Join the Labour Party and save your country!

joelsim

Stevo 666 wrote:

Wallace and Gromit wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Putting the tax rates up decreases the yield, as those who can afford to (who pay the majority of tax) simply move it elsewhere.

I've been explaining this to people on this forum for ages, with real life cases but they just don't listen. Or want to.

I'm a big fan of keeping taxes as low as they need to be for the scale of services offered by the state, but how many people do you seriously think would up sticks and leave if the basic rate of income tax went up by (for example) 2p and VAT by 1%? These would raise an extra circa £15b per year, which might be quite handy.

As TM says, there is probably a lot of political reluctance to tax people on average incomes more. If you were going to raise more tax from people then in general I am more in favour of increasing VAT rather than income tax as VAT to some extent is discretionary depending on whether you decide to spend.

And when it comes to top rates, here's what happened when Labour raised the top rate of income tax from 40% to 50%:
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/www.hmrc.gov.uk/budget2012/excheq-income-tax-2042.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj5rouHufHOAhXrIMAKHVawDUcQFggnMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGurUmzeQrVHGjRJWHlM49YnYfiGQ
According to HMRC's own figures, pretty much nothing. The main reasons - the behavioural response. The same applies with corporate rates - even easier to mitigate as I know pretty well from experience.

What happens is that the rich simply avoid paying it by investing in other stuff/getting their accountants to move their money etc. Those who lose out are the middle-income earners who don't have the luxury of being able to do that easily/cost effectively.

Therefore yield decreases as the increase in middle-income taxes is lower than the decrease in top-income yield. Tax the rich, tax the rich! It doesn't work.

BTW Corbyn has surpassed himself with this one.

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/09 ... sh-workers

A vote for Corbyn now is pretty much a vote for the Tories in the next GE. Why not bypass everything and just stick your X in the ultra-right-wing box.

joelsim

Have a look at the figures on this.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/03/ce ... ng-budget/

kingstongraham

Joelsim wrote:

Have a look at the figures on this.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/03/ce ... ng-budget/

If it's what the "taxpayers alliance" think, it's probably wrong, and possibly evil. That's my starting point anyway.

I asked how I could lend my views as a taxpayer to their campaigns but they never replied.

bompington

KingstonGraham wrote:

If it's what <whoever> think, it's probably wrong, and possibly evil. That's my starting point anyway.

KG, I think we owe you great gratitude for demonstrating exactly what is so wrong with political discourse these days. Instead of engaging with someone and demonstrating with logic and evidence what is wrong with their views, we have the ad hom "I disagree with these people so they must be wrong and evil" copout. And for "my starting point" we can really just read "my prejudice", can't we?

Sad.

Stevo_666

Joelsim wrote:

Have a look at the figures on this.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/03/ce ... ng-budget/

Good link, thanks. Back up what I have been saying for ages.

kingstongraham

bompington wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

If it's what <whoever> think, it's probably wrong, and possibly evil. That's my starting point anyway.

KG, I think we owe you great gratitude for demonstrating exactly what is so wrong with political discourse these days. Instead of engaging with someone and demonstrating with logic and evidence what is wrong with their views, we have the ad hom "I disagree with these people so they must be wrong and evil" copout. And for "my starting point" we can really just read "my prejudice", can't we?

Sad.

There are very few people or organisations that I view everything they say with that degree of suspicion. They are one of them.

So no, you can't read "my prejudice", you can read "my starting point". Thanks for asking.

bompington

KingstonGraham wrote:

There are very few people or organisations that I view everything they say with that degree of suspicion. They are one of them.

Thanks again for reinforcing my point.

We should be viewing everything that anyone says with at least some degree of suspicion: that you choose to do this for some but not others is the very definition of prejudice.

kingstongraham

bompington wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

There are very few people or organisations that I view everything they say with that degree of suspicion. They are one of them.

Thanks again for reinforcing my point.

We should be viewing everything that anyone says with at least some degree of suspicion: that you choose to do this for some but not others is the very definition of prejudice.

Do you enjoy taking what people write and rephrasing it so it meets your requirements? That's twice in a row now.

I say "I view what the taxpayers' alliance say with a high degree of suspicion". You rephrase to mean that I don't view some other people's views with at least some degree of suspicion.

I wrote some other stuff but it sounded a bit pompous.

Alex99

Stevo 666 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Let me try to make it a bit easier for you:
1. Academic achievement is higher in grammars compared to comps - see my link
2. Grammars select on academic ability so there will a proportion of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds at grammars.
3. Better academic achievement on the whole enhances life and career chances

Therefore these kids benefit.

Which one of my 3 statements above do you disagree with?

