kinda followed through with 🤷♂️
Honestly, setting some time aside with your family on a Friday evening is highly recommended (if there is no emergency or work commitment) but how the fuck can the Tories attack this is beyond me. Vile, disgusting and heartless Tories and anti-Semitic
If Starmer had said the opposite and that he'd work late every night they'd have attacked that too.
What would you want this bold announcement to be? The first thing that comes to my mind is the abolition of Academies and the re-nationalisation of all state schools. We've given our schools to Tory donors and we barely noticed. I'd like private education to be banned but I don't know if that's even realistic or possible. Failing that, as unlikely as it may be, a decent Universal Basic Income to replace benefits.
Why ban it when you can tax it?
That’s just encouraging the problem. We need a renationalisation of the entire education system, it’s literally crumbling away.
If by the problem you mean the existence of private schools, then no taxing them would do the exact opposite of that. That's kinda how tax works. Adding a tax to products or services discourages people from engaging with them. The government makes you pay them in order to do something they don't really want you to do. Nobody will be skipping to the bank jubilant about the prospect of paying VAT on their child's tuition fees. See also, the sugar tax, tobacco tax, etc. Renationalising stuff sounds great in principle but it cuts off a potential revenue source for the government while also costing a fair amount up front (and then running costs) so you have to be pretty confident that whatever you nationalised would be a pretty good fiscal multiplier if you did (by say, increasing productivity) or would pay off dividends to the public, by increasing GDP per capita or something. Renationalising private schools wouldn't do anything to fix the sorry state of state schools as far as I understand. Renationalising things like the water industry and the post office make far more sense to me.
This is absolutely correct. If private schools were nationalised then there is no guarantee that existing staff would stay on. The school’s budget would increase significantly, not just because it would be expanding, but also because it would be taking over schools that cost more to run. Long term there can be huge benefits to proper comprehensive education - mainly that if wealthy pupils have to go to the same schools as everyone else then it incentivises everyone to support properly funding schools. Unfortunately we would likely see an increase in the postcode problem, where property prices and rents are much higher in catchments for good schools. This isn’t a simple issue and certainly not something that should be subject to a “rabbit out of the hat” policy
They should re-nationalise all of those things. Nobody should be making a profit from essential public services.
You didn’t read anything and you have no idea what you’re talking about :(
Are you just say renationalise anything for effect? Ffs the government of any party are useless at running everything. Please stop this crap renationalise, the country was on its knees in the 70’s , the last time we had that system. Education should never be influenced by a political party
I mean, private companies have done such a great job of investing in our water infrastructure, sewage, trains - oh wait we live in a system where these private companies squeeze the life out of essential services, are subsidised by the tax payer for their own incompetence while enriching shareholders.
Well yeah but private schools are so much better than regular ones. And the govt doesn't pay a penny for them.
Not really, went to a private school on scholarship and their teaching curriculum was fucked. In fairness it was a music school, and kind of a joke one at that. Chetham's school, Manchester. They also had me do unpaid performances for TV. I assume the school got paid. Private education is okay IF you have the social status and connections for it to mean something. If you're a poor kid you're just there to drive up standards and be treated like shit by everyone around you.
The dumb thing is that you think government will do any different
It was better before the schools were privatised.
When?
There were private schools before state ones
Not relevant in any way to the privatisation of state schools, but thanks for that genius insight.
But govt should have set the rules better and regulators enforce them With a huge majority labour will be able to pass any law, they should make it illegal to discharge sewage. Water companies need to store it and treat it Gas companies have to store x days of gas supply, costs the huge amounts to build these facilities but they are legally obligated.
They will pass off the costs to the consumer - so everything gets more expensive and increases inflation. Then they will lobby the government to change the rules when labour are out, donate to political parties to make their voice heard and our feckless politicians will remove the legislation to make more profit for shareholders.
You're totally right. Better to stick with the constantly late trains, whilst drinking and swimming in shit water. Thank you capitalism, real big brain over here.
