This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
And yet there is a recruitment and retention crisis. Perhaps pay isn't everything.
Yet after the 2008 recession there was huge demand for teacher training posts, the best thing to increase demand for teaching is the economy crashes. That is always the case but not so good for the rest of us
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
I think that is too simplistic, and besides many many labour MPs do the same, such as Dianne Abbot.
I’m mot up to speed on this story, but I have experience of pharmacy accreditation. Years ago my uni was almost refused accreditation despite its students performing superbly in the pre-reg exam (taken around a year after graduation, after work place training). The rationale was based on our course teaching style not being in the current fashion. So despite having some of the best outputs in the country, we were forced to change our degree, to fit in with the current orthodoxy of how a student pharmacist should learn. We are in danger of seeing something similar to the teaching changes. Heath education England wants pharmacy students to spend as much as 40 weeks of their 4 year degree on placement. This will restrict the unis ability to teach some aspects of the course (science mainly) in order to inculcate nhs values and patient focussed learning. I don’t know about teacher training, but for pharmacy we have systems that are not broken, but are being challenged, for no obvious gain.
Oz update. We are a week in now and still only 78.4% counted. 3 seats in doubt. Labor still one short of a majority. They are trailing in Deakin by 655 votes. And in Gilmore by 214. (That would be a rare Liberal gain). The interesting one is McNamara, where it is all about who comes third. Labor leads on first preferences by nearly 2k. Very close for second. Greens ahead of Liberal by 396. However. The distribution of 8k + minor Party preferences will decide the result. They are going approximately 48% to the Liberals, a third to Greens and 18% to Labor. Which leaves it close to a three way tie, with the Liberals probably in front. If Labor come third, the Greens win. In the first two and Labor wins through transfers and gets a majority. The ironic outcome would be Liberals come third and deliver a Labor majority with their transfers.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
Actually the majority of Tory MPs now went to state school. However the Tories also believe in choice, including private education
It's all about the alignment of incentives. You give someone a personal stake in the thing they are managing, they will manage it better. The indifference of the average Tory politician towards state schools is plain to see. Gove is an obvious counterexample, and he sends his kids to state schools. I don't agree with everything he did as education secretary, but at least he obviously wanted it to improve.
I like that. Virtually no one will read it and it may just be a rambling tome, but it could be a sign of trying to think harder about things.
I won't believe a spad won't be the one who actually pulls it together though.
No, I think it will be Starmers work. Worthy, stodgy and longwinded, yet vague.
He needs to distill it down to pledge cards. Somewhere in a drawer I have a 1997 one signed and given to me by Prescott himself.
... but maybe the pledges should not be set in stone, eh?
The problem with the #edstone is the vagueness of the statements, with no SMART objectives. Contrast with the 1997 pledge card:
Blair’s 1997 pledge is incredibly out of date in places. 100,000 off NHS waiting lists a drop in ocean on current lists. Class sizes and young offenders and out of work under 25s as much an issues today as Immigration? whilst the money to pay mental health and care for burgeoning old is locked up needing a dementia tax to get it out. In situation like today vagueness would be more sensible? Inflation and interest rates as low as possible seems suitably vague for the 2025 election, promising not to increase tax will be dumb promise in next election.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
AFAIK until recently only Russell Group type unis offered medicine. Although, is Newcastle I the Group?
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
Steve Brine (Winchester) has submitted his letter to Sir Graham.
Excellent. I hope that Tory MPs are starting to notice that in the post Boris world, it’s not going to be good to be one of those that did nothing.
63% of Conservative voters do not want Boris to resign, there is no guarantee a majority of Conservative MPs will think differently even if there is a VONC vote
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firm trainees went to the Russell Group universities.
I like that. Virtually no one will read it and it may just be a rambling tome, but it could be a sign of trying to think harder about things.
I won't believe a spad won't be the one who actually pulls it together though.
No, I think it will be Starmers work. Worthy, stodgy and longwinded, yet vague.
He needs to distill it down to pledge cards. Somewhere in a drawer I have a 1997 one signed and given to me by Prescott himself.
... but maybe the pledges should not be set in stone, eh?
The problem with the #edstone is the vagueness of the statements, with no SMART objectives. Contrast with the 1997 pledge card:
What would everyone's five pledges for 2024 be?
I'd go for
1. 500,000 affordable new homes for first time buyers 2. Raise the personal allowance to £15,000 so the poorest in society pay no income tax 3. End tuition fees for STEM subjects, create a national apprenticeship programme for skilled jobs 4. Legalise and tax cannabis, decriminalise other soft drugs for personal use 5. Announce national works programme of carbon neutral energy, ranging from nuclear to tidal lagoons
Doubt I'd win a majority on it but it's a platform I'd stand on.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firm trainees went to the Russell Group universities.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
AFAIK until recently only Russell Group type unis offered medicine. Although, is Newcastle I the Group?