Here you go. Which points do you disagree with?

And please explain how you know better than all of the parents who want to send their kids to grammar school.

Stevo, I've read all of these post too. There is nothing wrong with the three statements that you've repeated, it's just that they don't add up to prove the point about social mobility. Of course grammar schools get better results, they cream off the birightest and (perhaps more importantly) better supported pupils.

Why isn't the % of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds closer to the national average?

Stevo_666

Excellent news, it is happening:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-37311023
Nice touch to reserve places (25% I think) to those from poorer backgrounds which I think addresses your issue about percentages going forwards.

Way better than the selection by postcode which is the case in most (allegedly) non-selectives where people able to do so buy their way into schools that draw from within a specified distance from the school.

They are also going to push for comps to be take in a quota based on ability. I heard on the radio that is already legally allowed so not 100% sure if correct.

tangled_metal

25% reserved but 75% not. So better off kids outnumber poor kids significantly. Reserve 50% and I'll think you've got something. One kid from families on benefits in sink estates to one kid from nice.neighbourhoods with privately owned housing, two cars and a couple of holidays a year.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

25% reserved but 75% not. So better off kids outnumber poor kids significantly. Reserve 50% and I'll think you've got something. One kid from families on benefits in sink estates to one kid from nice.neighbourhoods with privately owned housing, two cars and a couple of holidays a year.

Depends whether that split is fair or not on bright kids I guess - and the demographic split of well off vs not well off - I don't think 25% of all kids are poverty stricken these days. Although that can be debated till the cows come home.

In any event, it's happening.

tangled_metal

It's not happening it's just been announced that's all. Tories are united over this so it'll get through the commons. They've not got a.majority in the Lord's. It'll get through the Lord's but very watered down as to possibly be a failure.

Announcement of policy is a long way from implementation.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

It's not happening it's just been announced that's all. Tories are united over this so it'll get through the commons. They've not got a.majority in the Lord's. It'll get through the Lord's but very watered down as to possibly be a failure.

Announcement of policy is a long way from implementation.

You can hope.

Can't see the current 'opposition' stopping it. Bring it on.

mamba80

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

It doesn't help social mobility though. Is that agreed?

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

It doesn't help social mobility though. Is that agreed?

Not agreed.
- 25% of places reserved for kids from less well of backgrounds
- Proven good academic results
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/08/26/gcse-results-2016-state-school-results/
- Opportunities to enter at point other than year 7
- Assistance for other local scbools from grammars
- 'Feeder' schemes in lower income areas

Hard for me to see how this won't help. Maybe you can explain why think it won't.

Also how do you think the current 'selection by postcode' is better?

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

It doesn't help social mobility though. Is that agreed?

Not agreed.
- 25% of places reserved for kids from less well of backgrounds
- Proven good academic results
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/08/26/gcse-results-2016-state-school-results/
- Opportunities to enter at point other than year 7
- Assistance for other local scbools from grammars
- 'Feeder' schemes in lower income areas

Hard for me to see how this won't help. Maybe you can explain why think it won't.

Also how do you think the current 'selection by postcode' is better?

Responding to your point about it just being "a refinement of something that works well". Based on the current system https://fullfact.org/education/grammar- ... -evidence/

I don't see how statistics that show that schools that select clever students get better exam results proves an awful lot.

The changes should improve it, clearly.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

Not sure history proves giving what people want they leads to good decisions.
Anyway will there be free travel and free uniforms for these 25% ? A friends child from a poorer family was asked for £750 for uniform PE kit buses to go to devonport grammar for first year and they live about 7 miles away, he couldn't go.
You also not answered what happens to these kids and schools that by their very nature will have almost 100% of less able kids in their intake.... Why would teachers want to work there?

And if it's such a good system, why isn't it copied in other countries?

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

Not sure history proves giving what people want they leads to good decisions.
Anyway will there be free travel and free uniforms for these 25% ? A friends child from a poorer family was asked for £750 for uniform PE kit buses to go to devonport grammar for first year and they live about 7 miles away, he couldn't go.
You also not answered what happens to these kids and schools that by their very nature will have almost 100% of less able kids in their intake.... Why would teachers want to work there?

And if it's such a good system, why isn't it copied in other countries?

If that is the yardstick we are to use to decide if a system is suitable for our needs, the NHS is 70 years old, how many developed countries have copied our blueprint...?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

So more grammars but only 50m of funding, selective comps so where does everyone else go? Local sink school that no teacher will want to work in ?
Luckily only out for consultation, and if gov can't carry ofsted and teachers with it ? Won't stand much chance, without extra funding any reforms are just tinkering.

Give the people what they want....it will happen.

