Maybe this stuff was going on when I was at uni and I was just oblivious. It's absolutely horrific. I think social media has given these subhuman scumbags a place to organise and plan their attacks. It's sickening and once again Facebook and other social media websites are asking us to trust them.
The society we're allowing to be built is just wrong and I don't know how to reverse the malign effects of social media on under 25s.
It happened 25 years ago.
I used to go out on regular girls nights out and as the sole non alcohol drinker it was my job to keep an eye on the drinks.
I think it has probably always gone on. No reason to tolerate it now though.
Misogyny seems to be quite out of control again.
have to say my suspicion is that once again social media is at the root of all this. Not sure how, but...
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
"Ministers must urgently implement sweeping “plan B” winter measures or derail efforts to tackle the backlog of 5 million patients, the head of the NHS Confederation warned as the UK recorded its highest daily Covid death toll since March.
Infections have been rising sharply since the start of October but the government is resisting introducing the extra restrictions set out in its winter plan such as masks, vaccine passports and advice to work from home."
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
FWIW, I went to a comp and feel that I've underachieved because of bad choices I made when I was 16. I blame my comp for that 100%.
FWIW, I went to a Comp, as did both my sibs, and we have all done very well in our chosen professions. I credit that to the drive and ambition that we got from our schools. A top Economist via LSE, myself, and one with a PhD from Cambridge in engineering.
You've probably said this before, so apologies, but what did your parents do out of interest?
My mother was a secretary, and my father a salesman for IBM. Both very good at their jobs.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
By definition only selective grammars or selective private schools can be academically brilliant.
Comprehensives can be better than average in terms of results, for example if in leafy catchment areas but as they take all abilities they never match the top grammars or private schools academically
That's why Value Added is a key performance metric.
But I guess that doesn't matter if the kids from the rough estate still don't make it to Oxbridge.
In terms of getting into the elite value added only matters in terms of percentage of school pupils getting into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and top professional or managerial jobs yes.
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
Which is why we have so many comprehensive educated surgeons, QCs, partners in city firms, CEOs, top journalists and actors and PMs and top civil servants compared to when we had more grammar schools of course and comprehensive educated pupils dominate our elite with private school pupils nowhere to be seen. Oh wait.....
I don't know why you find this so difficult. If you select out, say, the top 10% to go to private/grammar schools, it's hardly surprising that this top 10% would be disproportionately represented in the elite jobs.
Let me try another tack. Imagine a world with no private schools, and no grammar schools - just comprehensives. By your logic, do you think we would then be unable to find surgeons, QCs, CEOs, top civil servants etc. etc? Of course we wouldn't. The talent would still rise to the top, though from a level playing field rather than a rigged system.
"Ministers must urgently implement sweeping “plan B” winter measures or derail efforts to tackle the backlog of 5 million patients, the head of the NHS Confederation warned as the UK recorded its highest daily Covid death toll since March.
Infections have been rising sharply since the start of October but the government is resisting introducing the extra restrictions set out in its winter plan such as masks, vaccine passports and advice to work from home."
Judging by their previous predictions, I think that means cases will start falling again by Friday.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
the other thing that puzzles me is how it's possible to have a comprehensive as well as a grammar school, even ignoring "selective" private schools in which it's the parental bank balance as much as the academic record that counts.
If you've skimmed off, however crudely, the top children to a grammar school, how can the remainign school be a 'comprehensive'? We used to call them Secondary Moderns or similar.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
By definition only selective grammars or selective private schools can be academically brilliant.
Comprehensives can be better than average in terms of results, for example if in leafy catchment areas but as they take all abilities they never match the top grammars or private schools academically
That's why Value Added is a key performance metric.
But I guess that doesn't matter if the kids from the rough estate still don't make it to Oxbridge.
In terms of getting into the elite value added only matters in terms of percentage of school pupils getting into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and top professional or managerial jobs yes.
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
Any other metrics Bucks and Trafford are above average on? Anyone?
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
By definition only selective grammars or selective private schools can be academically brilliant.
Comprehensives can be better than average in terms of results, for example if in leafy catchment areas but as they take all abilities they never match the top grammars or private schools academically
That's why Value Added is a key performance metric.
But I guess that doesn't matter if the kids from the rough estate still don't make it to Oxbridge.
In terms of getting into the elite value added only matters in terms of percentage of school pupils getting into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and top professional or managerial jobs yes.
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
Any other metrics Bucks and Trafford are above average on? Anyone?
The number of noughts at the end of Daddy and Mummy's bank balance?
Preferential funding by certain political parties?
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
By definition only selective grammars or selective private schools can be academically brilliant.
Comprehensives can be better than average in terms of results, for example if in leafy catchment areas but as they take all abilities they never match the top grammars or private schools academically
That's why Value Added is a key performance metric.
But I guess that doesn't matter if the kids from the rough estate still don't make it to Oxbridge.
In terms of getting into the elite value added only matters in terms of percentage of school pupils getting into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and top professional or managerial jobs yes.
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
If they didn't have any grammar schools, Trafford and Bucks would still get above average overall GCSE results. Why? Because they are prosperous areas, and the link between socio-economic status and achievement at GCSE is powerful.
If you introduced grammar schools in, say, Hull, Hull would still get below average GCSE results overall; the grammar schools would do better, but the secondary moderns worse, with no overall impact.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Hospitalisations are the problem, and hospitalisations in 2-3 weeks' time will continue to be a positive function of case numbers right now. And case numbers are going up.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Same here on parents. Work hard and life will reward you, at least I think that was true when I was growing up. I'm not sure it is in the UK or much of the western world now.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Don't worry, my mum made sure I worked hard at school. But hard work is only part of the story, I'm afraid. And that's even more so in the world of work. Which is why I am thoroughly enjoying working from home.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
It’s tricky because we have conditioned people that cases matter, and now they can’t move on to the next stage. If we weren’t testing at all, would notice Covid now, aside from the hospitals?
My local news will lead on spiking women in clubs later apparently.
Is there hard evidence? There was a persistent moral panic in the 90s about people being injected with blood in clubs and people whispering in their ear “welcome to the world of AIDS”. Complete bullshit, but it was on local radio and in local newspapers, reported as fact.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Hospitalisations are the problem, and hospitalisations in 2-3 weeks' time will continue to be a positive function of case numbers right now. And case numbers are going up.
They are, but the absolute number that looks scary is largely driven by the school infections, added to the parents.
Maybe this stuff was going on when I was at uni and I was just oblivious. It's absolutely horrific. I think social media has given these subhuman scumbags a place to organise and plan their attacks. It's sickening and once again Facebook and other social media websites are asking us to trust them.
The society we're allowing to be built is just wrong and I don't know how to reverse the malign effects of social media on under 25s.
It happened 25 years ago.
I used to go out on regular girls nights out and as the sole non alcohol drinker it was my job to keep an eye on the drinks.
I think it has probably always gone on. No reason to tolerate it now though.