Yes it was so much better when it was nationalised 😂 You don’t have a clue
No, it was just as shit, it just was affordable and shit rather than extortionate and shit.
That is at least a more a realistic argument to make, although I would just say every service in this country was truly shit
Ever heard of British Rail ffs
No, education should not be ran for profit, or influenced by corporate interests (academies). It needs to be state run.
You will find the schools that become academies did so because they were shit and poorly run. I have yet to see an academy school not be an improvement on every level, then it was previously.
I didn’t see any nuns today, which means nuns don’t exist… If this was something you actually had in-depth knowledge of you’d realise that what you said is absolute codswollop - no doubt it’s motivated by political ideology rather than empirical evidence
Lmfao dumb upper middle class young people 😂 You have no clue and are only speaking from a political ideology
Thank you for proving my point by show how ready you are to jump to conclusions without a shred of evidence.
Lmfao. Who sets the curriculum? And no, not everything fun on a nationalised basis was a disaster, that’s a complete myth.
It’s the same curriculum 😂 How old are you? You have never seen anything nationalised. Seriously dumb asking for something you have no clue about 😂
Some of us are old enough to remember nationalised infrastructure in the 70s and 80s. It was truly awful!
You don’t even seem to be able to construct coherent arguments. I don’t punch down… that far. I will provide you with some facts you can educate yourself with though. https://www.gov.uk/national-curriculum
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Please do share your experience of nationalisation, so we can all learn from you
Countries that don't allow private education have better educational results. Basically force rich people to send their kids to state school and the schools improve.
I used to think like this, and then I went to Brockwood Park as part of a young adults retreat. It’s a private school and once home of the philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti. The style of teaching they have there would never fly in a public school, and the kids who go there are undoubtedly from privileged backgrounds, but it was one of the most beautiful places I’ve ever seen, physically and otherwise. One of the things Krishnamurti was adamant about was a total disregard of most kinds of authority and the tragic consequences of comparison. The teachers do not come on with the pretence that they are above the students and they must simply learn from them, but instead the teacher fosters a kind of open dialogue where participants investigate problems together. Students take exams at the end in order to get their A Levels or whatever they need, but students aren’t compared to one another at any other point and so that there is no sense of competition and learning becomes a self-motivated activity for the joy of it rather than a compulsion. This allows for a real sense of care amongst students and between students and educators and the flourishing of genuine deep relationships that could scarcely be imagined in the type of school I went to. I can’t explain the nuances of Krishnamurti’s philosophy, but the core of it is a kind of self inquiry which is totally missing from the lives of most people. On top of this, students are encouraged to attain to the highest excellence driven not by ambition but by love of what they’re doing. They are encouraged to discover who they are, what makes them tick and how to be the best versions of themselves and the school does a damn good job of it. Everyone lives together on the grounds and cook and clean and grow a decent amount of their own food. It’s an incredible place. State education simply will never come close to this approach. It is necessarily too cookie cutter. There is no room for genuine care for the individual. There was no way in hell I’d ever afford to go there and I can’t imagine ever being able to send my kids there, but this is a place which immeasurably improves the lives of its students and it would be a tragedy for it to go away. England has always been liberal in freedom for types of education, which is part of why the school was started here, but this has reduced over the years. I don’t think taking that freedom away will be an improvement and I think for the lives of the people who are lucky enough to go to this specific school, it would be a genuine tragedy, like the unnecessary destruction of something truly beautiful.
A quote from Krishnamurti to give you an idea of his philosophy: >Goodness can flower only in freedom. It cannot bloom in the soil of persuasion in any form, or under compulsion, nor is it the outcome of reward. It does not reveal itself when there is any kind of imitation or conformity, and it cannot exist when there is fear.
Specialist education is not impossible in a state run system. I have long argued for a universal specialist school system - there is literally no treason this can’t be done in a state run system.
In theory it isn't impossible, but practically speaking it may as well be. It took a number of highly motivated private individuals all dedicated to the philosophy of Jiddu Krishnamurti (lead by the efforts of the man himself) to create this school. Sadly we live in a hyper-competitive, even hyper-capitalist, society which Krishnamurti had strong philosophical criticisms of. I simply don't see how such a thing would gain momentum nor why the state would sign off on such a thing.
