RayC

My original post was slightly tongue-in-cheek but that's besides the point. Talking of over-simplistic if you knew as much about taxation as you seemingly think you do, then you would realise that one of the tenets of a good taxation system is that it should be equitable. How is a 20% tax break for (relatively) wealthy consumers buying a service equitable? If the state education system is already buckling as you suggest, then perhaps it requires increased investment. That increased investment will need to be funded from the government's coffers, unless you subscribe to the Liz Truss school of economic thought and believe that unfunded tax cuts, which lead to increased government borrowing costs, isn't a problem as we can cross our fingers and hope for growth from increased spending in the future despite the evidence suggesting otherwise. Alternatively, we could stop all public spending, allow the private sector to pick up the slack and see how that turns out for ourselves and future generations.

1. And replace the 'lost' revenue how? Or not bother and run down public services even further? 2. How will the unskilled/ semi-skilled immigrant labour be replaced? 3. At what cost (environmental, financial, health, societal)? 4. Against illegal immigrants presumably? Good idea. How? 5. See 1) 6. Nothing wrong in cutting the public sector so long as you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. 7. Possibly or possibly not. In any event, your solutions have little to do with Brexit. Your two direct fiscal policies (1 & 5) were possible when we were an EU member. #s 4 & 6 are probably goals shared by all EU member states. #7 is a conclusion, not a policy which leaves #s 2 & 3. #2: Under freedom of movement, many of the low(er) skilled, lower paid jobs e.g. fruit pickers, bar staff, etc were filled by transient EU workers who had no desire to become employees or settle in the UK permanently and the market was, broadly speaking, in equilibrium and self-adjusting. Removal of freedom of movement has led to labour shortages in many areas. #3 would not be allowed under EU regulation. However, as I implied above,is it desirable? I dare say not all Brexit supporters would be in favour of scrapping all environmental targets and regulation.

Half of independent schools are run by companies who exist as profit-making enterprises. Imo nothing wrong with that. However, why should these companies - or their customers (the parents) - be exempted from paying VAT on the provision of these services when profit generating companies in other sectors are not? The remaining half of independent schools are classified as charitable institutions. As charitable institutions, they enjoy significant financial benefits which is fair enough. However, again I don't understand why these institutions - or their customers - should be exempt from VAT. If these institutions are brought into the public sector the costs will have to be borne by the state in the same way that all public sector service provision is. Of course, the opportunity to attend these schools - st the child meeting any 'special needs' criteria - should then be open to all children within the catchment area.

Nonsense. You suggest that if a 'special needs' independent school was forced to close, the state would not be able to step into the breech. Why not? The infrastructure would be there. The staff could be offered teaching contracts within the state system. It could be a simple transfer of administration. Whether bureaucracy would prevent this happening is another matter. Your newly introduced quote from The Telegraph is a prime example of a misleading headline and inference. It is true that 'Special needs' schools face 20% VAT on their fees, and State schools may well be currently failing pupils with 'special needs' - hardly something that can be lain at the feet of the Labour government - but the latter is not a consequence of the former as the Telegraph would like people to believe.

It depends on the figures involved. Maybe the revenue raised from the improvision of the 20% VAT on the remaining private schools will generate enough revenue to cover the costs.

An objection for objection's sake. If there are 'special' facilities at these schools, why couldn't they be provided if the school was in the state sector?

You suggest that making a success of Brexit was a simple task. Can you explain what different measures could, and should, have been taken.

Bring any schools that are no longer financially viable into the state sector. Problem solved.