Misogyny seems to be quite out of control again.
have to say my suspicion is that once again social media is at the root of all this. Not sure how, but...
It's the "Manosphere" on Social Media that legitimises and encourages such things.
I have recently been reading "Men who Hate Women" by Laura Bates. It is an eye-opener.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Doesn't it? Four million doses already administered, well ahead of peers in Europe. There were similar complaints at the start of the main vaccination drive.
"Ministers must urgently implement sweeping “plan B” winter measures or derail efforts to tackle the backlog of 5 million patients, the head of the NHS Confederation warned as the UK recorded its highest daily Covid death toll since March.
Infections have been rising sharply since the start of October but the government is resisting introducing the extra restrictions set out in its winter plan such as masks, vaccine passports and advice to work from home."
In fairness, that’s not the NHS leadership as such but a membership professional body for the NHS.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Same here on parents. Work hard and life will reward you, at least I think that was true when I was growing up. I'm not sure it is in the UK or much of the western world now.
That's my fear as well.
The irony is my father is furious that he's getting so much on a plate in the past and now and his grandkids will not.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
the other thing that puzzles me is how it's possible to have a comprehensive as well as a grammar school, even ignoring "selective" private schools in which it's the parental bank balance as much as the academic record that counts.
If you've skimmed off, however crudely, the top children to a grammar school, how can the remainign school be a 'comprehensive'? We used to call them Secondary Moderns or similar.
Yes, grammar schools + comps sounds odd. Comps are meant to replace grammars + secmods. I went to a comp myself. A comp but with streaming and quite trad teaching methods. It was pretty good as far as I can recall, which isn't easy to do, long time long time.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
By definition only selective grammars or selective private schools can be academically brilliant.
Comprehensives can be better than average in terms of results, for example if in leafy catchment areas but as they take all abilities they never match the top grammars or private schools academically
That's why Value Added is a key performance metric.
But I guess that doesn't matter if the kids from the rough estate still don't make it to Oxbridge.
In terms of getting into the elite value added only matters in terms of percentage of school pupils getting into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and top professional or managerial jobs yes.
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
If they didn't have any grammar schools, Trafford and Bucks would still get above average overall GCSE results. Why? Because they are prosperous areas, and the link between socio-economic status and achievement at GCSE is powerful.
If you introduced grammar schools in, say, Hull, Hull would still get below average GCSE results overall; the grammar schools would do better, but the secondary moderns worse, with no overall impact.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
Maybe it's better for our PMs to be proper posh like your Boris. Simpler then. Just be themselves. None of these tortuous questions or hoops to jump through.
The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate, the Lord made them high and lowly, and ordered their estate.
My local news will lead on spiking women in clubs later apparently.
Is there hard evidence? There was a persistent moral panic in the 90s about people being injected with blood in clubs and people whispering in their ear “welcome to the world of AIDS”. Complete bullshit, but it was on local radio and in local newspapers, reported as fact.
(Of course, drinks being spiked is a real thing.)
A variant was the story of people being injected with pure heroin so they'd immediately become addicts and need cold turkey like Popeye Doyle.
My local news will lead on spiking women in clubs later apparently.
Is there hard evidence? There was a persistent moral panic in the 90s about people being injected with blood in clubs and people whispering in their ear “welcome to the world of AIDS”. Complete bullshit, but it was on local radio and in local newspapers, reported as fact.
(Of course, drinks being spiked is a real thing.)
Proof fake news and resulting moral panics aren't anything new. AIDS was perfect for this. Mind ISTR a newspaper article about men deliberately infecting women with syphilis and leaving a note to that effect in the tabloids in the 70's. It was the talk of Junior School. Not that I am disputing this story at all.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
Which is why we have so many comprehensive educated surgeons, QCs, partners in city firms, CEOs, top journalists and actors and PMs and top civil servants compared to when we had more grammar schools of course and comprehensive educated pupils dominate our elite with private school pupils nowhere to be seen. Oh wait.....
I don't know why you find this so difficult. If you select out, say, the top 10% to go to private/grammar schools, it's hardly surprising that this top 10% would be disproportionately represented in the elite jobs.
Let me try another tack. Imagine a world with no private schools, and no grammar schools - just comprehensives. By your logic, do you think we would then be unable to find surgeons, QCs, CEOs, top civil servants etc. etc? Of course we wouldn't. The talent would still rise to the top, though from a level playing field rather than a rigged system.
Yes, exactly we now have more of our elite from private schools than we did when we had more grammar schools. Indeed we have not had a PM yet fully educated at a comprehensive, yet from 1964 to 1997 all our PMs went to state grammar schools. Since 1997 3/5 of our PMs went to private school.
If we had your far left banning of choice and no private schools and grammars then obviously the parents of the former would just buy houses in the catchment areas of the best comprehensives, send their children to private boarding schools abroad or go to church regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school. The middle class would still ensure their children dominated the best schools. However personally as a Tory and a Conservative obviously I want more grammar schools, more private schools, more free schools and more choice in education not less
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
It’s not a myth, he went to a fee paying school.
“ Starmer attended Reigate Grammar School, which became a fee-paying independent in his third year there, 1976. According to a website listing 'notable Reigatians', the future Director of Public Prosecutions remained at the fee-paying school until 1981.
Even if his parents were not paying the fees, it is a semantic conundrum whether he can fairly claim to be 'not privately educated' when for several years he attended, er, a private school.”
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
Which is why we have so many comprehensive educated surgeons, QCs, partners in city firms, CEOs, top journalists and actors and PMs and top civil servants compared to when we had more grammar schools of course and comprehensive educated pupils dominate our elite with private school pupils nowhere to be seen. Oh wait.....
I don't know why you find this so difficult. If you select out, say, the top 10% to go to private/grammar schools, it's hardly surprising that this top 10% would be disproportionately represented in the elite jobs.
Let me try another tack. Imagine a world with no private schools, and no grammar schools - just comprehensives. By your logic, do you think we would then be unable to find surgeons, QCs, CEOs, top civil servants etc. etc? Of course we wouldn't. The talent would still rise to the top, though from a level playing field rather than a rigged system.
Yes, exactly we now have more of our elite from private schools than we did when we had more grammar schools. Indeed we have not had a PM yet fully educated at a comprehensive, yet from 1964 to 1997 all our PMs went to state grammar schools. Since 1997 3/5 of our PMs went to private school.
If we had your far left banning of choice and no private schools and grammars then obviously the parents of the former would just buy houses in the catchment areas of the best comprehensives, send their children to private boarding schools abroad or go to church regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school. The middle class would still ensure their children dominated the best schools. However personally as a Tory and a Conservative obviously I want more grammar schools, more private schools, more free schools and more choice in education not less
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Hospitalisations are the problem, and hospitalisations in 2-3 weeks' time will continue to be a positive function of case numbers right now. And case numbers are going up.
They are, but the absolute number that looks scary is largely driven by the school infections, added to the parents.
Interesting thing for me is how differnt differnt parts of the coutnry are experiencing Covid.