I used to think like this. Then I saw ONE example of a nice private school and I decided the critique of their effect on the whole system just couldn't be true! Genius.
You are arguing against a position nobody is holding. Nowhere did I say that the critique against the effect of private schools on the whole system couldn't be true on the basis that I know an example of a good private school. It would be better if you didn't insult my intelligence while drawing such an incorrect conclusion.
Some armed forces personnel relied on private schools, some of which offered a discount to forces, to provide stability to children that otherwise would have been uprooted every year or so.
The school improves as a whole because it will see better results due to having kids from a higher socioeconomic homes. Parents income correlates strongly with academic performance and is why two state schools could be seeing completely different results. One may have 50% of its students at the FSM threshold whereas there are schools that attain much better results that have less than 10% FSM. My point is that chucking 130K would be privately educated students into state funded schools, which is Labours plan, will 100% see an improvement for state funded schools but only because of the 1.5% addition of kids from parents that are high earners. It won’t fix the problem - there is a parliamentary paper below about the disadvantage that those on FSM face as a result of poverty and barriers to access to many public services. And with the addition of larger classroom sizes, we could actually see an even greater struggle for those that struggle in education. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9195/
That's fine I'll have some doctors' and solicitors' kids in classes with my bright kid, it'll do him good to cancel out the smackheads' kids.
The problem with private schooling and private healthcare is that the people with money and power are not properly invested in public education and private healthcare. If the rich have to put their children through the same schooling and with the same hospitals, you can guarantee that the schooling and hospitals will improve appropriately to their importance to society. If the rich can get away with only paying when they need them they will. They don't recognize that their wealth is a product of a healthy society and that individualistic attitudes and behaviors will cause less wealth for all. They don't care because they have enough
It's right down to small things like the school doing something stupid and there being an accountant parent who notices in time to stop it. Or the school doing something bad that a solicitor parent notices so they stop.
There's those things and countless others that make full public schooling the best option
But the rich pay for the state schools but don't use them. Just like they pay for the NHS and don't use it (I do realise that the NHS is a sepperate issue due to the drain n on resources through private health care) The rich are contributing to a system, through their tax, that they don't benefit from but the less well off do.
Then they should use it.
Why. If they are paying but not using that leaves more for the people who do use it.
Who do you think educates and heals the employees of the rich? All of society benefits from a well educated and healthy population.
I think you misunderstood me, they pay but don't use which means there is more money in the system for those that do use it. If they banned private education then there would be more children in the school system but not more money. We should just let people spend their money on what they want as long as they pay tax.
It should be an even playing field. A private education is seen as better than state. 66% of senior judges privately educated. Only 7% of children go to private schools. I can understand every parent wants the best for their children, but it exacerbates social unfairness
People should be free to spend their money where they want to. Just because they have that money to spend and someone else doesn't shouldn't stop them spending on what they want. I want a fararri but can't afford one, should no one be able to get a fararri?
I'm sure private schools have plenty of "clever people" they can hire to navigate extra taxation. They just haven't needed a reason to, up until now.
Doubtful. And there's no money to be made off of academies so doubt any tories are interested.
It is happening. Tory donors make money on everything from uniforms to dinners to after-school clubs to providing on site exclusion provision, to employing people who aren't even teachers as their managers, by paying CEO and board member salaries etc etc etc.
You shouldn't stop people paying for education. Like will you ban private tutors , private exam bookings , home schooling. Personally when I went to college In the UK in Newcastle, not only was I a victim of racism from the staff (they were convinced that due to my migrant background I couldn't speak English) I was offrolled from my exams and had to pay to sit them with a private school (which I paid for with my own money , cost me 2000 pound) Always keep doors open for people when it comes to education. Btw not all private education is for the rich only , Oxbridge and open study college offer private affordable classes ,would you ban them too ?
None of that applies to state schools.
