You can't help but chuckle. A short while back, true blue Tories filly, mottie and the brexer crew, were getting a hard-on over scumbag Boris and his Brexit supermajority.The Tories new strategy is to ask the voters not to give Labour too big a majority.
It all feels like smoke and mirrors, right now. Hard to see through the fug of waffle from all sides. I get the impression many of the 'red wall' voters are switching to Reform and wet Tories have gone into LibDem land, a safe haven for them whenever the right-right wing of the party gets uppish. It all depends how many have gone back to Labour after the Corbyn years and whether they can pick off any SNP seats in Scotland. Only three more weeks til all is revealed...thank the gods for footie, this summer.That is mainly because YouGov changed their methodology. That change dropped Labour from 46% to 40%. Labour have actually fallen a couple of points, though, across almost all pollsters in the past week, and the LibDems have gone up a little bit. Having said all that, I believe something closer to 2010 is much more likely than 1997.
Can anyone answer or is this just a manifesto pledge to get the simple-minded votes.
Why? They don’t get excused tax on state education?How elastic is the demand? Most predicitons are not that many will actually drop out. Private schools fees have gone up a lot in recent years without the number of pupils falling. Largely to pay for luxury facilities. I'd prefer the VAT to be phased in over say four years. I doubt anyone would then notice it. The schools would just have to cut back a bit on some of their more grandiose development plans.
They had one of the pollsters on the box. She reckons that by targeting the LIbs might get 60 seats even with relatively low numbers in the usual polls. This sort of thing makes it difficult to predict seats that will be gained., They all usually target during campaigns. This touches on why the main polls don't always indicate the actual result.For a bit of fun,
Residential public schools were around for the local rich and also for those that ran the empire. The local rich - the sort that would employ a nanny and other servants. More recently au pairs. The kids are less trouble is one sick way of looking at it. This continues until they finish education.Why? They don’t get excused tax on state education?
Why? They don’t get excused tax on state education?
I am not sure what you mean by luxury facilities, anything educational or ancillary to the educational is not by definition a luxury. The appointment without accountability on very high salaries of principals and chief executives of school clusters needs sorting out first.That seems like a red herring. I don't have an intellectual answer for you, though. I just go with my gut on this. It feels wrong to me to give tax subsidies for people to give their children an advantage in life. And in particular, I don't see why luxury facilities should be subsidised.
I am not sure what you mean by luxury facilities, anything educational or ancillary to the educational is not by definition a luxury. The appointment without accountability on very high salaries of principals and chief executives of school clusters needs sorting out first.
Private schools, whether you like them, or not are a business. Usually successful, and usually effective at their aim, but still a business.I am not sure what you mean by luxury facilities, anything educational or ancillary to the educational is not by definition a luxury. The appointment without accountability on very high salaries of principals and chief executives of school clusters needs sorting out first.