Here is Scotland Cases/Admissions/28-Day-Deaths over the last 6 months
A very strong (but thankfully absolute numbers diminished compared to earlier in the pandemic) correlation between case numbers to admission to death.
Yet England looks like this.
A massively weaker correlation - especially deaths. Splitting down into Regions reveals different parts of England are having very different times of it.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
By definition only selective grammars or selective private schools can be academically brilliant.
Comprehensives can be better than average in terms of results, for example if in leafy catchment areas but as they take all abilities they never match the top grammars or private schools academically
That's why Value Added is a key performance metric.
But I guess that doesn't matter if the kids from the rough estate still don't make it to Oxbridge.
In terms of getting into the elite value added only matters in terms of percentage of school pupils getting into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and top professional or managerial jobs yes.
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
If they didn't have any grammar schools, Trafford and Bucks would still get above average overall GCSE results. Why? Because they are prosperous areas, and the link between socio-economic status and achievement at GCSE is powerful.
If you introduced grammar schools in, say, Hull, Hull would still get below average GCSE results overall; the grammar schools would do better, but the secondary moderns worse, with no overall impact.
Same for the private sector. If you adjust for socioeconomic advantage of pupil intake, its results aren't much different to the state sector. I think that's the case anyway. It was a few years ago.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Don't worry, my mum made sure I worked hard at school. But hard work is only part of the story, I'm afraid. And that's even more so in the world of work. Which is why I am thoroughly enjoying working from home.
True, the thing that I just cannot comprehend is class sizes of 30 plus in state schools.
There's no way even the most dedicated teacher has the time to focus on the students who need their help.
March 16th. Half the cases of Covid-19 in this country have been since March 16th. All that stuff last Christmas, that wasn't even half way to where we are today. Pretty unexpected.
Cases is a bad metric to use given how little testing was done at the start of the pandemic.
Deaths is a good metric to use for the kind of point you are making.
I'm not making a point, other than I was surprised at how many cases there have been recently. Deaths, of course, are now partially decoupled from cases thanks to vaccines, so that's great news.
But there are a lot of cases. I don't think I was alone in thinking some time ago that infections had nowhere to go, because most people had been ill, vaccinated, or both. That was misguided, and I was wrong.
A massive number of those infections are amongst school children which badly skews any comparisons.
"Ministers must urgently implement sweeping “plan B” winter measures or derail efforts to tackle the backlog of 5 million patients, the head of the NHS Confederation warned as the UK recorded its highest daily Covid death toll since March.
Infections have been rising sharply since the start of October but the government is resisting introducing the extra restrictions set out in its winter plan such as masks, vaccine passports and advice to work from home."
I don't think the backlogs can be cleared. The only approach that will work is the same as the court system, writing off half the cases for no further action.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Don't worry, my mum made sure I worked hard at school. But hard work is only part of the story, I'm afraid. And that's even more so in the world of work. Which is why I am thoroughly enjoying working from home.
True, the thing that I just cannot comprehend is class sizes of 30 plus in state schools.
There's no way even the most dedicated teacher has the time to focus on the students who need their help.
"Ministers must urgently implement sweeping “plan B” winter measures or derail efforts to tackle the backlog of 5 million patients, the head of the NHS Confederation warned as the UK recorded its highest daily Covid death toll since March.
Infections have been rising sharply since the start of October but the government is resisting introducing the extra restrictions set out in its winter plan such as masks, vaccine passports and advice to work from home."
Judging by their previous predictions, I think that means cases will start falling again by Friday.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
It’s tricky because we have conditioned people that cases matter, and now they can’t move on to the next stage. If we weren’t testing at all, would notice Covid now, aside from the hospitals?
Most people wouldn’t notice it all, in the same way most people wouldn’t notice a bad flu winter. The daily numbers mean that covid is kept in the public consciousness in the way that other things that can harm us in life are not.
The key difference in reality is that high-profile people don’t endlessly call for lockdowns to stop other significant risks of harm to health (eg air pollution is a major killer), so there is an ongoing and clear tension with covid between those who find restrictions anathema and those who are more tolerant of them.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Hospitalisations are the problem, and hospitalisations in 2-3 weeks' time will continue to be a positive function of case numbers right now. And case numbers are going up.
They are, but the absolute number that looks scary is largely driven by the school infections, added to the parents.
Almost none of whom will end up in hospital.
It's the waning of the vax for 70+ year olds we really need to watch, if that is actually happening.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Hospitalisations are the problem, and hospitalisations in 2-3 weeks' time will continue to be a positive function of case numbers right now. And case numbers are going up.
They are, but the absolute number that looks scary is largely driven by the school infections, added to the parents.
Interesting thing for me is how differnt differnt parts of the coutnry are experiencing Covid.
Here is Scotland Cases/Admissions/28-Day-Deaths over the last 6 months
A very strong (but thankfully absolute numbers diminished compared to earlier in the pandemic) correlation between case numbers to admission to death.
Yet England looks like this.
A massively weaker correlation - especially deaths. Splitting down into Regions reveals different parts of England are having very different times of it.
Interesting. Wonders if the euros effect is distorting the early summer cases?
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Don't worry, my mum made sure I worked hard at school. But hard work is only part of the story, I'm afraid. And that's even more so in the world of work. Which is why I am thoroughly enjoying working from home.
True, the thing that I just cannot comprehend is class sizes of 30 plus in state schools.
There's no way even the most dedicated teacher has the time to focus on the students who need their help.
I agree to some extent and also agree that fewer is far better when it comes to class sizes.
And yet 40 years ago when I was at school a class size of between 25 and 30 was the norm at my comprehensive school. Until you got to 6th form of course. Looking back one thing that amazes me about that time is how few of us actually continued education past 16. Each year having 150-180 kids, the lower 6th would only have 20 to 30 maximum.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Doesn't it? Four million doses already administered, well ahead of peers in Europe. There were similar complaints at the start of the main vaccination drive.
As of today 10.4m people are eligible for their boosters having had their second doses by 19/4.
3.8m would inject everyone second vaccinated by 29/3, so we are lagging by 3 weeks
I'd say that gap does need to be tightened quite quickly to reprotect the elderly.
And 15% of 12-15s is poor.
The government has lost interest in COVID when it should have been being b watchful.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Don't worry, my mum made sure I worked hard at school. But hard work is only part of the story, I'm afraid. And that's even more so in the world of work. Which is why I am thoroughly enjoying working from home.
True, the thing that I just cannot comprehend is class sizes of 30 plus in state schools.
There's no way even the most dedicated teacher has the time to focus on the students who need their help.
Standard. Amused to hear an exchange during lockdown about Covid safe schools in Denmark on the radio. The teacher explained all the mitigations they had in place.
Interviewer: So how many children do you have in your class now? Teacher: 15. Interviewer : Wow! That's impressive! And how many before Covid? Teacher (obviously confused) : 15.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
How is the booster program slow and shit?
A number of PBers have stated this as if it's fact over the last few days.