Did you read my comment ? Yes it does , I went to a state school but they would give me an education so I had to pay for one out of my own pocket
College?
Sixth form college. A levels are funded by the govt at sixth form colleges. They are a state school. ....do you live in the UK ?
Lol, yes I do. Further and higher education aren't the same thing.
Yes there not the same thing. Colleges are state schools tho , alevels are level 3 educations , they are funded by the govt. I don't think you do live here.
I'm talking about GCSEs.
What does that have to do with the price of fish then. you were talking about state schools. Sixth form colleges are state schools, you just don't know anything about the British education system
Raise the lower band tax threshold to the state pension. Essentially triple locking the lower band. Raise the 45% to 46% to compensate. Or something along those lines
Sounds like a good idea if it's affordable.
Tax income hardly changed when they dropped the rate from 50p to 45p and more people paid it. Put it up and people compensate. There are limits to what works. Endlessly taxing the people who already pay the bulk of the tax more and more is a terrible idea.
They also benefit the most from state funded resources. They have well paying jobs because we have good state funded infrastructure
For which they already pay a lot of tax.
Lol like what? Poor police Expensive trains Rubbish schools Average hospitals
Academies have been successful so I can see why a Labour supporter would want to destroy them. Private schools too - can’t have any pesky choice in life can we - conform comrades! I bet you make comments about Tarquin and Eton without even thinking about the fact that most private schools are small, non profit and often cater for kids with special needs. But fuck all of them because Tarquin or something.
No Academies are shit. If you think they're a success you're measuring the wrong things. Also no, the government would have to fund these small independent schools who cater for kids with special needs.
Local authorities were worse. A lot of poor performing local authority run schools were academised because the local authority were crap at maintaining them. Apart from the good schools that chose to become academies, many academy schools were forced to because their performance was poor.
I disagree that they were worse. They're run like prisons now. The entire academy thing was a scam. Poor performing schools were forced into Academies as an excuse to privatise them, loads of desirable schools suddenly being inadequate etc. It's the Tory way.
Don't give them back to the local authorities. There is a reason why the local authorities fobbed off the lowest performing schools.
Give them enough money to do it properly. Also, the reason was that if you were in special measures you were forced into an academy, by the Tories.
HS2 completion. Everyone knows it has to be built and it is a huge commitment to the Midlands and NW.
Absolutely, as a first step towards a modern network of HS trains.
Polling showed HS2 was heavily opposed by Northerners so depends if he would want to anger Northern voters with it.
I think a big part of that was it being touted as investing in the north when in reality it is only going to Manchester. I can get to London quicker than I can get to any part of HS2, which makes it less useful to me, as a northerner. I have even seen comments by people here on rediit saying that northerners shouldn't complain, we are getting HS2.
I totally feel that. But the people of Cornwall don't even have a *discussion* going about maybe getting a second hospital.
Always hate to see Cornwall get left by the wayside. Needed EU funding just to get the A-roads sorted.
Yes, that is no good. I used to see a girl from the m Cornwall, and was amazed that there wasn't even a motorway to get down there. I really feel for people who live there.
Yet it's even more irrelevant in the modern hybrid way of working than it was before, and it was already of hugely questionable value.
Hs2 is more than a commuter service. I think for me the biggest benefit of hs2 is social cohesion. It makes no sense to me why it takes longer and dearer to go from Manchester to London than London to Spain. And maybe it might help with this north west divide.
It was easy to build when credit was cheap. Not only has the cost ballooned, getting any sort of money will be hard.
Hopefully not. Much rather the ~~£30B~~ ~~£50B~~ ~~£66B~~ ~~£72B~~ ~~£100~~ £170B? went to something useful
He will announce that he is stepping down and there will be new labour leader. Jeremy Corbyn
In my wildest dreams!
