Labour

[EverythingAllatOnceAllTheTime]

No questions the Tories were bad, but Labour are on another level.

Are you still happy you voted them in? Be honest now, you are having your doubts aren’t you?

If not, you really should be.

@CassieMaddox - it is you who started the rudeness and implications at every turn as to any amount of privilege trumping a child’s needs. That is tone deaf and exactly why we are having this discussion around private schools.

The FT is centre right
The Daily Telegraph is pretty far right these days. You need some more left leaning sources to get a balance, unfortunately outside the guardian there aren't so many.

OK. Clearly we aren't going to manage a respectful debate so I'm not going to respond to you further. I wish your son all the best in the future.

@CassieMaddox - thank you for your well wishes and I send them back to you and your DCs.

It is upsetting that we have a Government driving a wedge between different groups of children with disabilities when we should all be supporting each other. Across sectors, regardless of type of school/homeschool.

Sunak challenged over release of dangerous criminals https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-69015911

Typical type of response

It's only on here such pro Labour posters see bots for any criticism of their party

It's the commentary people must be limiting unless they dismiss everyone bar their view as not real. That kind of filtering isn't great

Notonthestairs makes no mention of bots in that post?

@TTSSRPBT

"You do understand that private health provided as an employee benefit is subject to tax don’t you?"

You do understand that private school fees are paid out of an employee's taxable income don't you?

I see no indication from anyone that reading material will be denigrated so why post that?

I don't see the same attacks anywhere else and if those pp who talk about bots read more they'd see that or they'd have to think everyone who has a different view is not real.

Which is obviously not ideal as there are thousands of comments daily against Labour / Starmer and if they think they are all not real there's probably a word for that

I never mention bots - just like @Notonthestairs. Since you consider me to be highly biased, perhaps you’d be interested to know what media I consume? My bloke has a Telegraph subscription and I have the Times, I also read the Guardian and watch Newsnight, QT, Sunday with LK and the Peston show. I listen to The News Agents and The Rest is Politics. How about you @EasternStandard?

I don't think I have ever suggested anyone is a 'bot'.

@CassieMaddox
@soccermum41

"Thanks. But I understand tax and subsidies.

Education is/was tax exempt. You haven't been clear as to why you think private schools are/are not a business and why they should not be tax exempt.

At the end of the day you are advocating for damaging education for some children when there are other ways of raising tax receipts. I contend that this is more about wanting to see people wealthier than you (including children) feel some pain/suffering/struggle/difficulty than it is about the wisdom of the economics of the decision or the value of the tax it will raise."

There is a spectrum on the left of those,at one end, who want left wing politics to improve the lives of the less well off and at the other end those who want left wing politics to just punish the well off.

I would say that Starmer is genuinely leaning towards helping the less well off and Rayois leaning towards punishing the "rich".

Given that it is highly questionable as to whether VAT on private school fees will generate more in tax revenues than it costs to implement (higher numbers of state school pupils) and also many posters stating that they would still support it even if it was net negative on tax revenues then I would say that VAT on private school fees is more about punishing the "rich".

The only poster who seems to be endlessly going on about bots on this thread is Easternstandard!

@PandoraSox I'm replying to people quoting my posts including you.

If you don't want to contribute don't

Otherwise it wasn't my post calling people bots was a typical pro Labour one. It's on nearly every thread by some of the same posters,

And I maintain there are posters here who really must filter a lot of commentary out if they think anything against their beloved party is not real.

And I maintain there are posters here who really must filter a lot of commentary out if they think anything against their beloved party is not real.

That works both ways. There are plenty of right leaning posters who do exactly the same.

Where did I say I don't want to contribute? I don't understand your point.

I rarely see what someone will call a 'Labour bashing' thread without a post calling someone HQ, paid or bot

Not really the other way round. It makes me think Labour are particularly sensitive to criticism plus trying to drive away any other thinking

I'd prefer to read a mix of political views so it's a shame

You specifically suggested I called posters bots - which I haven't and don't.

I do take exception to the idea that anyone that doesn't support right wing policies must necessarily be uninformed.

That said if you don't think the Times isn't sufficient reading matter please do feel free to tell me what I should be reading.

(Please don't include periodicals - I'm swimming in those and I'll skim the FT a couple of times a week but never daily).

Yes really the other way round too. See how confirmation bias works?

I have been accused of being a bot in the past. So have other left leaning Mumsnetters.

This is a misunderstanding

I haven't posted people are uninformed nor have I said what views they must have

I have said there is daily criticism of Starmer and Labour pretty much everywhere else and it's only on mn that I see people post that it's not real posters

I'd say they are filtering commentary to only pro Labour on here to a large degree to miss it