Meanwhile!
Labour are evidently jealous of the Tories being in a terrible situation, and have seized the moment to implode even further, at its annual Party Conference. A couple of issues here...
First, the purges!
So, Labour have set out their stall as the party of youth and the future by... eradicating their youth wing. Well, their student wing, at least - "Labour Students", seen as a bastion of counterrevolutionary and right-deviationist errors (Deputy Leader Tom Watson, used to be their leader) was thrown out of the party on literally the eve of the conference, its members turning up on the day only to have their credentials stripped from them at the door.This has been done on procedural technicalities - that the group hasn't paid its dues - yet this has been questioned, given that the group clearly has paid its dues and has provided receipts to demonstrate this. Legal disputes may follow. It's generally seen as an ideological and factional purge.
[the group will still be at the conference, however, operating their own parallel gathering, which several shadow cabinet ministers have said they'll attend]
And the ultimate target? Tom Watson. Watson, as you may remember, is the Deputy Leader, and adores the limelight. He leveraged his loud support for a massive anti-paedophile witchhunt a few years ago (which recently concluded with the alleged victim and whistleblower himself being convicted of possessing child pornography, fraud, and perversion of the course of justice) into prominence in the party, and ended up elected Deputy Leader; he used to be a voice on the left of the party, but is now considered a centrist. He has been a vociferous and unrelenting critic of Corbyn, while at the same time continually claiming to completely support him.
Relations boiled over recently when Corbyn apparently attempted to prevent Watson from giving a speech. But as the conference started, things got more serious: Momentum (Corbyn's party-within-a-party; Watson's party-within-a-party is called 'Labour First'), worried they might not have the votes in the membership to remove Watson (Labour Deputy Leader is a popularly-elected position) tabled a motion to have the post of Deputy Leader simply abolished overnight. It failed on a technicality, but was expected to be re-introduced and passed the next day.
All hell let loose, it's reported. Dozens of MPs spoke about leaving the party, either to found a new party or to join the Lib Dems, including potentially even shadow cabinet members. [And let's remember: almost everyone who didn't support Corbyn was previously either purged from the shadcab, or resigned en masse in protest. Those who survived are the people who are in theory his closest allies!]
I do mean dozens, by the way - journalists were certain of at least 35 MPs who would defect from the party on the spot, with rumours placing the total number around 50.
So they backed down. Corbyn intervened to instead propose a rather typical 'compromise' - the post won't immediately be abolished, but there will be a period of exploration that neither rules out nor rules in abolishing the post, not abolishing the post, or even duplicating the post. Momentum feel a little cheated that their assassination got called off, and called out, by their own boss. Corbyn, for his part, was unequivocal in answering the question of whether he knew about the move in advance: "I was not aware that the particular motion was going to be moved at that time", he said carefully.
Kremlinology
Why on earth did Momentum attempt this? Well, the obvious answer is straightforward: they don't like Tom Watson, and they're trying to purge the party of all dissenters, at any cost.
However, a surprising number of people, including off-the-record senior MPs, believe there's a more alarming reason. His shadow chancellor a couple of weeks ago spontaneously declared that the Dear Leader was "perfectly fit", and unlikely to die in the course of a five year premiership. This weekend an anonymous "ally" cushioned expectations by saying it wouldn't be surprising for a seventy-year-old to just "drop dead". The background here may be the leaked news six months ago that internal civil service memos had warned that Corbyn was not physically or mentally fit, and would thus need extensive assistance if he were elected. Although the suggestions were dismissed at the time - more focus being on the impropriety of civil service documents being leaked for partisan reasons - the idea that Corbyn is in some secret way desparately ill and liable to resign at any moment seems to have wormed its way into the psyche of the media and some Labour members, who immediately begin speculating at the smallest omen.
So: it's widely thought that the Watson attack may be succession planning. At the moment, Watson is only an annoyance, he has no actual power and he isn't thought to have the status, or the courage, to directly challenge Corbyn. But if Corbyn were to resign, Watson would have a much higher profile than whomever Momentum could annoint as a successor, and he'd be a serious challenger for the leadership. So it's thought that this attempted abolition of his position - which seems desparate overkill if Corbyn isn't going anywhere - may be a preemptive strike in preparation for Corbyn's imminent resignation.
Brexit?
The big issue, however, is of course Brexit. The Conference is going to decide the party's official policy on Brexit, and Corbyn helpfully provided the policy that they will agree to before the Conference even started. That policy is.... wait for it...
- Labour will, when the time is right, demand a general election again (they had been demanding it continually for years, until they were offered it, at which point they rejected the notion as absurd)
- they will, despite what the polls say, win the election overwhelmingly
- Corbyn will, within three months at most, negotiate a completely new deal with the EU
- Labour will then take that new deal to a referendum
- only at that point will Labour decide whether it supports Remain or the New Deal. It could go either way.
- Corbyn thinks that Brexit is better than Remain, provided the right deal is found.
- therefore, the party doesn't need a specific policy on Brexit yet.