My mum got a text yesterday from the NHS saying she was eligible for a booster (second dose Mid-April), and sent a link to the NHS booster booking site, and today her GP sent a text with a link to book directly at the surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was fully booked, so she used the NHS site to book at a walk-in centre not too far from the surgery.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
Indeed, the truth is much worse. He went to a grammar. In all seriousness, I'd like to hear his thoughts on grammars. Does he think his school was incidental to his own personal success in life? If not, what aspects of his education does he think we should bring in for comprehensives?
I went to a grammar school. It's what folk who passed the 11+ did back in those days. But I'm totally opposed to them. Contrary to popular myth, they were a brake on social mobility, not a conduit to it. The vast majority of people didn't go to grammar school; the middle classes, and boys, were over-represented. Any good educationalist (as I am/was) knows that the grammar school system constrained social mobility by consigning vast swathes of the age group to secondary modern schools, where expectations and attainment were low.
Today's equivalent of grammar school kids thrive in the comprehensive system, as all the educational data indicates.
Which is why we have so many comprehensive educated surgeons, QCs, partners in city firms, CEOs, top journalists and actors and PMs and top civil servants compared to when we had more grammar schools of course and comprehensive educated pupils dominate our elite with private school pupils nowhere to be seen. Oh wait.....
I don't know why you find this so difficult. If you select out, say, the top 10% to go to private/grammar schools, it's hardly surprising that this top 10% would be disproportionately represented in the elite jobs.
Let me try another tack. Imagine a world with no private schools, and no grammar schools - just comprehensives. By your logic, do you think we would then be unable to find surgeons, QCs, CEOs, top civil servants etc. etc? Of course we wouldn't. The talent would still rise to the top, though from a level playing field rather than a rigged system.
Yes, exactly we now have more of our elite from private schools than we did when we had more grammar schools. Indeed we have not had a PM yet fully educated at a comprehensive, yet from 1964 to 1997 all our PMs went to state grammar schools. Since 1997 3/5 of our PMs went to private school.
If we had your far left banning of choice and no private schools and grammars then obviously the parents of the former would just buy houses in the catchment areas of the best comprehensives, send their children to private boarding schools abroad or go to church regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school. The middle class would still ensure their children dominated the best schools. However personally as a Tory and a Conservative obviously I want more grammar schools, more private schools, more free schools and more choice in education not less
And more Secondary Moderns therefore.
Nothing wrong with secondary moderns or high schools as they are now called.
In selective Kent, Bucks, Trafford and Lincolnshire even in most high schools over half of pupils get 5 A*-C GCSE grades now.
Just the grammars also get a lot more into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and the top professions too.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Hey Leon. Did you catch the Guardian long read today? It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
I think parents matter a lot. For me it was a former nurse and a mechanic. And neither were great for me in terms of guidance. If I'd wanted to be a doctor then I'd have been fine (assuming I'd got in... just because you get straight As doesn't necessarily mean you will). But I didn't. If I could tell my younger self what to do it would be so easy. Sadly my comp didn't seem to care so I was left to make the mistakes that I can't undo.
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
They do. My parents drilled into me from a very early age that the harder I worked at school and later university then I would be able to do what I want, and have all the money in the world to have what I wanted.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Don't worry, my mum made sure I worked hard at school. But hard work is only part of the story, I'm afraid. And that's even more so in the world of work. Which is why I am thoroughly enjoying working from home.
True, the thing that I just cannot comprehend is class sizes of 30 plus in state schools.
There's no way even the most dedicated teacher has the time to focus on the students who need their help.
I agree to some extent and also agree that fewer is far better when it comes to class sizes.
And yet 40 years ago when I was at school a class size of between 25 and 30 was the norm at my comprehensive school. Until you got to 6th form of course. Looking back one thing that amazes me about that time is how few of us actually continued education past 16. Each year having 150-180 kids, the lower 6th would only have 20 to 30 maximum.
We had three classes of 30 in each year at Ilford County when I was there.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Doesn't it? Four million doses already administered, well ahead of peers in Europe. There were similar complaints at the start of the main vaccination drive.
As of today 10.4m people are eligible for their boosters having had their second doses by 19/4.
3.8m would inject everyone second vaccinated by 29/3, so we are lagging by 3 weeks
I'd say that gap does need to be tightened quite quickly to reprotect the elderly.
And 15% of 12-15s is poor.
The government has lost interest in COVID when it should have been being b watchful.
The slow take up seems to be among the younger groups - health and care workers - and the 80+ so maybe those in care homes.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
How is the booster program slow and shit?
A number of PBers have stated this as if it's fact over the last few days.
My mum got a text yesterday from the NHS saying she was eligible for a booster (second dose Mid-April), and sent a link to the NHS booster booking site, and today her GP sent a text with a link to book directly at the surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was fully booked, so she used the NHS site to book at a walk-in centre not too far from the surgery.
I suspect the classic regional variations again. Plus Scotland has definitely pushed the kids through faster.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Hey Leon. Did you catch the Guardian long read today? It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
I did, Intriguing.
The Left is struggling to hold on to the we-all-come-from Africa shibboleth
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Other countries are far more likely to go into lockdown than the UK. The government will never reintroduce furlough and therefore lockdown is not on the cards. The most we might see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and possibly vaccine passports for indoor venues. IMO the government will attempt to tough it out and accept that many thousands of people who have refused the vaccine will die.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Other countries are far more likely to go into lockdown than the UK. The government will never reintroduce furlough and therefore lockdown is not on the cards. The most we might see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and possibly vaccine passports for indoor venues. IMO the government will attempt to tough it out and accept that many thousands of people who have refused the vaccine will die.
Let the fuckers die. Raise the average national IQ
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Other countries are far more likely to go into lockdown than the UK. The government will never reintroduce furlough and therefore lockdown is not on the cards. The most we might see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and possibly vaccine passports for indoor venues. IMO the government will attempt to tough it out and accept that many thousands of people who have refused the vaccine will die.
A few weeks ago there was a few cases in the papers etc of unvaccinated deaths, notably with the patient begging for the vaccine before being put into the induced coma. Gone quiet since. I do wish we were getting more info on the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated in the deaths column. I think there may be some reluctance because a fair few of the elderly deaths will be fully vaxxed, but we should be hearing this. More important than another 10,000 kids who dont even know they are ill.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Best not choose Latvia though.
Romania recorded 561 deaths today. Biggest ever. That would be about 2,000 in the UK. And it is still getting worse
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
It would take a new variant to get me to consider wearing a mask again.
No chance I'll support another lockdown. Enough is enough, even if a variant escapes the vax we can't have another two years of this bullshit as we go through trials of a new vaccine etc. Whoever dies, dies.
My eldest daughter is in Year 3. Her last uninterrupted year of schooling was Reception.
Its mental when you think about it like that. I'm not up for going back to the start again, even if a variant happens. Deadly serious, we need to live our lives.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Hey Leon. Did you catch the Guardian long read today? It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
I did, Intriguing.