Also it will mot be forced - there needs to be approval in the relevant area. Seems pretty reasonable. Hopefully teachers will have the sense to realise that parents' wishes are paramount.

As you've been told before by a few people its about spending wisely rather than chucking money at an unreformed system. Unless you have any better ideas?

PS: in case you hadn't noticed, we already have quite a few grammar schools so this is not new, it is simply an extension and refinement of something that works well but has been prevented from expanding to meet demand by decades old legislation that was fuelled by left wing dogma.

Not sure history proves giving what people want they leads to good decisions.
Anyway will there be free travel and free uniforms for these 25% ? A friends child from a poorer family was asked for £750 for uniform PE kit buses to go to devonport grammar for first year and they live about 7 miles away, he couldn't go.
You also not answered what happens to these kids and schools that by their very nature will have almost 100% of less able kids in their intake.... Why would teachers want to work there?

And if it's such a good system, why isn't it copied in other countries?

Giving people what they want is democracy. You try going to a meeting of parent who want to send their kids to Grammar, tell they can't because it's not fair and you know better. Then see what the reaction is. Maybe from behind a chicken wire barrier a la Blues Brothers

What happens in the non-selective schools? Look at Kent or Lincolnshire where they have grammars. The answer is they carry on as normal. There is no 'sink school armageddon' here. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

As for the claim that there is no country that has selective or separate channels of secondary education, time for another round of leftie mythbusters . First country I looked at was Germany and they have it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Germany
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/germanschools.html
Whether they copied us or we copied them isn't relevant. I could look at more countries but one was all I needed to debunk your claim. Did you check before you posted?

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

And if it's such a good system, why isn't it copied in other countries?

If that is the yardstick we are to use to decide if a system is suitable for our needs, the NHS is 70 years old, how many developed countries have copied our blueprint...?

It's all gone quiet on the left

mamba80

Free ed to uni level vast majority attend state schools hi level of vocational schooling for less academic kids.... Yep the Germans have copied us haven't they???? Similar to the Swedish system you so admire
I think it's you who need to read before posting

You also haven't addressed the funding issues of sending poorer kids to grammar but then again Mrs May hasn't either.

tangled_metal

We have a really good grammar here plus a few reasonably good state, comprehensive school. There's also a few awful schools where they boast on banners outside school about their kids achieving 40% pass grades (A-E I think they put in smaller print). The good comprehensives boast of 75%A-C at GCSEs or even higher.

Then there's the comprehensive that was closed down due to prolonged poor results. Most of the manual workers at our work came from that school. There's the functionally illiterate, atrocious spelling, grammar and not one GCSE upon leaving school. Prison or dole was their lot before coming to work work at our company. Even the older guys are not much better from that school.

If you're not able to go to that one good grammar school, for whatever reason, you've got a few choices. If you're religious you can get into the only two decent comprehensive. Both church schools, CofE and Catholic. We're planning on moving to a better area so that we're in the right catchment area. A long way off because our lad is pre-school but no harm in being prepared. The benefits of being middle class and rich enough to pay 73% more on house prices to live in.the right catchment areas.

You see selection by catchment area works if you can afford it. Interesting thing is grammar schools will probably end up with what some call gaming the system like the current broken system.

German, Swedish or whatever system you want to compare ours against it doesn't matter. Our system is resulting in us dropping down OECD education lists. Will grammar schools do that just by sorting out the top 5% or whatever it is who get into grammar schools. Personally I like the German system because they rate engineers highly. There's a while technical and vocational schooling/education system. They train to their economic needs I believe. Academic gets uni education. Others aren't forgotten and left behind, they're given vocational education and training. Plus other gradings in the system. Sounds like they've got things better sorted. If grammar schools are used then you'll need a lot of money into the education of those not in grammar schools. Here you'll see those other kids abandoned. That's why I believe money found for grammars should really be spent elsewhere first to get vocational education and other positive forms of education for the masses left behind by the 11+ selection system.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Free ed to uni level vast majority attend state schools hi level of vocational schooling for less academic kids.... Yep the Germans have copied us haven't they???? Similar to the Swedish system you so admire
I think it's you who need to read before posting

You also haven't addressed the funding issues of sending poorer kids to grammar but then again Mrs May hasn't either.

They have a comparable system with regard to the criteria that you set out when you said no other country had a comparable system Rumbled...