Now, conference hasn't voted on that yet - or the more-than-eighty other suggested Brexit policies that members have put forward, but the NEC (the ruling politburo of the party) have agreed it, and say that this means the popular vote is irrelevent - the NEC's will overrides that of the party membership.
Others, however, are not so sure, and there's expected to be an almighty battle tomorow over whether the NEC's decision stands.
It's now emerged, however, that "the NEC" may not have agreed on this. Many NEC members have now said that it was announced that they had agreed to it before they'd even been asked, that they wouldn't have agreed if asked, and that "the NEC's" decision was not in any way binding, as it was only made by a minority of the NEC in an illegitimate way.
When asked whether this was in fact the party's policy, a senior party official explained: "God only knows".
British Politics Guide
Re: British Politics Guide
Well, the current Labour position is that, even though there is no functioning government, the Prime Minister has no popular mandate, and there are highly controversial issues under discussion, the people must not be allowed to have their say through an election.
Right now, with prorogation and No Deal, their argument that they're just temporarily preventing an election for the good of the country because we're in the middle of a crisis and we don't have time right now, has some popular weight. I'm not sure how much, but some.
But as time goes on, if Labour continue to refuse to permit a democratic election, people will increasingly suggest that this is because the polls suggest they're on track to lose a lot of seats.
Being the anti-democracy party is a difficult position for any party to maintain in the long run. So I find it hard to believe they'd be happy continually refusing to have an election for the next three years, even while everything goes to shit and the government is unable to function. It would look like they were the anti-democracy party.
Re: British Politics Guide
The Labour refusal to have an election before November is rational.
1. Boris promised come what may to be out by October 31. If the UK isn't out, he looks as useless as May. The Conservatives risk decimation as in the Euro elections and however useless Corbyn is that redounds to Labour's benefit.
2. If we have an election before November the risk is a) Boris runs Parliament vs People (and I - Boris - am on the side of the people) which risks the Conservatives actually winning and therefore b) if Boris wins he can get rid of the legislation requiring an extension and leave with no deal on Oct 31
I feel this is tactical although it would be nice if Labour had a strategy too. Everybody in the Commons but Boris and the ERG thinks no deal is a bad thing. Mind almost everybody think a deal is a bad thing and almost everyone thinks staying in the EU is bad for democracy and a bad thing, so there's no majority in favour of anything, but here we are... and here we'll probably still be after the Autumn election that is coming.
1. Boris promised come what may to be out by October 31. If the UK isn't out, he looks as useless as May. The Conservatives risk decimation as in the Euro elections and however useless Corbyn is that redounds to Labour's benefit.
2. If we have an election before November the risk is a) Boris runs Parliament vs People (and I - Boris - am on the side of the people) which risks the Conservatives actually winning and therefore b) if Boris wins he can get rid of the legislation requiring an extension and leave with no deal on Oct 31
I feel this is tactical although it would be nice if Labour had a strategy too. Everybody in the Commons but Boris and the ERG thinks no deal is a bad thing. Mind almost everybody think a deal is a bad thing and almost everyone thinks staying in the EU is bad for democracy and a bad thing, so there's no majority in favour of anything, but here we are... and here we'll probably still be after the Autumn election that is coming.
Re: British Politics Guide
I didn't say it wasn't rational, as a short-term tactic. It does indeed put Johnson on the spot.
But it's the logic of your second point that is a problem in the long term: "if we have an election, the Conservatives might get a majority and force us to respect the result of the referendum, and that would be bad, so we mustn't allow an election". That's prettty brazenly anti-democracy. And it puts them in a pickle if Johnson (or his successor) DOES get an extension - because then Labour would need to demand anothe extension beyond that, and wouldn't be able to allow an election because otherwise Johnson would get No Deal three months from now!
So I thin they can survive blocking this election now, but I don't think they can, as Raphael asks, just block every election attempt from now until 2022. I think it would be electoral suicide. I mean, to the extent that they're not already committing electoral suicide.
[I don't agree, incidentally, that the Conservatives will be lost if they ask for an extension. It'll be a big blow to Johnson personally, but if they can make it clear that it's all Labour's fault for undemocratically preventing an election and undemocratically seeking to ignore the result of the referendum, I think the Brexiteer exasperation will be outweighed by their fury toward Labour. Labour's position, meanwhile, is essentially "let's spin Brexit out as long as possible, with no clear exit strategy", which more or less what the public LEAST want.]
Speaking of Brexit positions, however: Unison, one of the biggest trade unions, have defected to Remain, so it's now thought Conference may reject Corbyn's position.
[Labour doesn't operate one-person-one-vote (that pesky democracy again!). Instead, although Corbyn brought hundreds of thousands of new members to the party, abour 50% of the voting power at Conference still rests with the Trade Unions, who until now have been firmly behind Corbyn, making the opinions of actual members largely irrelevant]
But it's the logic of your second point that is a problem in the long term: "if we have an election, the Conservatives might get a majority and force us to respect the result of the referendum, and that would be bad, so we mustn't allow an election". That's prettty brazenly anti-democracy. And it puts them in a pickle if Johnson (or his successor) DOES get an extension - because then Labour would need to demand anothe extension beyond that, and wouldn't be able to allow an election because otherwise Johnson would get No Deal three months from now!
