Labour La La Land?

So good to see the support for Margaret Hodge from fellow
Labour MP’s.

New rules brought in 2017, only one third of members needed to deselect a labour MP, it use to be 50%.

The unions are in control of the Labour Party

Grandad 1943 it is true that the "overhaul" (very posh) majority was lost in 2017 but even after a threat to remove the triple lock (or should it be loch), it left labour a long way short of being in a position to form their own government. As fir the impending election, Labour could have voted for one very recently but chickened out!!!!

mpartialandeducated the Tory Party entered the 2017 General Election campaign with a twenty three-point lead over the Labour Party in the opinion polls.

However, we all know what happened in that Ballot, Theresa May lost her overhaul majority in the House of Commons, which was the beginning of the ERG group in the party taking control of the Tories in the House of Commons with all the destruction that has wrought on this nation.

So, let us all see what this impending General Election brings forward, shall we?

Anniebach freedom of speech is most definitely allowed in the Tory party. More than twenty members, (including several senior Councillors) had their membership withdrawn some weeks back for rampant islamophobic posts on social media.

However, almost all of them where almost immediately allowed to re-apply for membership under the same names and details and have been accepted once again back into the party.

There is also the little matter of twenty-one Tory MPs having the Whip removed in the House of Commons and their party membership revoked for speaking out and voting against Johnson and Cummings on Brexit.

Oh yes, freedom of speech is very much alive in the Tory Party.

Grandad1943 your penultimate paragraph is rich.....just look at the opposition front bench if you want true buffoons!!!! Hence the popularity rating of the party, unless maybe 80% of the population are not giving the correct response that the minority demad..."for the few, not the many"

Margaret Hodge and several other MP’s who criticised Corbyn and anti semetism are facing deselection

Freedom of speech not allowed in the Corbyn / Momentum
Party,

It was Tom Watson last week.

mpartialandeducated, in regard to your post @08:19 today, Margret Hodge was invited to a one to one confidential meeting with Jeremy Corbyn to discuss the grievances she held over the handling of antisemitism claims in the party.

However, instead of using that meeting to have that frank discussion, she covertly recorded the whole conversation on her phone in the hope that Corbyn would state something which she could use to discredit him in the media.

Hodge, then "bragged" to colleagues of her action, and to her surprise has been thoroughly condemned by all including those that are normally anti-Corbyn.

Had Margret Hodge carried out the same action as an employee of a private company she would have been dismissed immediately on the grounds of "gross misconduct. So, for her consistency party to deselect her should be no surprise to anyone, especially someone who is impartial and educated.

By the way Impartialandeducated how is the enquiry into Islamophobia in the Tory party going that was so promised by Boris (The Buffoon) Johnson in his leadership campaign.

Or was that just another of his continuous stream of lies.

Looks like Labour Lala land will be free of any Jews. Margaret Hodge up for deselection by local party supported by beloved Corbyn. Disgraceful.

Whitewavemark2 Thank you for your kind offer but i shall retain one of the few democratic rights i have left and stick with the present name until someone takes it to the courts for judicial review

I think a name change is in order impartialandeducated

I could suggest a couple if you wish.

How original of you to respond with the usual predictable accusations of "chip on shoulder" "envy", etc, etc.

You have an opinion with which I do not agree, but I have not used aggressive language towards you or voiced opinions as to your motivation and character. You have shown yourself to be far from impartial and, whilst you may be well educated, your insulting comments are just rude.

Eloethan Your post is more of a tome than a comment. It has the "green eyed giant" and the "chip on the shoulder" spattered all over it. Even if we accept the reports in that most impartial publication The Gruniad, the 522 million constitutes such a drop in the ocean...would barely pay for half of the tv licences for 75s plus and certainly would go nowhere to plugging the financial gap left by abolishing such schools. Politics of envy are not progressive. Handle it!!!

I agree with growstuff, impartial, that your grasp of economics at a national level is poor. As evidenced by your trotting out the 'household budget' myth, which most economists will tell you is a fallacy.

The Spectator in February 2014 reported that:

"Britain’s wealthiest parents can have their private school fees slashed and save on their tax bills under deals being offered by some of the country’s leading independent schools.

"Under them, parents are encouraged to stump up fees in advance for all or part of the years their children are at private schools.

"The advance payment is then invested by the private school which, because of its charitable status, is exempt from paying any tax on interest earned from the investment.

"One school, Radley College in Oxfordshire, with fees of just over £30,000 a year, estimated one in six of its parents have taken advantage of the offer - with £17 million accruing to the school as a result.

"The College says that as it enjoys charitable status it does not pay tax on the interest received and add that “this can be very beneficial when parents and others are assessed at the higher rate of tax.”