The Left is struggling to hold on to the we-all-come-from Africa shibboleth
No surprise giants, dwarves, elves, mountain trolls etc. feature so widely in oral mythologies. As they really existed. (Well. Humans would have encountered numerous hominid species that would have appeared so anyway). I found it fascinating. The Guardian (quite rightly) takes some slating at times. But this is the kind of stuff it does really well, wouldn't be in any other newspaper and offers for free. So deserves credit.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
It would take a new variant to get me to consider wearing a mask again.
No chance I'll support another lockdown. Enough is enough, even if a variant escapes the vax we can't have another two years of this bullshit as we go through trials of a new vaccine etc. Whoever dies, dies.
I do wonder what the history books will make of lockdowns.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
If the government orders theatres, schools, pubs and clubs to shut, they have to shut. So we don’t get any choice about whether we comply or not. Unless we leave the country.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Best not choose Latvia though.
Romania recorded 561 deaths today. Biggest ever. That would be about 2,000 in the UK. And it is still getting worse
Looks like tonight is "let's find some dirt on Starmer" night, dredging up stuff from his past, long before he was LOTO, including where his parents sent him to school. Smacks of desperation to me. Still, he'll know what attack lines to expect from the tabloids when the next GE gets under way. Though I thought PB may do better.
Starmer is clearly an anti-semitic, hypocritical private-school educated, serial DPP prosecutor who hates his country. Or something like that.
And I bet there were some unsolved crimes during his time as DPP.
Not sure. Was Starmer DPP when Boris conspired to get Darius Guppy beaten up? That may have been earlier.
Guppy contacted Boris from prison to organize the assault. The person to be beaten up was a journalist who had crossed Guppy.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Other countries are far more likely to go into lockdown than the UK. The government will never reintroduce furlough and therefore lockdown is not on the cards. The most we might see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and possibly vaccine passports for indoor venues. IMO the government will attempt to tough it out and accept that many thousands of people who have refused the vaccine will die.
Good point about furlough.
Sunak now controls whether we do full lockdown again I guess.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
The thing I find frustrating is that all the attitude in the media is about what lessons are to be learnt about how we could have saved more lives. How we could have locked down harder. How we could trigger lockdown sooner.
Not was lockdown a mistake afterall. Not did we lockdown too long and too hard.
There is absolutely no balance and I worry the "lessons learnt" will follow that path. The lesson needs to be "never again."
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
If the government orders theatres, schools, pubs and clubs to shut, they have to shut. So we don’t get any choice about whether we comply or not. Unless we leave the country.
True. Obviously I wont be going to the pub if they forcibly shuttered.
So, I will have friends around to the house. We will do our best.
Unless Boris wants to end up like the Australian governors pepper spraying grans who dare to drink a coffee in a cafe then he will stay well away from another lockdown.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Hey Leon. Did you catch the Guardian long read today? It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
I did, Intriguing.
The Left is struggling to hold on to the we-all-come-from Africa shibboleth
No surprise giants, dwarves, elves, mountain trolls etc. feature so widely in oral mythologies. As they really existed. (Well. Humans would have encountered numerous hominid species that would have appeared so anyway). I found it fascinating. The Guardian (quite rightly) takes some slating at times. But this is the kind of stuff it does really well, wouldn't be in any other newspaper and offers for free. So deserves credit.
It was a good, absorbing article. Well done the Groaniad. But I found it slightly behind the pace, eg the latest discoveries around Harran - like Karahan Tepe - which upend the narrative AGAIN - were entirely unmentioned
This is no surprise as the piece was an extract from a book already written, but the omissions did make it feel slightly stale
Karahan and Gobekli Tepe and the associated sites suggest there was an entire, advanced civilisation on the Harran plain, around 13,000-8,000 BC, which we have hitherto missed. Yet we have no idea how the fed themselves, what else they did, how they lived, and so on. And where are the human remains?!
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I am 100% opposed to ever again having any of:
Telling children they can't go to school. Telling premises they need to close. Telling people they can't meet friends and family. Telling businesses they need to operate unprofitably (social distancing in pubs etc)
And probably more. If people choose to stay at home, or choose to wear masks etc then that's their choice.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
My sense is that there has been a clear shift away from lockdownism but that could just be a function of my social group, who tend towards liberty.
That said, I have found myself becoming irritated when people accept invitations to social events “covid permitting”. It is up to them whether they accept or decline the invitation, the virus has no opinion. Maybe it’s because they half expect more restrictions — an idea that would have seemed outlandish in the extreme just 20 months ago.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
If the government orders theatres, schools, pubs and clubs to shut, they have to shut. So we don’t get any choice about whether we comply or not. Unless we leave the country.
So where is Sunak going to find the money for all those people he is putting out of work? He knows if he shuts down again and doesn't offer the same support as last time or better then there will be nothing left to reopen.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Hey Leon. Did you catch the Guardian long read today? It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
I did, Intriguing.
The Left is struggling to hold on to the we-all-come-from Africa shibboleth
No surprise giants, dwarves, elves, mountain trolls etc. feature so widely in oral mythologies. As they really existed. (Well. Humans would have encountered numerous hominid species that would have appeared so anyway). I found it fascinating. The Guardian (quite rightly) takes some slating at times. But this is the kind of stuff it does really well, wouldn't be in any other newspaper and offers for free. So deserves credit.
It was a good, absorbing article. Well done the Groaniad. But I found it slightly behind the pace, eg the latest discoveries around Harran - like Karahan Tepe - which upend the narrative AGAIN - were entirely unmentioned
This is no surprise as the piece was an extract from a book already written, but the omissions did make it feel slightly stale
Karahan and Gobekli Tepe and the associated sites suggest there was an entire, advanced civilisation on the Harran plain, around 13,000-8,000 BC, which we have hitherto missed. Yet we have no idea how the fed themselves, what else they did, how they lived, and so on. And where are the human remains?!
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
How is the booster program slow and shit?
A number of PBers have stated this as if it's fact over the last few days.
My mum got a text yesterday from the NHS saying she was eligible for a booster (second dose Mid-April), and sent a link to the NHS booster booking site, and today her GP sent a text with a link to book directly at the surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was fully booked, so she used the NHS site to book at a walk-in centre not too far from the surgery.
It seems to be going well in the 50-80 group which are the important people.
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Yep. I'm not doing lockdown either.
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
If the government orders theatres, schools, pubs and clubs to shut, they have to shut. So we don’t get any choice about whether we comply or not. Unless we leave the country.
So, we leave the country. Those that don't will disobey from home
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Hey Leon. Did you catch the Guardian long read today? It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
I did, Intriguing.
The Left is struggling to hold on to the we-all-come-from Africa shibboleth
No surprise giants, dwarves, elves, mountain trolls etc. feature so widely in oral mythologies. As they really existed. (Well. Humans would have encountered numerous hominid species that would have appeared so anyway). I found it fascinating. The Guardian (quite rightly) takes some slating at times. But this is the kind of stuff it does really well, wouldn't be in any other newspaper and offers for free. So deserves credit.