So I thin they can survive blocking this election now, but I don't think they can, as Raphael asks, just block every election attempt from now until 2022. I think it would be electoral suicide. I mean, to the extent that they're not already committing electoral suicide.
[I don't agree, incidentally, that the Conservatives will be lost if they ask for an extension. It'll be a big blow to Johnson personally, but if they can make it clear that it's all Labour's fault for undemocratically preventing an election and undemocratically seeking to ignore the result of the referendum, I think the Brexiteer exasperation will be outweighed by their fury toward Labour. Labour's position, meanwhile, is essentially "let's spin Brexit out as long as possible, with no clear exit strategy", which more or less what the public LEAST want.]
Speaking of Brexit positions, however: Unison, one of the biggest trade unions, have defected to Remain, so it's now thought Conference may reject Corbyn's position.
[Labour doesn't operate one-person-one-vote (that pesky democracy again!). Instead, although Corbyn brought hundreds of thousands of new members to the party, abour 50% of the voting power at Conference still rests with the Trade Unions, who until now have been firmly behind Corbyn, making the opinions of actual members largely irrelevant]
Re: British Politics Guide
I think you're only half right.
The gamble. And it is a BIG GAMBLE. The gamble is that if we have an election in the Autumn and the EU is now pretty fed up and has made it known that an extension must be for either a referendum or an election not for stringing it out even longer with no end in sight the Conservatives are ripped apart by the Brexit Party. Gove said it right yesterday in the Sunday Times where he said (confusing national interest with Conservative Party interest) the Tories would be dead if we don't leave on Oct 31. Labour doesn't need to do this all again in December. It gambles on the Tories losing in November/December.
Now that's not the same as Labour winning! Personally I think Labour leavers are more Labour than leave and the leavy seats in N England will still be Labour, while the Remainy seats in S England flip from Tories to Lib Dem (not Labour) because Tory remainers are more remain than Tory and Scotland goes back to being a one party SNP state as the SNP gobbles up the Tory seats won by Ruth Davidson. Result utterly inconclusive but Lib Dem possibly holding balance of power.
The gamble. And it is a BIG GAMBLE. The gamble is that if we have an election in the Autumn and the EU is now pretty fed up and has made it known that an extension must be for either a referendum or an election not for stringing it out even longer with no end in sight the Conservatives are ripped apart by the Brexit Party. Gove said it right yesterday in the Sunday Times where he said (confusing national interest with Conservative Party interest) the Tories would be dead if we don't leave on Oct 31. Labour doesn't need to do this all again in December. It gambles on the Tories losing in November/December.
Now that's not the same as Labour winning! Personally I think Labour leavers are more Labour than leave and the leavy seats in N England will still be Labour, while the Remainy seats in S England flip from Tories to Lib Dem (not Labour) because Tory remainers are more remain than Tory and Scotland goes back to being a one party SNP state as the SNP gobbles up the Tory seats won by Ruth Davidson. Result utterly inconclusive but Lib Dem possibly holding balance of power.
Re: British Politics Guide
Anyway, Labour have managed to agree a policy on something, at least: banning private education.
More specifically:
- schools will be stripped of charitable status
- universities will be banned from taking more than 7% of their intake from private schools
- private schools will be "integrated" into the public school system (i.e. made no longer private)
- all their assets and endowments will be appropriated and "redistributed" to other schools
Now, some have raised some questions about this:
- currently, around 600,000 children have their education paid for directly by their parents (who also continue to pay the same taxes toward state education that everyone else does, even though they don't use it)
- if those parents aren't allowed to pay to educate those children, the taxpayers will have to find another £3.5bn to do so for them, so effectively this is asking ordinary people to pay for the education of the rich
- it's actually only around 400,000, because 1/3rd of private school children come from abroad. Their parents pay hundreds of millions of pounds into the UK economy, and in return the UK gets greater cultural and economic influence around the world, plus often gets to poach the most talented schoolchildren to remain in the UK.
- although many private school children are wealthy, huge numbers aren't - even at Eton, around 50% of their students are there on scholarships and bursaries (in addition to their own charity, there are also independent charities who pay for children from deprived backgrounds to attend good schools). So private schools offer a pathway to social mobility.
- we know that entrance to the best state schools is not exactly 'fair', as richer parents find ways to game the system. In particular, entrance is largely based on catchment areas - if you live near the school, you can get in. So if parents are preventing from directly paying for good school places, will this not just result in house prices soaring in the catchment areas of good schools? The rich will still get those places, but now the poor will both a) be paying for them through taxation and b) having to move to cheaper areas as a result.
- this would be an appropriation of private goods on a scale not seen in this country since the dissolution of the monasteries. It would be a radical change from the established political and legal norms - under which the State cannot simply appropriate your goods without compensation - and would be illegal under human rights legislation. It certainly wouldn't be possible unless we leave the EU!
- such a massive raid on private property could well panic investors - after all, why buy property or shares in the UK if the government may simply appropriate them at will?
