Best Of

...

...

Heh.

The GB News bungalows are quite agitated about Mr Milliband:

In Germany the NAZIS had lots of Gauleiters like Millipede, they caused havoc and deaths, he is going to bring about scores of deaths this next winter, time he was actually PRACTICING what HE preaches, his carbon footprint is shocking.

His carbon footprint is enormous. In his private life as well as his public life. There is something deeply unsettling about the psychology of someone who wants other people to give up their tumble dryers and underfloor heating, yet lives an enormously privileged life largely at the expense of the same taxpayers he would like to have lower living standards. It's the reason why the public despise politicians.

Thanks for the reply.

The "personal carbon footprint 12x larger than average" stuff seems to be around a pretence that Ed Milliband's carbon footprint as a Government Minister is somehow "personal"; it is not personal. That's how they got to their "12 times bigger than average" nonsense. It's a spurious comparison, which is what I expect from UK media on the right, or perhaps more generally.

The only data I could get on Miliband's private life carbon footprint would be to look at the energy efficiency of his house in Kentish Town, which if he is serious should be in Band C for the basic structure, and perhaps a B if he has solar etc. One reason I treat Emma Nicholson (flew to London 1st Class to make a green speech) with a measure of contempt is that her London house has a poor EPC number; she is not doing the basics. If you have more data, I would like to see it.

The GB News and Telegraph talking points on the Miliband stuff are a series of fairy stories, on a level with Boris Johnson's reporting from Brussels. UFH or towel rails or tumble dryers being banned, or wanting people to abandon their current ones - NOPE, though it makes sense to not use your tumble dryer if you want to save on electricity bills as things like washing lines are out there.

It's just about normal market regulation, and things like the UFH setups being able to work at a flow temperature of 55C max are to make sure that installations are functional; it is a common error to overestimate the heating capacity of small emitter areas. We start by improving the efficiency of new products in the marketplace.

The poor ones get regulated out as we progress. Something as simple as double glazing is no different - there is constant improvement. My policy has always been to install the highest quality I can without using exotic products, and the high end 2G I was installing just 12-14 years ago is now below minimum standard.

In a way it is encouraging that the populist far right having nothing to offer but barrel scrapings and manufactured outrage; all they have is a bullshit firehose to keep the gullibles down the rabbit hole. It's a harbinger that before long they will go pop, just as they did in the 1930s, 1950s, the 1970s, and the 2000s.

Thanks for your reply.

I think what you are describing as vicious calumnies are in fact just normal rhetoric. I know that David Milliband is not sending the rozzers round to confiscate peoples' dryers. What he is doing is introducing an intrusive and in my view unwarranted ban on the sale of the most effective forms of tumble dryer - those that work well in a garage - those that are quicker. It may make sense to save the energy - if that is so, the market will sort it out. If it isn't so, it's frankly none of Milliband's business. The same goes for the banning of underfloor heating systems that use 'too much' energy. 1. Fuck off you Stalinist little weasel, 2. I don't think 'giving up' is a particularly outrageous way to describe something being banned from sale. The net outcome will eventually be the same.
...
Was travelling to multiple cities in Brazil to highlight our climate leadership a particularly good use of carbon or money? Was a private jet (one way, he slummed it in Business the other way) to NYC for 'New York Climate Week' with over 100 civil servants from the deparment also in attendence? These things are at the Minister's discretion.

I had a bit of a dig into this on Sunday afternoon. Most of Miliband's changes are the latest changes in Building Regulations, which evolution has been a continuous process since they were introduced in 1965. This process and insulation schemes etc are key reasons why the average UK household energy use is down by around 20% since 2010, which is also a 20% reduction in the bills we would otherwise be paying.

Things such as the 55C flow temperature for wet UFH is to make sure that installed systems are functional; if not developers will go for what they can sell at max profit, even if it is not fully effective. That is desirable, just as we regulate flow temperatures of heating systems condensing gas boilers, because if flow temperature for those goes above 55-56C the gas boiler stops condensing, and efficiency falls by 5-10%. This is just normal.

The Telegraph and GBN headlines about 'banning UFH' are imaginary. I think we are well beyond the point where installed directly electric (as opposed to wet) UFH will damage the market value of a dwelling, and be an albatross, outside special circumstances. Some requirements around controllability are imo just fine, as it gives an installation which will be more useable rather than ignored due to cost after a few years.

The changes around tumbler dryers are also something I can't get excited about. The price differences are becoming minimal, and the more expensive to run traditional types have afaics no advantages left, including the traditional claims of working in sheds and being quicker. The electricity company have the advantage of receiving about £100 a year more for the same amount of drying. They have essentially vanished from Which? Bets Buy lists. Perhaps people who buy one now need ritually to burn a £50 note twice a year, to remember the quality of the decision.

We need to balance the wider benefits of energy efficiency improvement against the individualist demand to make silly decisions. It means we need a smaller grid, or the existing one continues to be sufficient. My solar installation means I import 1-2 MWh less electricity each year, and export more, for no change in lifestyle; that saves, and makes, me money and reduces the load on the grid locally.