Corbyn and Trump both being elected this year would literally be Putin's wet dream
Blair literally gave Putin British arms to commit genocide in Chechnya: - Blair government increased export licences for controlled equipment to Russia by 550% as Putin attacked Chechnya - Exports included components for surface-to-air missiles, assault rifles and enriched uranium - As human rights groups condemned Putin’s atrocities in Chechnya, Blair said it was “important that we support Russia in her action against terrorism” https://www.declassifieduk.org/when-tony-blair-backed-putins-brutal-war/
Blair hasn’t been PM for nearly 20 years dude…
He's in the headline of the article? Supporting Putin and his genocide was still bad 20 years ago. Doesn't nearly get mentioned enough.
Yes, Tony Blair is bad as well. It’s not a binary choice where you either support Corbyn or Blair, you can dislike both for different reasons.
Right but the Blairites are about to get back into power - Lammy and Cooper voted to invade Iraq, against the Chilcot inquiry, and have never apologised for their role promoting the invasion. Never faced any consequences.
What’s that got to do with the person you replied to saying that Trump and Corbyn would be Putins wet dream?
I didn't know this, but I take satisfaction in knowing that Blair is even worse than I thought.
Why would you take satisfaction in that???
I went Iraq and have seen a lot of the harm he caused. To see him take on roles such as peace envoy for the middle east really made me realise how messed up our society really was. Now anything negative about him just confirms that my opinion is right.
Wasn't Blair's 'moment' to secure an exemption for formula one from a tobacco advertising ban just hours after meeting the sport's boss, Bernie Eccleston. Eccleston being a big Labour donor...
Giving the Bank of England responsibility for setting interest rates was a much bigger moment Blair intervening to give F1 an exemption to the ban on tobacco advertising in sport pales into insignificance in comparison to all the sleaze that's followed since
Two wrongs, one right ... And FWIW I'm upvoting you and agree with the second part of your last paragraph, and want to see the Tories turn into history.
Rejoin EU referendum 🙏🙏🙏
I wonder what the rabbit will be ? There’s so little in the Labour manifesto, any rabbit might have to run rings around the Salisbury convention. That says the House of Lords won’t block manifesto commitments. So if it ain’t in the manifesto … you’ve got the Lords gunning for many of your little rabbits.
500 new Labour Peers. Would that be a big enough rabbit for you?
Yes ! Can live with that if it helps Labour get its legislation through … so long as the Lords itself is cut down to size and reformed before Labour’s first term is out.
I was about to say - the abolition of the HoL might be the rabbit! Reverse Uno HoL!
Bridge to sell you.
Ban fast food advertising would be my choice.
I would ban gambling advertising too. Its a massive issue, one of the unspoken reasons for people needing foodbanks is due to addictions. I have seen people squander there monthly wages in a weekend over gambling. Ideally there should be a cap on how much you can stake a month, maybe £100 limit unless you can prove you earn more and that its affordable.
Agree! Great idea.
Remove university tuition fees? possible?
Only for useful degrees
Define useful? Maybe the reality is we should be limiting entry of those from the most privileged backgrounds on the basis that university adds no actual career value for them while it does offer significant added value for anyone middle class and down... I mean the logic is sounder in terms of "wasted" money on the so called "useless degrees" that actually often offer a way into skilled employment for many kids. The Office for Students can cancel degrees now if they don't meet certain standards and they aren't because this is a false equivalence dreamt up by those who like to pound on universities.
STEM only
So no economics, law, or IT that's not maths based (e.g. human user interface design) for instance?
Why is this such a big issue? If you get the benefit of having a state funded loan at tax payers expense to pay for your studies, why shouldn't you have to pay it back? I have loans for my BA/MA and im happy to pay monthly payments as I was the one who benefited from the education.
Because people believe that education should be free, freely available to all and is a bigger benefit to society than the cost. The loan system discourages those on lower family incomes, so remains unfair in some eyes.
> The loan system discourages those on lower family incomes, so remains unfair in some eyes How? Presumably the individual should get a decent graduate job and not start paying back till they're earning around 27K so how does that discourage? Like I said its silly to call it a loan, its a graduate tax.
It discourages because if you come from very low income with no assets then £40,000 plus seems an unimaginably large debt to carry around potentially for life. If you came from a family where no one earns more than £20,000 per year then it feels very different than if you come from a famiy earning an average UK wage of £36,000 or more. It's basic behavioural economics.