- private schooling, which is not just Eton, is heavily used by those in unusual circumstances that the one-size-fits-all comprehensive education system doesn't address well. It's disproportionately used by those whose children have special education needs - the deaf, the blind, those on the spectrum, and those with learning disabilities. Provision IS made for these people in the state school system, but it's often poor, and non-specialised, and may require families to relocate long distances. Private schooling is also used by those for whom boarding (residential schooling) offers big advantages - particularly children of the military or civil servants or others who may have to change their place of residence frequently for work reasons. A private school, particularly one with boarding, can offer greater stability than having to change school every couple of years.
- because private education could easily move out of the existing schools - what Labour are objecting to is not the buildings per se, but the social networks and superior education - such a move would see a boom in private "tuition" and "free schools" (schools run by parents). Labour have said they'll also abolish free schools; I'm not sure if they've said they'll ban tuition, but I think that as a practical and legal matter they would have to, to prevent 'tuition' that is in effect schooling. It's hard, though, to imagine the State being able to effectively prevent parents from finding ways to sneak knowledge to their children! And if "going to public school" is replaced as a social marker by "attending an underground, need-to-know-only private tuition network", it will surely only be more exclusionary and elitist than private education is now!
- ideologically, banning private schools, and free schools (schools run by parents because they want to teach differently), and academies (schools run by private organisations that don't charge fees are freer in how they teach), and presumably eventually private tuition and homeschooling, is an elimination of choice, making all education the same, and all controlled by the State. Labour argue that the poorest families don't get much choice as it is, and that therefore nobody else should have choices either. But intuitively, it's hard I think to overcome many people's feeling that if they succeed in life, and if they make sacrifices, they should at least be able to make sure their children get a passable education, and that children shouldn't be trapped in failing schools, or even just schools that are not suited to them.
Anyway, this seems to be going down brilliantly among young progressives online. But I worry that it's likely to alienate many people in the real world - the 'progressive' mantra that equality is more important than choice, and that it's better that nobody should excel than that only some should excel, is not yet the majority position among the electorate as a whole. In particular, it's hard not to see this as being off-putting to parents of small children, because famously progressive ideals tend to take a backburner during the school years ("an extremist socialist is someone who wants to eliminate societal inequalities; a moderate socialist is someone who wants to eliminate societal inequalities, but only after their own kids have left school", to paraphrase I-don't-know-who). Notably, about half of Labour's own shadow cabinet send, or have sent, their children to private schools.
It is likely to act as an olive branch over Brexit - because if there's one thing that the Brexit-supporting working class in the north hate more than black people and Poles, it's posh wankers with their words and their books. On the other hand, it's liable to cause trouble for the party in more diverse parts of the country - in particular, African and South Asian communities traditionally have a strong ethos of education. Rightly or wrongly, the idea that if they work hard and are fortunate, they will be able, no matter where they live or what class they are, to give their children a better education than they had, and move the next generation another run up the ladder, is deeply engrained in many immigrant communities, and a blanket "stay in your lane, know your place, send your kids to the school around the corner, so they can live where you live and their children can go to the same school they go to until the end of time" message is liable to alienate a lot of them. The Lib Dems will be seeing this as a golden opportunity in London in particular.
I think there's also an enthusiasm gap to worry about. A large minority of people probably do support eliminate private schools - for them, it's a symbol of destroying the middle class. But because it's a symbol, they mostly don't care that strongly about it. Whereas a lot of people would oppose banning private education very, very passionately, because for them it's not a symbol, it's their children's future.
-----------
Anyway, a few other policies have come out too. Labour are going to eliminate Ofsted, the quango that inspects schools to make sure they're up to an adequate standard. Ofsted has long been hated by teachers, because sometimes it finds that schools are shit; and, while some schools are shit, it's important not to say so, as this is disrespectful to teachers and entrenches class prejudice - it's even been known to result in teachers losing their jobs, which is something that must never happen under any circumstances. Plus, if you tell people that a school has rampant drug use and violence and none of its pupils pass their example, it discourages people from letting their children go there, encouraging them to leave the area or, even worse, go private.
We will also be bringing back compulsory collective bargaining - all wages and job conditions will be agreed through negotiation between national unions and employers. It's essential that we make Britain great again by taking us back to the glory days of the 1970s. This policy is very popular with people who were not alive in the 1970s.
As part of that, we will all be banned from working more than four days a week, with no overtime. Taking into account overtime, this will mean that the maximum working hours will be 25% less than the average working hours today. This seems like a winner - I mean, who doesn't like long weekends? Plus, the government will force companies to pay us the same wage as now (presumably they also guarantee to set appropriate wage levels for every job from now on, so that future negotiations don't see wages decline over time as working hours decline). This is backed by a report Labour published last month... which said that the policy would be completely ineffective, and would be not "realistic or even desirable".
Oh, and Conference is going to debate whether to reverse Tony Blair's changes to Clause IV of the party constitution, and recommit to "common ownership of the means of production"...