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
I like that. Virtually no one will read it and it may just be a rambling tome, but it could be a sign of trying to think harder about things.
I won't believe a spad won't be the one who actually pulls it together though.
No, I think it will be Starmers work. Worthy, stodgy and longwinded, yet vague.
He needs to distill it down to pledge cards. Somewhere in a drawer I have a 1997 one signed and given to me by Prescott himself.
... but maybe the pledges should not be set in stone, eh?
The problem with the #edstone is the vagueness of the statements, with no SMART objectives. Contrast with the 1997 pledge card:
Blair’s 1997 pledge is incredibly out of date in places. 100,000 off NHS waiting lists a drop in ocean on current lists. Class sizes and young offenders and out of work under 25s as much an issues today as Immigration? whilst the money to pay mental health and care for burgeoning old is locked up needing a dementia tax to get it out. In situation like today vagueness would be more sensible? Inflation and interest rates as low as possible seems suitably vague for the 2025 election, promising not to increase tax will be dumb promise in next election.
Au contraire. The pledge card is bang up to date in mentioning a windfall tax. It could have been written yesterday!
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
Russel Group is a marketing gimmick.
Frankly I think university itself is overrated. Smart people go to uni, dumb people go to uni. Smart people also don’t go to uni.
I like that. Virtually no one will read it and it may just be a rambling tome, but it could be a sign of trying to think harder about things.
I won't believe a spad won't be the one who actually pulls it together though.
No, I think it will be Starmers work. Worthy, stodgy and longwinded, yet vague.
He needs to distill it down to pledge cards. Somewhere in a drawer I have a 1997 one signed and given to me by Prescott himself.
... but maybe the pledges should not be set in stone, eh?
The problem with the #edstone is the vagueness of the statements, with no SMART objectives. Contrast with the 1997 pledge card:
What would everyone's five pledges for 2024 be?
I'd go for
1. 500,000 affordable new homes for first time buyers 2. Raise the personal allowance to £15,000 so the poorest in society pay no income tax 3. End tuition fees for STEM subjects, create a national apprenticeship programme for skilled jobs 4. Legalise and tax cannabis, decriminalise other soft drugs for personal use 5. Announce national works programme of carbon neutral energy, ranging from nuclear to tidal lagoons
Doubt I'd win a majority on it but it's a platform I'd stand on.
Why first time buyers specifically? 500 000 new homes would be difficult enough. But we need more social rented desperately.
It's an interesting poll TBH and in line with what I would expect on current polling (I.e. every Conservative seat except Bassetlaw and Dudley N which the Tories gained in 2019 being vulnerable to Labour).
I think it's interesting that Uxbridge is projected to go Labour by 5% while Cities of London and Westminster is still on a knife edge though given the local election results.
I still think Labour chances in Uxbridge are slightly overhyped though and I still think the Tories will narrowly hold on to seats at the bottom of the list like Newcastle uL and Bishop Auckland.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
Levelling down, you don’t make crap schools good by making good schools crap.
Alternatively, work towards making more state schools like Michaela Community School, so that parents will choose to send their kids there.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/may/13/phage-therapy-fight-against-drug-resistant-infections-antibiotics … The second patient, the 56-year-old man with arthritis, developed a serious skin infection, which is a risk among those on immunosuppressive drugs. He was treated with a single phage, called Muddy, which had been discovered in a sample taken from the underside of a decomposed aubergine. After a few weeks his skin lesions cleared and after two months he tested negative for the bacteria on a biopsy….
I've often wondered why phages weren't more studied. Idly wondered if it was because the were quite big in Soviet Europe and thus 'a bad thing'.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
Russel Group is a marketing gimmick.
Frankly I think university itself is overrated. Smart people go to uni, dumb people go to uni. Smart people also don’t go to uni.
I met some none too bright at Russell Group. What I met a great deal of was many with an extensive knowledge of a niche specialism, but little knowledge of, and a bewildering lack of curiosity about, anything outwith their area.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firm trainees went to the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
The doctors stat is nonsense. All it tells you is where the medical schools are, and were. It is not as if East Anglia medics are shunted straight onto the dole queue. Not to mention that most of the London medical schools used to stand alone rather than attached to Russell Group colleges.
ETA the law stat also just tells you where the biggest firms (ie the ones surveyed) recruit.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
If Labour split then good.
As for your other points, current polls have progressive parties on 60% of the vote. Why do you think BXP would suddenly increase?
It's an interesting poll TBH and in line with what I would expect on current polling (I.e. every Conservative seat except Bassetlaw and Dudley N which the Tories gained in 2019 being vulnerable to Labour).
I think it's interesting that Uxbridge is projected to go Labour by 5% while Cities of London and Westminster is still on a knife edge though given the local election results.