It was a good, absorbing article. Well done the Groaniad. But I found it slightly behind the pace, eg the latest discoveries around Harran - like Karahan Tepe - which upend the narrative AGAIN - were entirely unmentioned
This is no surprise as the piece was an extract from a book already written, but the omissions did make it feel slightly stale
Karahan and Gobekli Tepe and the associated sites suggest there was an entire, advanced civilisation on the Harran plain, around 13,000-8,000 BC, which we have hitherto missed. Yet we have no idea how the fed themselves, what else they did, how they lived, and so on. And where are the human remains?!
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
It’s not a myth, he went to a fee paying school.
“ Starmer attended Reigate Grammar School, which became a fee-paying independent in his third year there, 1976. According to a website listing 'notable Reigatians', the future Director of Public Prosecutions remained at the fee-paying school until 1981.
Even if his parents were not paying the fees, it is a semantic conundrum whether he can fairly claim to be 'not privately educated' when for several years he attended, er, a private school.”
It is a myth. He went to a grammar school. Sure, it became a fee-paying school while he was there, but that's hardly his or his parents' doing, is it? He didn't pay any fees. I guess you think his parents should have moved his school instead of sticking it out.
Great source by the way: Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail. Never knowingly accurate.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
My sense is that there has been a clear shift away from lockdownism but that could just be a function of my social group, who tend towards liberty.
That said, I have found myself becoming irritated when people accept invitations to social events “covid permitting”. It is up to them whether they accept or decline the invitation, the virus has no opinion. Maybe it’s because they half expect more restrictions — an idea that would have seemed outlandish in the extreme just 20 months ago.
Loads of people do expect more restrictions. I think there was a poll in this morning's newspapers.
I personally know a few people who are really worried it will happen again in Dec/Jan and I don't blame them because they had such an awful time of it in last lockdowns.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
Lockdowns, group-size restrictions and mask mandates are oppressive, antisocial and illiberal measures. We should be extremely wary of reintroducing them. ‘Mitigations’ is an hyper-modern euphemism for what are considerable impositions on human life.
Should imagine if we could drain the Black Sea we would find astonishing things. By complete coincidence this came up on my Facebook feed today regarding Japan.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
The thing I find frustrating is that all the attitude in the media is about what lessons are to be learnt about how we could have saved more lives. How we could have locked down harder. How we could trigger lockdown sooner.
Not was lockdown a mistake afterall. Not did we lockdown too long and too hard.
There is absolutely no balance and I worry the "lessons learnt" will follow that path. The lesson needs to be "never again."
One or two exceptions. Freddy at Unherd (can't recall his second name) doing good work interviewing scientists with a different view to "The Science" de jour.
The press conferences with Johnson were appalling. Where was the challenge?
There is a still an axiomatic obsession with positive tests (aka ‘cases’). The have been lots of positive tests in my son’s school, yet few of the children are ill, to the point where their symptoms were either so mild they wouldn’t ordinarily be kept off school, or that they would be none the wiser had they not had a compulsory weekly test.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Except the boost vax boost doesn't seem to be going as well as it previously was.
Correct. The booster programme is slow and shit: the media/healthcare focus should be on that, rather than headline grabbing sabre rattling about yet more lockdowns.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
+1
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
Other countries are far more likely to go into lockdown than the UK. The government will never reintroduce furlough and therefore lockdown is not on the cards. The most we might see is mandatory masks in some indoor settings and possibly vaccine passports for indoor venues. IMO the government will attempt to tough it out and accept that many thousands of people who have refused the vaccine will die.
Let the fuckers die. Raise the average national IQ
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
Lockdowns, group-size restrictions and mask mandates are oppressive, antisocial and illiberal measures. We should be extremely wary of reintroducing them. ‘Mitigations’ is an hyper-modern euphemism for what are considerable impositions on human life.
I note that our so called democratic members of parliament waved through another six months of extreme measures over covid without even a debate this afternoon.
Corbyn really did bequeath Starmer a toxic legacy.
The problem is that Starmer isn't up to the job either.
Nonsense. I am not a Labour supporter, but Starmer has a great deal more credibility than the Clown that currently occupies No10. It is a long time before the next election. The big problem that Starmer has is not his own ability or credibility, it is that there is still a large part of the Labour Party that is even more ludicrous than many of those of the current government benches. History will judge how he does the long haul.
He reminds me a lot of Cameron: Massively underestimated by those in his own party that would rather have someone else, and derided by his opponents because they are simply too tribal or plain stupid to realise that he might just make it.
I agree with some of that: but Cameron always had a vision - even if you disagreed with it. Starmer seems unable to project any vision he may have without writing a WORN (*) magnum opus. Events haven't helped him, as the country and media are concentrating on bigger events.
Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party.
(*) Write Once, Read Never. A common form of computer documentation.
"Blair was a salesman. Cameron was also a salesman, to a lesser extent. Starmer doesn't appear to be one - and he needs to sell his vision for the country, to both the country and his own party." - pretty much the whole reason I think Sir Keir won't be PM - plus the fact he is up against a very charismatic salesman
In a way, they appear polar opposites. Starmer may have a vision (I've no idea given he seems incapable of saying it); Boris doesn't have a vision beyond the end of his nose, but can sell the snot that dribbles out by the barrel-load.
We need a hideous scientific experiment where the two are merged together. Starson or Johnmer.
(I actually quite like Starson. Very sci-fi)
I saw a clip of Blair as LotO at PMQs the other day, and he seemed like he was bossing it vs Major (the famous one "I lead my party, he follows his", seems so horribly smug watching it now), and to an extent Cameron did with Brown, from what I can recall.
Miliband and Sir Keir always seem like they are earnestly whining about it being so unfair to me; maybe it's just the lack of gravitas in their voices. They seem like kids complaining about their parents, in comparison to the last couple of LotOs who became PM
No, he doesn't come over as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. The "wooden" critique is fair enough but you're just indulging yourself with this. Surprised you haven't as yet found fault with his eyebrows btw. Or have I missed that?
Comes over to me as whining to his parents about it being so unfair. He has a whiny voice, like Ed Miliband has, and coupled with his whole schtik being how nasty the govt and Boris are, it seems a bit "poor me"
Don't know about his eyebrows - he looks like a Teddy Boy who likes a beer to me, but Boris is no pin up either, so it doesn't really affect things
A deathly dull teddy boy with a whiny voice who likes a beer. It's pouring out now.
No point opposing such naked prejudice with reason, I've learnt this, but just on the voice - it's not whiny, it's a touch flat & nasal, which is completely different.
And what about your man "Boris". How does HE come over to you? Eg when he stands up and says he's going to "get social care done". Does this sort of thing come across as dynamic and determined, or like he has no clue what he's talking about and operates on pure bullshit?
Ooh, prejudice!!!