Nonsense is what I expect from Richard Tice; it's what he does. I'm more interested in Kemi & Clare Coutinho trying to pivot all of this into a culture war effectively on both energy efficiency and net zero *, without distinguishing the two. Conservative values are supposed to be rational, and I think this will undermine their political recovery.

* If it was Blair I might think that he was baiting the rump conservatives into doing this to marginalise themselves, but I do not see the SKS Labour Party as being capable of that.

Full article link to the Telegraph piece for anyone interested.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/4ff8222bab6e2753

Roy Hattersley has died.

A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.

Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.

It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.

Why?

Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.

My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

I wonder how many others are in our position.

Both of my boys have done very well academically from a RC High School.

I don't believe you are paying for academic excellence, you are paying for a supreme confidence and a network you no longer generally find at state schools, although it existed back in my day.

And this is no joke. If you do make the leap, find a local school that plays rugby in at least one of the first two academic terms. This will tell you an awful lot about how the headteacher rolls. Team sports, particularly rugby and cricket are very important metrics in my old fashioned view.

Exactly, most employers want good team players too and team sports helps with that. Academic excellence alone unless you want to be an academic or say a commercial barrister isn't the only thing to getting a good career

Roy Hattersley has died.

A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.

Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.

It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.

Why?

Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.

My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

I wonder how many others are in our position.

Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.

I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.

Good morning

A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears

Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-private-school-close-after-33999452

Thursday before half term - granted it’s not the greatest time but your suggestion of keeping quiet for another month until the exams are over wouldn’t work.

It’s also the appropriate time to let staff know given them a whole half term to find another job in September.

There's also the trading while insolvent angle and informing staff at the first opportunity of looming redundancies.

A fascinating piece by Sam Freedman (sorry @ydoethur) which unfortunately is paywalled:

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/the-gap-that-never-closes?r=1meubq&utm_medium=ios

The gist of his argument: that he and others have and always will fail to close the gap in educational outcomes between rich and poor. “I’ve spent much of my career trying to reduce the gap in exam results between children from low-income families and everyone else. In government I helped introduce extra funding via the “pupil premium”. After leaving I worked for Teach First, whose mission is to get great teachers where they’re most needed. I’ve been a trustee of numerous education charities all targeting the same goal. None of it worked”

Whilst average attainment has improved the gap between rich and poor remains and has increased since 2020: “the history of education in England has been one of steady increases in opportunity combined with a determined effort by the wealthiest to maintain their advantage”.

Many teachers have commented that they can tell the trajectory of children at the nursery stage. Parents who read to their children vs those that don't etc.

Roy Hattersley has died.

A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.

Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.

It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.

Why?

Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.

My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

I wonder how many others are in our position.

Assuming that the education your children currently receive is better than that which the state offers there's also a long-term cost in that our future workforce will be less well educated.

(The whole policy is daft. We should if anything be giving some money towards private schools.)

Taking a right wing position, if you can't afford it, tough.
The economic case isn't that simple, the cost of additional children to a class that isn't full won't be the mean cost of a state school place.
Plus the massive saving to the economy of people not being promoted far beyond their ability due to the advantages provided by their private education.

Roy Hattersley has died.

A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.

Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.

It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.

Why?

Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.

My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

I wonder how many others are in our position.

Good morning everyone.

A serious question. How much of that c. £12k is money that is being spent anyway? Do you have an idea of the marginal number?

For example, they will not need extra heating in the school for two more children.

Clearly it is more complex than that, and I am aware of the things my parents could not have because they sent me to an independent school for 10 years.

The marginal cost of adding 2 kids is very small. A few extra books etc.

The state funds schools per pupil though, so the school will benefit a lot from the additional resource.

The other fallacy, above, is the classic OR fail of "This marginal cost/load on the organisation can be met with no increase in resources".

Yeah, 2 more kids in the corner of the class might not seem like extra work to some. But state schools are deliberately run at 99%+ capacity. And teachers will bloody notice 2 more kids.

If15 parents in the whole catchment area do the same - a whole new class is required.

Roy Hattersley has died.

A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.

Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.

It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.

Why?

Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.

My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

I wonder how many others are in our position.

Both of my boys have done very well academically from a RC High School.

I don't believe you are paying for academic excellence, you are paying for a supreme confidence and a network you no longer generally find at state schools, although it existed back in my day.

And this is no joke. If you do make the leap, find a local school that plays rugby in at least one of the first two academic terms. This will tell you an awful lot about how the headteacher rolls. Team sports, particularly rugby and cricket are very important metrics in my old fashioned view.

Roy Hattersley has died.

A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.

Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.

It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.

Why?

Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.

My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.

This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.

But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.

I wonder how many others are in our position.

Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.

A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.

I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.

Good morning

A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears

Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/welsh-private-school-close-after-33999452

Privately run can mean very very badly run.

What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?

Private Schools have benefitted from unfair perks

Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.

Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT

Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.

Reduction in childbirth impacts.

This is down to inept management and financial planning.

All VAT on private schools has done is forced some smaller private schools to close and reduced the scholarships and bursaries private schools can offer, making them even more exclusive and reducing further opportunity. It is yet another wickedness from this useless Labour government, much like removing assisted places or starting the process of closing grammars was from previous Labour governments