Funding issues of sending poorer kids to GS? Not sure. Does it cost materially more than sending them to a comp? As you say, don't think she has got to the funding requirements yet but as mentioned before, pre uni education spending is protected.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

German, Swedish or whatever system you want to compare ours against it doesn't matter. Our system is resulting in us dropping down OECD education lists. Will grammar schools do that just by sorting out the top 5% or whatever it is who get into grammar schools. Personally I like the German system because they rate engineers highly. There's a while technical and vocational schooling/education system. They train to their economic needs I believe. Academic gets uni education. Others aren't forgotten and left behind, they're given vocational education and training. Plus other gradings in the system. Sounds like they've got things better sorted. If grammar schools are used then you'll need a lot of money into the education of those not in grammar schools. Here you'll see those other kids abandoned. That's why I believe money found for grammars should really be spent elsewhere first to get vocational education and other positive forms of education for the masses left behind by the 11+ selection system.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32608772

Quote:"Singapore heads the table, followed by Hong Kong, with Ghana at the bottom.
The UK is in 20th place, among higher achieving European countries,"

You're sounding a bit leftie, doing us down like that when the stats say otherwise.

But agree, we need more vocational education - this is what comps should do more of in the future when GS are wider spread and can concentrate on the academic stuff.

tangled_metal

I said dropping down the OECD rankings not at the bottom or anything like that.

I also believe OECD had another set of rankings factoring in relative wealth or some other factor. Whatever the factors used they had us lower IIRC. Personally I'd prefer to compare us against wealthy nations. Say Scandinavian countries, Germany, Netherlands, Singapore, Japan, USA, etc. We should be right up near the top. What is the size of our economy these days? Are we 5th or 6th largest? Then IMHO we should be compared with those economies around the same sort of size.

Comprehensives should be just that, comprehensive education where academic and vocational is catered for. Stuff grammar schools stream within comprehensives and give the 50 million towards bringing up all schools to the best levels in the state sector. Benchmark the best comprehensive schools even the best education systems from around the world. Leave the old ideas alone and develop better, modern ideas that truly work well for all. PS end lottery of schools where good schools result in poor being priced out of housing in their catchment. Perhaps time to change selection by catchment. Maybe take kids from outside tree catchment areas in preference if from deprived background.

I don't know but system is broken because of politicians and political ideology. Left or right have messed up the education system. Maybe let teachers design the system for a change.TM is meddling and applying personal beliefs or ideology rather than looking at evidence. I'm still expecting her plans to be watered down by the Lord's. It'll not help anything just another ideology for teachers to work around.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Free ed to uni level vast majority attend state schools hi level of vocational schooling for less academic kids.... Yep the Germans have copied us haven't they???? Similar to the Swedish system you so admire
I think it's you who need to read before posting

You also haven't addressed the funding issues of sending poorer kids to grammar but then again Mrs May hasn't either.

They have a comparable system with regard to the criteria that you set out when you said no other country had a comparable system Rumbled...

Funding issues of sending poorer kids to GS? Not sure. Does it cost materially more than sending them to a comp? As you say, don't think she has got to the funding requirements yet but as mentioned before, pre uni education spending is protected.

Who else has an 11 plus system?
More expensive schools have more expensive school trips uniforms PE kits of course kid will need to travel to these schools from out laying areas, as grammars will still be few and far between.
Agree vocational is where it's at but no plans so far to improve that.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Free ed to uni level vast majority attend state schools hi level of vocational schooling for less academic kids.... Yep the Germans have copied us haven't they???? Similar to the Swedish system you so admire
I think it's you who need to read before posting

You also haven't addressed the funding issues of sending poorer kids to grammar but then again Mrs May hasn't either.

They have a comparable system with regard to the criteria that you set out when you said no other country had a comparable system Rumbled...

Funding issues of sending poorer kids to GS? Not sure. Does it cost materially more than sending them to a comp? As you say, don't think she has got to the funding requirements yet but as mentioned before, pre uni education spending is protected.

Who else has an 11 plus system?
More expensive schools have more expensive school trips uniforms PE kits of course kid will need to travel to these schools from out laying areas, as grammars will still be few and far between.
Agree vocational is where it's at but no plans so far to improve that.

An 11+ is not the point - each country that selects on academic ability will have their own specific selection method. The point is that at least one other country differentiates based on academic ability and puts pupils into a type of school accordingly. If you want I can look at more countries but so far my strike rate is 100% as I only looked at one other and that was enough to debunk your claim.

I dont get your point about expensive uniforms and trips. All schools require uniforms - many have second hand uniform sales for those less well off. Private schools are the ones in my experience have the expensive trips. That's a matter of choice for those who choose private. My kids GS year had a trip to Ironbridge this year - hardly a bank buster. And some trips are optional.

As for having to travel in from outlying areas, well I said more than once on here that if we have more grammars that will be much less of an issue.

Also you haven't addressed Ballys point as to why no other country has copied the NHS model in 70 years. What do you think?