I used to absolute despise Boris, based almost solely on a combination of class hatred and inability to see how anyone could fall for his bluster - I wouldn't say he was my man now, I voted for him with a heavy heart and a lot of sadness at finally going over to the dark side. But he was the only one offering to honour the referendum result. As I have got older I can appreciate that a bit of charisma and optimism goes a long way, and dreary righteousness is unappealing
Ok, you're being your best self with that answer, so I'll take it without disbelief or rancour. At least for now.
Let me fill you in on what a contemptible prick starmer is:
Starmer as DPP was effectively in charge of prosecutions before juries. He was the country's leading authority on Not Prejudicing Trials. Against that background, he held a press conference to announce that the admittedly appalling Chris Huhne would be prosecuted for lying his head off. Now, what is the likely effect of that press conference on a potential juror? They are going to think, if they pay any attention at all, There wouldn't have been a press conference about this on national TV if there was nothing in it. And what's the benefit of holding the press conference? It's to raise Kier's fucking political profile.
An unprincipled twat.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, he is actually a politician?
Yeah killer point. But if he can't behave honourably as a lawyer, what can we expect from him as a politician?
We already know that.
He stayed in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet and said he'd serve in a real Cabinet and support Corbyn as PM even after all the antisemitism came up.
He is the worst sort of self-serving careerist.
He also talks of wanting to give people from the same background as him the chances he got - He went to a Grammar School, which he wont reintroduce as far as I know, which turned into a private, fee paying school whilst he was there. So either his parents paid, in which case poor kids wont get that chance or, as some claim, the state paid for him to go private, in which case, is his government going to pay for bright poor kids to go to private school?
Surely, in the GE campaign, a journalist will ask him outright "Who paid for you to go to Private School?"
I'm not sure the state covering costs of students who passed the 11 plus would be that big a story to be honest.
That he did pass the 11 plus is more interesting. Presumably he wishes he could have gone to a bog standard comp, but again, I'm not sure it's that big an issue. The Tories don't want to bring them back where they were abolished, so it's not like he will have to give an opinion on this.
He says he wants kids from ‘umble backgrounds like his to get the same chances he did - he’s not going to let them go to grammar school & he’s not going to pay for them to go private like he did. So what’s the plan? ‘Make every comprehensive brilliant’?
You keep perpetuating this myth. Starmer didn't go to a private school. And yes, make every comprehensive brilliant is what we want.
It’s not a myth, he went to a fee paying school.
“ Starmer attended Reigate Grammar School, which became a fee-paying independent in his third year there, 1976. According to a website listing 'notable Reigatians', the future Director of Public Prosecutions remained at the fee-paying school until 1981.
Even if his parents were not paying the fees, it is a semantic conundrum whether he can fairly claim to be 'not privately educated' when for several years he attended, er, a private school.”
It is a myth. He went to a grammar school. Sure, it became a fee-paying school while he was there, but that's hardly his or his parents' doing, is it? He didn't pay any fees. I guess you think his parents should have moved his school instead of sticking it out.
Great source by the way: Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail. Never knowingly accurate.
Never mind the source, that he went to a fee paying school is not a matter for debate - it is a cold hard fact.
So either his parents paid, in which case he didn't come from such a humble background, or the state paid, in which case, does he support the state doing the same for poor kids now?
He says he wants kids to have the same life chances he had, but he doesn't want to reopen Grammar schools, and he wants to close off money to private schools... and he went to both!
I'm not saying they should have moved schools, or that it was his parents doing, but the facts are the facts. I would love to have had the chance to go to a grammar school, and my parents would have loved the state to pay for me to go to a private school, but I didn't get that chance - Sir Keir did
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
The trouble is, right at the start the SAGE brigade held back from lockdowns because they didn't think people in a modern western democracy would do it. Then Italy did.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
But what do you (and other posters) mean by lockdown? Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
I mean, the stay at home, do not go out, except to shops once a week, and walk the dog, pubs shut, cafe shut, non food stores shut etc etc.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Indeed there is a small(ish) but extremely vocal group who want exactly that. A quite extreme attack on liberty that is all too rarely challenged by the media.
Comments
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1450418679729074177?s=20
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/19/implement-plan-b-winter-measures-now-or-risk-nhs-crisis-johnson-warned
"Ministers must urgently implement sweeping “plan B” winter measures or derail efforts to tackle the backlog of 5 million patients, the head of the NHS Confederation warned as the UK recorded its highest daily Covid death toll since March.
Infections have been rising sharply since the start of October but the government is resisting introducing the extra restrictions set out in its winter plan such as masks, vaccine passports and advice to work from home."
But at least I went to uni pre-3,000 a year fees, so that's something.
700k cases a day by December maybe?
Selective areas like Trafford and Bucks get above average overall GCSE results anyway
Let me try another tack. Imagine a world with no private schools, and no grammar schools - just comprehensives. By your logic, do you think we would then be unable to find surgeons, QCs, CEOs, top civil servants etc. etc? Of course we wouldn't. The talent would still rise to the top, though from a level playing field rather than a rigged system.
If you've skimmed off, however crudely, the top children to a grammar school, how can the remainign school be a 'comprehensive'? We used to call them Secondary Moderns or similar.
Anyone?
Preferential funding by certain political parties?
Lack of deprivation (relatively)?
I'd want to know.
Moreover, similar applies to many of their parents who have been ‘infected’. Many report just mild or very mild symptoms, to the point where the recent circulating common cold strain is considerably worse.
How long will this obsession with covid ‘case’ numbers continue? And, if it continues, what are we expected to do about it? We have 80% of our 12+ population vaxxed. We have the most open society in the western world. People are living and loving their lives again. London is absolutely buzzing.
Boost. Vax. Boost. That is all we can and should do. The vaccines work incredibly well. Celebrate that. And move forward.
Everytime I did well at school I got rewarded.
Up to the age of 14 I thought I'd become a doctor but I realised I was way too squeamish and way to much of a germaphobe to be a doctor.
Ran down the tunnel so he wouldn't have to shake Klopp's hand.
If you introduced grammar schools in, say, Hull, Hull would still get below average GCSE results overall; the grammar schools would do better, but the secondary moderns worse, with no overall impact.
(Of course, drinks being spiked is a real thing.)
Something needs to change.
I have recently been reading "Men who Hate Women" by Laura Bates. It is an eye-opener.
The irony is my father is furious that he's getting so much on a plate in the past and now and his grandkids will not.
Ok Google, what is a fool's errand?
the poor man at his gate,
the Lord made them high and lowly,
and ordered their estate.
Mind ISTR a newspaper article about men deliberately infecting women with syphilis and leaving a note to that effect in the tabloids in the 70's. It was the talk of Junior School.
Not that I am disputing this story at all.
If we had your far left banning of choice and no private schools and grammars then obviously the parents of the former would just buy houses in the catchment areas of the best comprehensives, send their children to private boarding schools abroad or go to church regularly to get a vicar's reference for a top church school. The middle class would still ensure their children dominated the best schools. However personally as a Tory and a Conservative obviously I want more grammar schools, more private schools, more free schools and more choice in education not less
“ Starmer attended Reigate Grammar School, which became a fee-paying independent in his third year there, 1976. According to a website listing 'notable Reigatians', the future Director of Public Prosecutions remained at the fee-paying school until 1981.