More specifically:
- schools will be stripped of charitable status
- universities will be banned from taking more than 7% of their intake from private schools
- private schools will be "integrated" into the public school system (i.e. made no longer private)
- all their assets and endowments will be appropriated and "redistributed" to other schools
Now, some have raised some questions about this:
- currently, around 600,000 children have their education paid for directly by their parents (who also continue to pay the same taxes toward state education that everyone else does, even though they don't use it)
- if those parents aren't allowed to pay to educate those children, the taxpayers will have to find another £3.5bn to do so for them, so effectively this is asking ordinary people to pay for the education of the rich
- it's actually only around 400,000, because 1/3rd of private school children come from abroad. Their parents pay hundreds of millions of pounds into the UK economy, and in return the UK gets greater cultural and economic influence around the world, plus often gets to poach the most talented schoolchildren to remain in the UK.
- although many private school children are wealthy, huge numbers aren't - even at Eton, around 50% of their students are there on scholarships and bursaries (in addition to their own charity, there are also independent charities who pay for children from deprived backgrounds to attend good schools). So private schools offer a pathway to social mobility.
- we know that entrance to the best state schools is not exactly 'fair', as richer parents find ways to game the system. In particular, entrance is largely based on catchment areas - if you live near the school, you can get in. So if parents are preventing from directly paying for good school places, will this not just result in house prices soaring in the catchment areas of good schools? The rich will still get those places, but now the poor will both a) be paying for them through taxation and b) having to move to cheaper areas as a result.
- this would be an appropriation of private goods on a scale not seen in this country since the dissolution of the monasteries. It would be a radical change from the established political and legal norms - under which the State cannot simply appropriate your goods without compensation - and would be illegal under human rights legislation. It certainly wouldn't be possible unless we leave the EU!
- such a massive raid on private property could well panic investors - after all, why buy property or shares in the UK if the government may simply appropriate them at will?
- private schooling, which is not just Eton, is heavily used by those in unusual circumstances that the one-size-fits-all comprehensive education system doesn't address well. It's disproportionately used by those whose children have special education needs - the deaf, the blind, those on the spectrum, and those with learning disabilities. Provision IS made for these people in the state school system, but it's often poor, and non-specialised, and may require families to relocate long distances. Private schooling is also used by those for whom boarding (residential schooling) offers big advantages - particularly children of the military or civil servants or others who may have to change their place of residence frequently for work reasons. A private school, particularly one with boarding, can offer greater stability than having to change school every couple of years.
- because private education could easily move out of the existing schools - what Labour are objecting to is not the buildings per se, but the social networks and superior education - such a move would see a boom in private "tuition" and "free schools" (schools run by parents). Labour have said they'll also abolish free schools; I'm not sure if they've said they'll ban tuition, but I think that as a practical and legal matter they would have to, to prevent 'tuition' that is in effect schooling. It's hard, though, to imagine the State being able to effectively prevent parents from finding ways to sneak knowledge to their children! And if "going to public school" is replaced as a social marker by "attending an underground, need-to-know-only private tuition network", it will surely only be more exclusionary and elitist than private education is now!
- ideologically, banning private schools, and free schools (schools run by parents because they want to teach differently), and academies (schools run by private organisations that don't charge fees are freer in how they teach), and presumably eventually private tuition and homeschooling, is an elimination of choice, making all education the same, and all controlled by the State. Labour argue that the poorest families don't get much choice as it is, and that therefore nobody else should have choices either. But intuitively, it's hard I think to overcome many people's feeling that if they succeed in life, and if they make sacrifices, they should at least be able to make sure their children get a passable education, and that children shouldn't be trapped in failing schools, or even just schools that are not suited to them.
Anyway, this seems to be going down brilliantly among young progressives online. But I worry that it's likely to alienate many people in the real world - the 'progressive' mantra that equality is more important than choice, and that it's better that nobody should excel than that only some should excel, is not yet the majority position among the electorate as a whole. In particular, it's hard not to see this as being off-putting to parents of small children, because famously progressive ideals tend to take a backburner during the school years ("an extremist socialist is someone who wants to eliminate societal inequalities; a moderate socialist is someone who wants to eliminate societal inequalities, but only after their own kids have left school", to paraphrase I-don't-know-who). Notably, about half of Labour's own shadow cabinet send, or have sent, their children to private schools.
It is likely to act as an olive branch over Brexit - because if there's one thing that the Brexit-supporting working class in the north hate more than black people and Poles, it's posh wankers with their words and their books. On the other hand, it's liable to cause trouble for the party in more diverse parts of the country - in particular, African and South Asian communities traditionally have a strong ethos of education. Rightly or wrongly, the idea that if they work hard and are fortunate, they will be able, no matter where they live or what class they are, to give their children a better education than they had, and move the next generation another run up the ladder, is deeply engrained in many immigrant communities, and a blanket "stay in your lane, know your place, send your kids to the school around the corner, so they can live where you live and their children can go to the same school they go to until the end of time" message is liable to alienate a lot of them. The Lib Dems will be seeing this as a golden opportunity in London in particular.
I think there's also an enthusiasm gap to worry about. A large minority of people probably do support eliminate private schools - for them, it's a symbol of destroying the middle class. But because it's a symbol, they mostly don't care that strongly about it. Whereas a lot of people would oppose banning private education very, very passionately, because for them it's not a symbol, it's their children's future.