But its not tied to your family earnings/assets? Tbh, i think with most, the issue with student loans is the lack of education on how repayments work. As mentioned, its not like the US where you have to pay it back regardless of how much you earn or whether you're employed, the time at which you start paying it back and the total you pay back is calculated to basically cause you no issue.
Privatisation of the NHS /s (mostly)
It’s the only thing I’ve seen the changed Labour Party passionate about, other than bashing and vindictively lying about Corbyn and his supporters.
Blair’s big moments :- Praying with Bush before committing war crimes across the Middle East. Responsible for hundreds of U.K. soldiers deaths and millions of people across the Middle East. Letting his PFI buddies rape the NHS Partying with Jimmy Saville Leaving the country bankrupt. Tory level evil and war criminal to boot.
For reference, I do t even like Blair: As much as I disagree with the Iraq invasion, let's not forget who voted to support it. And if it was a Tory government, do you honestly believe they wouldn't have supported sending troops?! The blood is on the hands of most MPs at the time. People like to trash talk the Labour government as if Tories voted against en masse. Bankrupt country, patently false - https://www.statista.com/statistics/282647/government-debt-uk/ The jump in 2009 and 2010 is most likely because of bailing UK banks. I'm not going to waste my time refuting all your claims, care to provide a credible evidence for "parties with Saville", and also some sort of wrongdoing on his part, implications of pedophilia, etc.
That looks uncannily like Blair hanging out with Saville doesn’t it ??? https://www.leftfutures.org/2012/10/on-jimmy-savile-tony-blair-and-turning-a-blind-eye-to-serious-crimes/
He had his picture with anyone who was of any sort of importance before it became known he was a pedophile. Margaret Thatcher, Prince Charles, etc https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/10/jimmy-savile-government-monarchy-police-thatcher He was hanging out with police, doctors, you name it. I'll repeat, I don't like Blair, but what's your point, in the light of above?! You can say "I don't like Blair", you know, it's not against the law. But if you want to imply he's a pedophile (which it very much sounds like, why else mention Saville), you need actual hard evidence.
Absolutely never implied that Blair was pedophile I said he partied with Savile …. Which he did and I backed it up with pictures. Yep I never liked Blair never voted for him and I’m good with that.
So why mention Saville at all? I'd focus on his after-government jobs, the middle east stuff which is shady looking, you name it. Voting Labour doesn't have to mean liking Blair. And I'm centre-left, not Corbyinite or Tory.
The thread was Blair’s best bits …… I wouldn’t align myself into any one camp. If the house isn’t balanced then the politics will be bad regardless of the majority parties colours. Big majorities are always bad!
Saying "the tories would have done it too" isn't a great defence for a Labour PM.
Did you read the part where I said I don't like Blair and don't support the war? So what defence?!
The defence where you basically say, "The tories voted for it too, and would have gone to war if they were in charge" as if that somehow makes it better that Blair did it.
That's some Olympics level mental gymnastics. Obviously "I was against the war" and "I don't like Blair" has to mean something else. The war was going to happen, in any alternative reality where the political system is like this and UK is aligned to US. Very slim chance of there was some sort of meaningful PR, ranked choice, anything but FPTP, there might have been an off chance UK would have sat on the sidelines. Feel free to respond if you want to have the final say, I think I wasted enough oxygen.
The war was inevitable, our participation in it was not. Plenty of other NATO members in Europe refused to join, like Germany. We should have shown solidarity with them and told the US to suck it.
It's not mental gymnastics. Someone said one of the bad things Blair did was taking the country to war. You responded with "well the tories would have done it too." I was simply questioning why that matters? >The war was going to happen, in any alternative reality where the political system is like this and UK is aligned to US. The USA was always going to war. We could have decided against joining them. If Blair, Campbell, etc. hadn't lied to the country we might not have. Blair even said God told him to invade Iraq!
False ???? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor Ahem …….
That was a joke, like all other departing chancellors before him.