That's effectively what the Tories were offering at the last election. Was it enough to sustain - let alone improve - our public services? Imo no, and obviously the UK electorate didn't think so either. The NHS is failing by many metrics. Will pouring even more money into it lead to an increase in productivity? Who knows but the omens aren't promising. It's one area where successive Tory governments' spending did keep pace with inflation but with little, if any, signs of improvement to show for it. Unfortunately, curing the NHS might not even be possible. I don't often agree with Anne Widdecombe but she's correct when she says that the NHS as it currently exists was designed to meet the needs of 1950's Britain, not the 21st century UK. Education: Similar to the NHS, although funding hasn't been so generous. Will throwing more money at it on its' own improve matters? Doubtful. Local government is a mess. It's true that some local authorities such as mine (Lambeth) are extremely poorly managed but spending in real terms is now less than it was in 2010. Is it any wonder that the housing stock is low, that council housing is in a poor state, that local provided social services are closing and/or being run down and that you can't go more than 20 yards without finding a pothole? Imo definitely an area where increased real spending is justified. The transport infrastructure needs improvement. Ridiculous vanity projects such as HS2 should be canned (and imo should never have been started), and it's relatively easy to move around London and the South East, so limited spending should be needed there, but East - West transport links are appalling and local transport in conurbations such as Leeds/Bradford requires major capital investment. Waterways and sewage: Largely Victorian architecture which requires major upgrade. So, imo a major increase in public spending is justified (and requires funding). Whether it will lead to improvements in terms of productivity/ quality is another matter, but it's far too early to tell and therefore label this government a failure as many here like to do (this last comment is not directed at you).

The article's contents are the same irrespective of whether it appeared in The Times, the IFS website or The Beano. The fact that the IFS wanted to publish the article on their site is unsurprisingly given that the author (Paul Johnson) was Director of the IFS at the time. The IFS makes clear that they asked permission to republish it and the original source (The Times) is clearly acknowledged, so I really don't understand what point you are trying to make? The article is very much relevant and on topic as it explains why Labour might have found it necessary to break its' electoral promise. Whether you accept this explanation is, of course, entirely up to you.

I don't understand why the fact that the article originally appeared in 'The Times' has any relevance? On the other hand, everything in the article is as relevant today as it was when it first appeared. Does it excuse Labour misleading the public during the electoral campaign? No, but it might go some way to explaining why we are where we are now. The author's conclusion and prediction looks to have been accurate so far: "The politics that led the Conservatives to cut £20 billion from national insurance contributions and Labour to rule out either undoing that or increasing income tax or VAT could come back to haunt us. The danger is that we will get a series of much more complex, uncertain and economically risky tax rises in their place".

A more nuanced, less partisan view of the situation https://ifs.org.uk/articles/ps22bn-black-hole-was-obvious-anyone-who-dared-look

Strawman😂 Carry on with the 'whataboutery' and misplaced victimhood and I'll continue to call it out.

Then what was the point of your whataboutery? If you support the prosecution of this neo-Nazi why not simply say so rather than voicing your grievance about a completely unrelated matter?

In theory yes, but she should contact The International Centre (+44 (0) 191 218 7777) to confirm her individual situation.

Nuance. You won't get anywhere by introducing 'Woke' concepts like that.

'Whataboutery' as a defence for a neo-Nazi.

It is very easy for Brits - who would potentially benefit for the enclosing of the European mainland in fencing so far as illegal migration flows are concerned - to casually insist that such a measure is necessary, but quite another matter for the denizens of Europe who would be negatively affected economically, societally, environmentally, etc by such a development. In future, there may be an increase in the number of times Schengen is temporarily suspended and in the number of temporary border checks, but I doubt that Schengen will be abolished. I provided a link in a previous post regarding the costs of abolishing and suspending Schengen. That paper was published in 2016 and probably understates the amount: There are now 2m daily cross-border workers in the EU, and 1,857 billion tonne-kilometres of freight is transported by road (2022 figures). Imagine the chaos if border checks were reintroduced throughout the Schengen zone. My comment about the UK footing the bill for the abolition of Schengen was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Nevertheless, in the extremely unlikely event that it were to happen at the UK's behest, why shouldn't the UK bear (at least) some of the cost? I am not accusing you of being uncompassionate - your comment shows that you are not - and I share your concern about economic migrants abusing the system. However, I do think that you understate and over-simplify the complexity of the problem. Securing Europe's borders (internal and external) is no simple matter as the attached link clearly illustrates. https://www.frontex.europa.eu/what-we-do/monitoring-and-risk-analysis/migratory-routes/migratory-routes/ Given that it's too late to take a different (Brexit) path and following the current one has hardly been successful, wouldn't it be logical to at least, inquire about rejoining the EU?😉