-----------
Anyway, a few other policies have come out too. Labour are going to eliminate Ofsted, the quango that inspects schools to make sure they're up to an adequate standard. Ofsted has long been hated by teachers, because sometimes it finds that schools are shit; and, while some schools are shit, it's important not to say so, as this is disrespectful to teachers and entrenches class prejudice - it's even been known to result in teachers losing their jobs, which is something that must never happen under any circumstances. Plus, if you tell people that a school has rampant drug use and violence and none of its pupils pass their example, it discourages people from letting their children go there, encouraging them to leave the area or, even worse, go private.
We will also be bringing back compulsory collective bargaining - all wages and job conditions will be agreed through negotiation between national unions and employers. It's essential that we make Britain great again by taking us back to the glory days of the 1970s. This policy is very popular with people who were not alive in the 1970s.
As part of that, we will all be banned from working more than four days a week, with no overtime. Taking into account overtime, this will mean that the maximum working hours will be 25% less than the average working hours today. This seems like a winner - I mean, who doesn't like long weekends? Plus, the government will force companies to pay us the same wage as now (presumably they also guarantee to set appropriate wage levels for every job from now on, so that future negotiations don't see wages decline over time as working hours decline). This is backed by a report Labour published last month... which said that the policy would be completely ineffective, and would be not "realistic or even desirable".
Oh, and Conference is going to debate whether to reverse Tony Blair's changes to Clause IV of the party constitution, and recommit to "common ownership of the means of production"...
Re: British Politics Guide
And they just proprosed granting voting rights to non-citizens, I hear.
Re: British Politics Guide
As much as I can agree with some of those changes, e.g. the "common ownership of the means of production" part, I do like how they're focusing on this in a time of impending national catastrophe, namely no deal Brexit, rather than coming up with a coherent strategy as to how to deal with it...
Yaaludinuya siima d'at yiseka ha wohadetafa gaare.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate ha eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
Ennadinut'a gaare d'ate ha eetatadi siiman.
T'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa t'awraa.
-
doctor shark
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:21 am
- Location: Tulipland
- Contact:
Re: British Politics Guide
Noncitizens can have voting rights in the UK already, though the rights depend on what kind of noncitizen you are.
- Commonwealth and Irish citizens with residency in the UK have the right to vote in and stand for elections of most kinds, unless otherwise disqualified.
- EU citizens can, for now, vote in local and EU parliamentary elections, but are not entitled to vote for the House of Commons. Notably, Maltese and Cypriot citizens are Commonwealth citizens as well, so they fall under category 1.
Question about the current SNAFU: When Parliament is re-summoned, there should be a Speech from the Throne followed by a debate on the Address in Reply. And I know that, traditionally, this debate is a confidence motion... so, if Johnson is defeated on the Address in Reply, then what would happen? (Would there then be an election in November if a new government can't form? Or is it unlikely to begin with that the Government would lose the vote on the Address in Reply?)
aka vampireshark
The other kind of doctor.
Perpetually in search of banknote subjects. Inquire within.
The other kind of doctor.
Perpetually in search of banknote subjects. Inquire within.
Re: British Politics Guide
It's kinda ironic how these days, thanks to the influence of teachers' unions, the Left generally stands completely behind teachers, at least those at state schools. Not too long ago there were people on the Left who saw teachers first and foremost as conservative oppressors of children. Think of Pink Floyd's The Wall, for instance.
Re: British Politics Guide
EU citizens can also vote and even be candidates for the Scottish Parliament. Which could theoretically result in a post-Brexit situation of the UK Government telling someone to go home and the Scottish Government welcoming them as one of their members.
Removing charitable status from private schools is the part that's most likely to pass.
Removing charitable status from private schools is the part that's most likely to pass.
Re: British Politics Guide
vampireshark wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:27 am Question about the current SNAFU: When Parliament is re-summoned, there should be a Speech from the Throne followed by a debate on the Address in Reply. And I know that, traditionally, this debate is a confidence motion... so, if Johnson is defeated on the Address in Reply, then what would happen? (Would there then be an election in November if a new government can't form? Or is it unlikely to begin with that the Government would lose the vote on the Address in Reply?)
This is indeed a pressing question.
The vote on the Queen's Speech (or more technically on the Address in Reply) has always been considered equivalent to a vote of no confidence. I mean, it's the government setting out its objectives, and if the House cannot support those objectives, then it's blisteringly obvious that the government does not have the House's confidence.
However, whether by design or omission, the FTPA failed to considered this - it may be equivalent to a VONC, but it's not a VONC, so it doesn't count.
So we could well have the seemingly insane scenario whereby the government says what it's going to do, the House says fuck that, we don't want you to do any of that, the government says we'll have an election then, and the House says no, we also won't have an election.
I just cannot see Labour insisting on retaining a Tory government while at the same time specifying that the government won't be allowed to do anything as being somehow a win for Labour in the long run.
Labour, for context, are currently 11 points behind the Tories, and in 3rd place in the latest yougov poll.