Even if his parents were not paying the fees, it is a semantic conundrum whether he can fairly claim to be 'not privately educated' when for several years he attended, er, a private school.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-10031461/ANDREW-PIERCE-Punishing-public-schools-attended.html
Here is Scotland Cases/Admissions/28-Day-Deaths over the last 6 months
A very strong (but thankfully absolute numbers diminished compared to earlier in the pandemic) correlation between case numbers to admission to death.
Yet England looks like this.
A massively weaker correlation - especially deaths. Splitting down into Regions reveals different parts of England are having very different times of it.
There's no way even the most dedicated teacher has the time to focus on the students who need their help.
The key difference in reality is that high-profile people don’t endlessly call for lockdowns to stop other significant risks of harm to health (eg air pollution is a major killer), so there is an ongoing and clear tension with covid between those who find restrictions anathema and those who are more tolerant of them.
It's the waning of the vax for 70+ year olds we really need to watch, if that is actually happening.
And yet 40 years ago when I was at school a class size of between 25 and 30 was the norm at my comprehensive school. Until you got to 6th form of course. Looking back one thing that amazes me about that time is how few of us actually continued education past 16. Each year having 150-180 kids, the lower 6th would only have 20 to 30 maximum.
Lockdowns destroy people. They are horrific.
3.8m would inject everyone second vaccinated by 29/3, so we are lagging by 3 weeks
I'd say that gap does need to be tightened quite quickly to reprotect the elderly.
And 15% of 12-15s is poor.
The government has lost interest in COVID when it should have been being b watchful.
Amused to hear an exchange during lockdown about Covid safe schools in Denmark on the radio. The teacher explained all the mitigations they had in place.
Interviewer: So how many children do you have in your class now?
Teacher: 15.
Interviewer : Wow! That's impressive! And how many before Covid?
Teacher (obviously confused) : 15.
I ain't doing no lockdown. Not again. No sir, no way. Nah
If they attempt one, I will either ignore it entirely, or go to another country for the winter. I might do the latter, anyhow
A number of PBers have stated this as if it's fact over the last few days.
My mum got a text yesterday from the NHS saying she was eligible for a booster (second dose Mid-April), and sent a link to the NHS booster booking site, and today her GP sent a text with a link to book directly at the surgery. Unfortunately, the surgery was fully booked, so she used the NHS site to book at a walk-in centre not too far from the surgery.
In selective Kent, Bucks, Trafford and Lincolnshire even in most high schools over half of pupils get 5 A*-C GCSE grades now.
Just the grammars also get a lot more into Oxbridge and the Russell Group and the top professions too.
Did you catch the Guardian long read today?
It features both Gobleki Tepe and knapped flint.
Not sure why this is the case.
The Left is struggling to hold on to the we-all-come-from Africa shibboleth
Unless there is a variant that seriously and demonstrably escapes the vax.
Just not doing that again.
Sorry Boris.
Cases rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible this Autumn (100k/day) to 1/3 of that level is not a justification for new restrictions. Neither is hospitalisations rising from 1/4 of what was said to be the minimum plausible (2k/day) to just 1/3 of that level.
@Andrew_lilico
The whole current discussion of a "need" for new restrictions is so baseless as to be ridiculous. Does it matter so little what the facts are? Folk think it's fine to advocate restricting people's lives willy-nilly, regardless of whether any data says its actually necessary?
No chance I'll support another lockdown. Enough is enough, even if a variant escapes the vax we can't have another two years of this bullshit as we go through trials of a new vaccine etc. Whoever dies, dies.
Its mental when you think about it like that. I'm not up for going back to the start again, even if a variant happens. Deadly serious, we need to live our lives.
As they really existed. (Well. Humans would have encountered numerous hominid species that would have appeared so anyway).
I found it fascinating.
The Guardian (quite rightly) takes some slating at times. But this is the kind of stuff it does really well, wouldn't be in any other newspaper and offers for free. So deserves credit.
So, we need to make it clear somehow that we are not prepared to do it again.
We've done it three or four times now (it blurs) and we still cannot be assured that the costs don't out weigh the benefits.
Good point about furlough.
Sunak now controls whether we do full lockdown again I guess.
Not was lockdown a mistake afterall. Not did we lockdown too long and too hard.
There is absolutely no balance and I worry the "lessons learnt" will follow that path. The lesson needs to be "never again."
But efforts on vaccination should be increased.
Where do I find the latest booster numbers btw ?
Or are we steadfastly opposed to any mitigation whatsoever, whatever the circumstances?
So, I will have friends around to the house. We will do our best.
Unless Boris wants to end up like the Australian governors pepper spraying grans who dare to drink a coffee in a cafe then he will stay well away from another lockdown.
This is no surprise as the piece was an extract from a book already written, but the omissions did make it feel slightly stale
Karahan and Gobekli Tepe and the associated sites suggest there was an entire, advanced civilisation on the Harran plain, around 13,000-8,000 BC, which we have hitherto missed. Yet we have no idea how the fed themselves, what else they did, how they lived, and so on. And where are the human remains?!
Astounding
Telling children they can't go to school.
Telling premises they need to close.
Telling people they can't meet friends and family.
Telling businesses they need to operate unprofitably (social distancing in pubs etc)
And probably more. If people choose to stay at home, or choose to wear masks etc then that's their choice.
That said, I have found myself becoming irritated when people accept invitations to social events “covid permitting”. It is up to them whether they accept or decline the invitation, the virus has no opinion. Maybe it’s because they half expect more restrictions — an idea that would have seemed outlandish in the extreme just 20 months ago.
Most of all I mean schools shut.
That's the lockdown the zealots want again.
Great source by the way: Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail. Never knowingly accurate.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
For some reason the covid dashboard doesn't give booster numbers.
I personally know a few people who are really worried it will happen again in Dec/Jan and I don't blame them because they had such an awful time of it in last lockdowns.
Should imagine if we could drain the Black Sea we would find astonishing things.
By complete coincidence this came up on my Facebook feed today regarding Japan.
https://www.ancient-origins.net/unexplained-phenomena/megalithic-japan-0013737
Controversial, but intriguing too. The coastline simply isn't where it was. And we, even today, tend to congregate there.
The press conferences with Johnson were appalling. Where was the challenge?
So either his parents paid, in which case he didn't come from such a humble background, or the state paid, in which case, does he support the state doing the same for poor kids now?
He says he wants kids to have the same life chances he had, but he doesn't want to reopen Grammar schools, and he wants to close off money to private schools... and he went to both!
I'm not saying they should have moved schools, or that it was his parents doing, but the facts are the facts. I would love to have had the chance to go to a grammar school, and my parents would have loved the state to pay for me to go to a private school, but I didn't get that chance - Sir Keir did