Hungary secured its' borders by erecting a fence. I'm not sure that the majority of EU citizens would consider erecting fences all over Europe a price worth paying. You place great store on the perceived costs to the UK of Schengen but what about the costs of abolishing/ suspending it? Would you be happy for the UK to compensate EU states for their losses if Schengen were to be abolished? The majority of illegal immigrants land in Italy, Greece and Turkey, who are unable and unwilling to accommodate all these individuals. Some in other nations might say, "Bad luck but not our problem".However if that is the attitude, who could blame Italy, Greece and Turkey if they do little to prevent their unwanted 'guests' from leaving their territories? Illegal immigration is a problem for all of Europe and it therefore needs co-ordinated action. You state correctly that, Schengen's main objective is to ease of the movement of EU nationals, " ... but that " ... it has also eased movement of all", which is also true. However, what has this to do with Brexit? Schengen has nothing to do with the UK ending FOM post-Brexit. I still do not understand how "the end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of (the UK) leaving (the EU)". You'll get no argument from me when you criticise Cameron, May and Johnson for their handling of the Brexit process, but - as I said previously - what I don't understand is 1) what "different path" should have been taken and 2) what these benefits would be and how they would be delivered?

Schengen came into operation in 1995 so it predates the migrant crisis. It is obviously easier to move between nations with open, rather than closed borders, so reintroducing border controls might mitigate some of the problems of illegal migration, but it almost certainly won't solve the problem. Europe's internal borders are simply too large to be made completely secure. Moreover, Schengen has brought significant benefits and there would be an economic cost if it were to be abolished/ suspended. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/579074/EPRS_ATA(2016)579074_EN.pdf You state that, "The end of FoM should have been one of the main benefits of leaving ..." but don't elaborate about why this should be the case. I agree that Johnson's government mishandled Brexit. However, even if it had been handled perfectly I very much doubt that we would now be experiencing any benefit.

That it is what the OBR report says. The costs are directly attributable to Brexit

We checked out in 2020 but the question is, 'Is it in our best interests to use some of the hotel's facilities?' Wrt the three 'major' benefits of Brexit, the first, fishing, is almost insignificant in terms of its' economic importance. It represents 0.03% of economic activity in the UK and employs 11k people and these numbers are still declining Why fishing became such a major issue (for both sides) in the original negotiations is a mystery to me. I also don't understand why the free movement of EU nationals under 30 should present a problem. This is the group who, pre-Brexit, used to be employed in the seasonal, part-time jobs which are now proving so difficult to fill. Moreover, many (most?) of this group will not wish to settle permanently in the UK. If it is considered desirable to reduce the number of 'permanent' immigrants, surely this is one way of doing so? The article suggests that the UK would be st the ECJ in matters relating to Food and Agricultural standards. In practice, currently this wouldn't be a problem. UK food standards are consistent with EU regulations and, in many cases, are stricter than the minimal requirements set by EU regulations. I accept that adhering to EU food and agriculture might be a problem when it comes to negotiating a free trade deal with the US - and if we wanted to amend standards in the future - but I would make the following two points: Firstly, is it desirable to drop our standards in such an important sector such as food and Agriculture? Secondly, given Trump's pronouncements about US trade policy, a free trade deal with the US isn't going to happen any time so in that regard, the issue of food standards is pretty irrelevant.

I don't think that inflation is being ignored. GDP figures quoted by the ONS are real i.e. adjusted for inflation, so I would have thought the OBR uses the same datasets although I can't confirm that for certain.

Yes I did bring up Brexit and GDP but - as I previously remarked - none of the data which you have posted negates the premise that Brexit has had an adverse effect on the UK GDP (and wider economy). Here are some of the estimates contained in the OBR report for ease of reference: As a result of Brexit: * The UK economy has shrunk by £140 billion. * The poorest 10% of the population experienced a 20% fall in living standards between 2019/20 and 2024/25. * Yearly household food bills have increased by £250. * The average Brit has lost almost £2,000. * The UK economy is 2.5% smaller than it would have been if Remain had won the referendum. * Public finances fell by £26 billion a year. * Brexit reduced Britain's GDP by 5.5 per cent by the second quarter of 2022. (List AI generated based on the OBR report) The OBR report details the assumptions underlining its' estimates and the methodology used. Do you object to these assumptions and/or the methodology used? If so, it would be interesting to see these objections.

Do you seriously believe that a UK parliamentary committee - which incidentally consists of MPs from all three main parties - have asked Elon Musk to appear before them as a pretext for then detaining him on charges of counter terrorism?