Re: British Politics Guide
What's the chance of the SNP or the Lib Dems introducing a bill that provides for an exemption from the FTPA? Sure, the Lib Dems would sort of embarrass themselves by doing that, given that they were the ones who insisted on passing the FTPA in the first place, but these days, in British politics, the fact that one would embarrass oneself by doing a specific thing is hardly a reason not to do it.
Re: British Politics Guide
What happened to the provision for boarders in the state system? The state grammar school I went to had boarders, but that has now ceased. The local state grammar school to the north-west also had boarders in my day.Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:12 am Private schooling is also used by those for whom boarding (residential schooling) offers big advantages - particularly children of the military or civil servants or others who may have to change their place of residence frequently for work reasons. A private school, particularly one with boarding, can offer greater stability than having to change school every couple of years.
Re: British Politics Guide
Zero. Well, maybe that's not true...Raphael wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:03 pm What's the chance of the SNP or the Lib Dems introducing a bill that provides for an exemption from the FTPA? Sure, the Lib Dems would sort of embarrass themselves by doing that, given that they were the ones who insisted on passing the FTPA in the first place, but these days, in British politics, the fact that one would embarrass oneself by doing a specific thing is hardly a reason not to do it.
First, while opposition parties CAN introduce bills, it's difficult for them to do so. They have limited opportunities to do so, barring things like emergency debates and the like.
More importantly, such a bill would not have any chance of passing without the support of at least one of the main parties - and if they'd support it, they'd introduce it (Labour in particular would probably vote against such a bill even if they wanted it, and then introduce the same bill themselves, to make clear that they were The Official Opposition).
But thinking about it, I suppose it's possible that they might actually do that as a sort of protest, calling attention to the issue if the two main parties refused to have an election. I don't think it's likely, because it's not an issue that would immediately grab the public attention, but it's possible.
However, in the short term, while the Lib Dems and SNP, unlike Labour, have good reasons to want an immediate election, they're also more firmly Remainer than Labour, so more invested in blocking No Deal. So this wouldn't happen until after No Deal, at least.
Re: British Politics Guide
Interesting question. I confess, I don't know. Neither the grammar I went to nor any of the grammars nearby had boarders, and I've always associated them with private schools. However, you are of course right that grammars in the past sometimes did have boarders (not always - my grammar was 19th century, and to be knowledge never had boarders (it certainly didn't have the facilities for them!)).Richard W wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:46 pmWhat happened to the provision for boarders in the state system? The state grammar school I went to had boarders, but that has now ceased. The local state grammar school to the north-west also had boarders in my day.Salmoneus wrote: ↑Mon Sep 23, 2019 8:12 am Private schooling is also used by those for whom boarding (residential schooling) offers big advantages - particularly children of the military or civil servants or others who may have to change their place of residence frequently for work reasons. A private school, particularly one with boarding, can offer greater stability than having to change school every couple of years.
I think boarding went out of fashion a long, long time ago. If I'd had to guess, I'd guess that boarding grammars were abolished at the same time most grammars were abolished. Of course, given how few grammars survive, it may just be that few or no boarding grammars happened to make it through the cull.
You are right more abstractly, though - there's no reason, per se, why state schools couldn't offer boarding, and there would certainly be some who would want it and that it would take up some of the role that private schools have today. I suspect that Labour would never allow it, though - "boarding school" equals "posh", equals verboten. And to be fair, boarding schools that don't charge fees would be a great drain on the public purse - I think that on public good grounds it would be defensible for the state to pay for a handful of boarding schools for those most in need*, but I don't think it would be politically acceptable to the left.
*another overlooked aspect of boarding schools is that they can help keep orphans and vulnerable children out of the care system, since it's easier to persuade social services that, say, a relative who doesn't have much spare room in their house is an acceptable place for a child to stay for a school holiday than it is to persuade them that it's an acceptable place for them to have as their primary residence.
I suspect that some of the vigour with which Labourites are attacking private schools is because the Cameron and Johnson ministries were/are filled with Etonians. However, it's worth noting that Johnson didn't get to Eton due to being "posh" (his dad was just a minor EU bureaucrat at the time), but on an academic scholarship (these don't pay full fees, and can potentially join for free, though they are means-tested). Similarl, Michael Gove got into a less prestigious private school, again on scholarship rather than as a full fee-payer (he's the adoptive son of a Labour-supporting fish-processing small business owner).
-
zompist
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2709
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:46 am
- Location: Right here, probably
- Contact:
Re: British Politics Guide
If I'm not mistaken, didn't the UK's private schools use to be called "public schools"? Has this changed, or are you just avoiding a confusing term?
-
Frislander
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:40 am
Re: British Politics Guide
"Public schools" refers to the subset of private schools that are members of the Headmaster's Conference, which pretty much all private schools that people know about are members of, but most private schools aren't (I think, tbh I don't have the exact figures).