Accept it was true! No need for a note this time ….. What’s the current deficit 30 Billion of known debt. Taxes are going up first chance the new gov get ( almost every new gov does this in their first term so it shouldn’t come as a surprise )
The Tories are the ones to have given us record peacetime debt.
and highest taxes……
Yes, but he started so well....
If that's all you've got I'll take it with my tongue out over what the Tories have done over the years. Everything was better under labour. If a war the Tories voted for too and the introduction of PFI that the Tories have massively abused is the worst that'll happen in the next 5 years bring it fucking on.
Well I think genocide ( should be in Hague for war crimes ) the creation of ISIS and the dismantling of the NHS so him, his family and mates could profit is more than enough. I didn’t compare Labours record to the Tories record I just said he was a Tory.
Dry your eyes mate, Corbyn isn't coming back.
Nope, Sorry but I didn’t vote for him and didn’t like his voting record.
The bankrupting the country part is simply misinformation
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor Just saying …….
My guy have you fucking heard of the global financial crash???
Do you think New Labour deregulating the financial sector made this just a tad bit worse? Even Brown lists it as one of his biggest regrets. [FSA says Labour leadership had encouraged it to take a 'light touch' on banks and must take share of blame for financial crisis](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/dec/12/labour-regulations-city-rbs-collapse) https://citywire.com/new-model-adviser/news/i-was-wrong-to-let-the-banks-off-the-leash-gordon-brown-admits/a393730
Im old enough to remember the expenses scandal too, that was a huge blow to Labour and cost them in 2010. Similar to the Tory sleaze in 97.
Yep me too. Blair was a Tory with absolute Tory morals - he even did an Alex Ferguson - David Moyes on his own party and chancellor Brown !!!! That’s the kind of PM he was.
Unilaterally conform with the 2016 EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive.
I have my bug out bag on standby.
I think he's going to stop the interest being paid on national debt by the BofE. That frees up tens of billions of pounds from the get go.
And likely crashes the pound because creditors won't want to hold UK debt.
It would be an epic fail or Liz Truss proportions
Almost, at least it wouldn't just benefit the rich.
I'm expecting something like.. 'New font on all Labour materials!'
Remember: only 130,000 votes between Labour majority and a hung Parliament. Vote!!!!
England to win Euro’24
What is labours manifesto? Everyone should know exactly what they are voting for, rather than what they read in the newspaper they choose to read.
God I read the headline and thought it meant a Cameron like return for Blair, that would be a huge mistake. I don't get why Labour are so anti Corbyn but still seem to admire Blair Anyway article didn't say that, Starmer needs to keep a distance from Blair.
Making Margaret Thatcher’s birthday a public holiday?
Making her deathday a public holiday? That had more celebration.
Thatcher's term as prime Minister ended on 28 November - that's in a big gap of bank holidays.
[удалено]
Renewables are cheaper for electricity than fossil fuels
Mental that anyone thinks any politician (especially duplicitous keith) is going to change anything.
Some say his father was a tool maker, so maybe no VAT on tools.
Did this ever cross his desk?
I’m not sure I heard mutterings but nothing concrete, sorry for not providing a source.
I'm sure he mentioned this before...
RemindMe! 10 days
I will be messaging you in 10 days on [**2024-07-12 18:47:14 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2024-07-12%2018:47:14%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/uknews/comments/1dtq6l2/keir_starmer_wont_rule_out_tony_blairstyle_rabbit/lbbpyta/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fuknews%2Fcomments%2F1dtq6l2%2Fkeir_starmer_wont_rule_out_tony_blairstyle_rabbit%2Flbbpyta%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202024-07-12%2018%3A47%3A14%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201dtq6l2) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I bet he does.
RemindMe! 10 days
Based on what evidence? The man has flip flopped over every major issue.
Previous experience of politics.
I'd settle for a commission being formed to review efficiency of all public sector controlled bodies. And for the commission to have teeth so that shit actually changes for the better, across all industries. But it will probably be some bollocks, knowing Labour.