"If the parents had invested the money themselves, they would have been liable to pay tax on any interest earned. In addition, they benefit from the tax-free nature of the investment through the discounts offered to them.
The plans are designed for those parents capable of paying several years’ fees in advance.

Guardian August 18

"Between 2017-22, private schools will get tax rebates totalling £522m as a result of their status as charities.

The Charities Act defines a charity as an institution that’s established for a charitable purpose and “provides benefit to the public”. While the remit of the “advancement of education” means private schools fall into this category, you would be forgiven for balking at it. Rather than providing “benefit to the public”, modern private schools too often actively harm it, giving a tiny minority of already advantaged offspring a further leg up at the expense of already disadvantaged children.

"In 2017 only 1% of private school pupils were schooled for free. In June, it emerged that private schools are spending millions more on giving affluent middle-class families fee discounts than on children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Even the means-tested bursaries include help for families on incomes as high as £140,000."

How can such a system be thought to be of genuine public benefit when only a miniscule number of free places are available to the less well off and charitable status is being used not only to directly benefit what is in effect a private business but also to benefit wealthy parents by indirectly reducing their tax burden?

Most informative Impartial , thank you.

If I may add? Corbyn is lower in the polls that Michael Foot was

* one OR two

I’m having trouble today with me words .... !!

Well I’m properly impressed Impartial by your posts! You’ve educated me this evening with one Otelli’s two points.
?

BTW are you a newbie? If so, you’re very welcome.

Trisher, Vat is not paid by most sports clubs, entrance fees to swimming baths and other organisations that do not set out to make a profit. You can doubtless afford to pay for prescriptions but do not. The general principle is that services regarded as essential or desirable do not attract VAT. I would tentatively suggest that education falls into both the categories above. Charitable status is not the same as being a charity...the recipients of such status must show that they benefit the local area in some way, eiyher by giving use of facilities or providing other services. My own local experience is of a school that puts students into a home for the elderly, provides help with youngsters in a local school, hosts football sessions for juniors and runs a political society to which people from the locality are invited free of charge. I reiteratecthe point you fail to acknowledge, namely the benefit of taking half a million out of the state system which could not cope if they had to suddenly be reintegrated.

Growstuff, you rather cleverly saw through my Gransnet identity and have outed me on one score. On the other, i was educated by the state and a refund may prove difficult. You may well draw the inference that i am now justified in supporting the concept of private schools. Let's now give up the witch hunt on such schools, dispense with the "posh boys"
Mentality. There mihht be an outcry if one began to refer to some state school adherents as "common girls" !!!!!!!

Impartialandeducated Fri 27-Sep-19 09:33:31
[...] national debt quite clearly increased while banks became in difficulty, unless you would support ridding thousands of their homes and savings. [...]Austerity is the necessary conssequence of overspending on borrowed money, ,rather like a family who perhaps move house one year and for the next couple of years have to forego a holiday. This brings me to the question of basic economics of which my understanding is shaky!!!!! The basis of an economy from the earliest times has not really changed. If you want to acquire some material benefit, you hand over the cash, trade something, offer a service in kind....otherwise you do not have it. Sadly we are paying now for Labour profligacy which on the basis of the recent Labour conference will simply be repeated under another labour govt especially led by Marxists. This is why, maisie, the polls across the country yield the lowest popularity rate sine Michael Foot.

I repeat what I said above, Impartial: Household debt is now at record heights, one third higher than it was in 2008, just before the economic crash. This dangerous increase has happened under the Tories and their austerity policies!!

Jeremy Corbyn is now the greatest recruiter for the Lib Dems

www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/jeremy-corbyn-s-brexit-position-now-a-great-recruiter-for-liberal-democrats-1-6293940

Impartialandeducated I didn't identify the people mentioned I simply posted the figures taken from a newspaper account. If you want to add more feel free.
If people want to privately educate their children they should have to pay the real cost not have discounts for charity, particularly when no one really benefits from the charity.They shoulda also pay VAT on fees If I join a club, or a gym or any other organisation I have to

Going to top public schools like Eton costs in the region of £42,000 a year - that is more than the average wage.

Even minor public schools cost a great deal of money and there are many basics and extras that have to be purchased. To imply that many of these children's parents are "sacrificing other material benefits" is a think a bit of a stretch of the imagination. No doubt a few do, but they are likely to be a small minority.

Why on earth should these schools be given charitable status? They were originally set up to benefit gifted poorer students but have been hijacked by the better off.

As I've mentioned before on this subject, when it was reported that Corbyn's marriage had failed because of a disagreement about his children being privately educated, many people commented on how selfish it was of parents, for ideological reasons, to deprive their children of a better future. If people on the left use private schools, they are criticised but if they, for ethical reasons, refuse to do so they are also criticised.