With regards to Sal's point in general, I think part of the political issue with private schools isn't fiscal but rather social, mainly that there is a popular perception of a culture that private schools tend to foster that is damaging to the country as a whole, one which operates regardless of financial background (hence why scholarship pupils such as Johnson and Gove can be members). While I don't think that's wrong per se (see the last few governments for some good examples of this culture in action), it's certainly not true of private school students as a whole, as pointed out by Sal. Furthermore, even if the private schools were taken into state ownership I don't think that would solve the inequality, since the schools would still be ancient and historic and would have reputations and perhaps still foster the same atmosphere (Lord knows there are even state schools that do this sort of thing). Compare the situation with universities - Oxbridge still suffers from a massive image problem of perception as being "posh" despite being as much in the state sector as the rest of them.
Re: British Politics Guide
I'm trying to avoid a confusing term. Partly because, as Frislander says, it's more complicated than that.
Narrowly defined, "public school" refers to just seven private schools (Eton, Harrow, Rugby, Winchester, Westminster, Shrewsbury, and Charterhouse - the first four, incidentally, developed their own forms of football, though only Rugby became popular among the wider population). They were defined as such by law, at one point.
Broadly defined, "public school" refers to any private school. At least, any well-established private school with mainstream teaching methods, you probably wouldn't use it for the little new free schools or the various faith-based or weird-teaching schools.
In between those definitions, "public school" refers to a subset of old, 'posh' private schools. There's a couple of dozen that have called themselves public schools for a century or more, including some that, while less famous than the above, are relatively well-known and with a 'posh' reputation - Radley, Uppingham, St Pauls, etc. Then, as Frislander says, one definition is any school that's part of the HMC, which is a couple of hundred of them. Then there are another couple of hundred girls-only schools that aren't part of the HMC for historical reasons, but are fairly equivalent.
They're called public because any member of the public is allowed to send their child there, so long as they pay (although in practice there may be waiting lists, so other factors may be considered, like academic ability). Previously, education was either by private tutorship, or by the employers of a private tutor allowing selected friends and/or talented people to join in the tutor's lesson.
Unfortunately, I think public perception in this regard is extremely skewed. When people hear 'private school', they think 'public school', and specifically they mean the seven famous public schools, and specifically they mean Eton. In fact, there's over 2,500 private schools, and they vary very widely.
[two additional terms: independent schools are what private schools call themselves, to sound less elitist. And preparatory schools (or just 'prep schools') are private primary schools (sort of - most state primaries educate up to around 11, whereas prep schools traditionally optionally educate up to around 13). Although sending a child to prep is 'going private', I think that most of the hatred of private schools forgets about prep schools, because lots of people I think send their child to prep who profess to despise private schools. Also commonly forgotten are independent sixth-form colleges - that is, for education at 17 and 18. About twice as many people go to private school for A-Levels (18) as for GCSEs (16), either because they join an ordinary private school or because they go to a 'sixth-form college' that only teaches those two years which, again, is legally and financially private, but not what people usually think of when they hear that word]
And looking those figures up, I see: oh yes, we do still have state boarding schools! The education is theoretically free, but you pay for the boarding. Somehow I suspect that those private schools that get abolished will just because 'state boarding schools', and just happen to charge exorbitant fees for boarding...
And yes, as Frislander says, it's mostly a social thing. Banning private schools isn't about the money, it's about hating "the posh". The problem is, private education isn't why there are posh people - that's primarily the massive disparities in wealth, with an additional dose of inherited class prejudices and a big dash of regionalism (plenty of Northerners think all Southerners are posh). In terms both of academic success and personal wealth, the difference between the best state schools and independent schools is much smaller than the difference between good and bad state schools. In the worst state schools, only 4% of parents are on income benefits, while in the worst state schools, 69% are on benefits.
[in theory, the quality of the school is independent of parental wealth, and indeed there are a few very good schools in poor areas, and doubtless many bad ones in rich areas. But in practice, academic success is very strongly correlated to parental wealth no matter what school you go to.]
-
Frislander
- Posts: 422
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:40 am
Re: British Politics Guide
I'm slightly surprised by this specific list, in particular the inclusion of Shrewsbury to the exclusion of Durham, the latter of which spawned the one and only Dominic Cummings. Though I will confess my slight bias in this regard, since it was also the school my dad went to (incidentally my father is an example of the kinds of non-stereotypical public students Sal is talking about, being the son of a mining surveyor and whose parents split before he even started at Durham, and isn't all that "posh" as a result, though in comparison to my mother the difference in education does show. He also didn't follow a subsequent stereotypical path after leaving school either, in that he's been a priest for 25 years along with my mother, which in this day and age isn't exactly a high-paying job, though I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a well-worn public-school graduate path).
TBF, given that there is a significant both reputational skew in public schools towards the South of England (as the above narrow list of 7 shows) you can't blame a northerner such as myself for thinking of the south as especially posh (I certainly had a bit of a culture shock in my first year at Cambridge realising just how many such schools there are). Plus I'm not sure about the wider knowledge of the northern public schools outside of the region (probably the one most people in the south have heard of will be Ampleforth, and that's weird in its own way cause it's also a Catholic monastery), which contributes a bit to the divide - if all the private schools people from the (more populous) south talk about are in the south, then northerners looking south might get the impression that that is where all the private schools are.a big dash of regionalism (plenty of Northerners think all Southerners are posh).