I still think Labour chances in Uxbridge are slightly overhyped though and I still think the Tories will narrowly hold on to seats at the bottom of the list like Newcastle uL and Bishop Auckland.
There will of course also be some surprise Lab and LD gains. Bit like Braintree and Castle Point in 1997.
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
It's an interesting poll TBH and in line with what I would expect on current polling (I.e. every Conservative seat except Bassetlaw and Dudley N which the Tories gained in 2019 being vulnerable to Labour).
I think it's interesting that Uxbridge is projected to go Labour by 5% while Cities of London and Westminster is still on a knife edge though given the local election results.
I still think Labour chances in Uxbridge are slightly overhyped though and I still think the Tories will narrowly hold on to seats at the bottom of the list like Newcastle uL and Bishop Auckland.
I do too, simply through demographic change. Lots of nice middle class 3,4,5 bedroom housing estates being thrown up there and, to a lesser degree, in sedgefield.
Demographic change will help labour in places like Worthing and Hastings but will work against them elsewhere.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
That's neat. Mine is only State schools can offer A levels and hence a route to Uni. Or bring back uni grants but only state school graduates eligible.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
Russel Group is a marketing gimmick.
Frankly I think university itself is overrated. Smart people go to uni, dumb people go to uni. Smart people also don’t go to uni.
I met some none too bright at Russell Group.
I employed one and he was the worst appointment I ever made and left after a couple of weeks and sent his father down to see me demanding an apology for his glorious educated son
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
They do.
Mostly they don't. Pay is agreed with unions and depends on seniority not results and performance, even if academies are starting to change that
A somewhat belated Good Morning everyone. Totally o/t but looks as though our blue-tit chicks are preparing to leave the nest-box.
Maybe not o/t. Are there 54 of them, all spooked by that MRP poll?
I doubt the poll is spooking them, more so the responses they will be receiving now they are back in their constituencies from angry voters
I agree with you Big G, the leadership from respected Bob Neill is exactly how to say it and why. In fact they could shorten it to “I agree with Bob” and it’s the “I agree with Bob” revolution.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
You know what they say, if you can't do, teach; and if you can't teach teach P.E.
You have been telling us all month how throughly Leninist the Tory’s now are and got your vote, everyone will be pleased to have you back in the big tent now then 😆
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
I like that. Virtually no one will read it and it may just be a rambling tome, but it could be a sign of trying to think harder about things.
I won't believe a spad won't be the one who actually pulls it together though.
No, I think it will be Starmers work. Worthy, stodgy and longwinded, yet vague.
He needs to distill it down to pledge cards. Somewhere in a drawer I have a 1997 one signed and given to me by Prescott himself.
... but maybe the pledges should not be set in stone, eh?
The problem with the #edstone is the vagueness of the statements, with no SMART objectives. Contrast with the 1997 pledge card:
What would everyone's five pledges for 2024 be?
I'd go for
1. 500,000 affordable new homes for first time buyers 2. Raise the personal allowance to £15,000 so the poorest in society pay no income tax 3. End tuition fees for STEM subjects, create a national apprenticeship programme for skilled jobs 4. Legalise and tax cannabis, decriminalise other soft drugs for personal use 5. Announce national works programme of carbon neutral energy, ranging from nuclear to tidal lagoons
Doubt I'd win a majority on it but it's a platform I'd stand on.
Why first time buyers specifically? 500 000 new homes would be difficult enough. But we need more social rented desperately.
Because I presume it would involve some kind of subsidy or even government works programme to get that number of houses built, and I wouldn't want to be subsidising people who already had a home.
Social rented is also a good one, but I'm not sure it's a vote winner. People want to own their own home, would they vote in as many numbers for the chance to live in a council house as opposed to a private landlord? Maybe.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
MPs who defect and want to stand again for their new party tend to be given the opportunity to do so.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
It's an interesting poll TBH and in line with what I would expect on current polling (I.e. every Conservative seat except Bassetlaw and Dudley N which the Tories gained in 2019 being vulnerable to Labour).
I think it's interesting that Uxbridge is projected to go Labour by 5% while Cities of London and Westminster is still on a knife edge though given the local election results.
I still think Labour chances in Uxbridge are slightly overhyped though and I still think the Tories will narrowly hold on to seats at the bottom of the list like Newcastle uL and Bishop Auckland.
The honourable member for Bish is a bit of a character. That may be enough to save her on an above average personal vote.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
They do.
Mostly they don't. Pay is agreed with unions and depends on seniority not results and performance, even if academies are starting to change that
No, Hyufd, that is not correct, and has not been for 15 years. To go up the pay scale you have to prove you have met agreed targets, one of which will always include good performance of students as measured by exam results.
This has been, as you should be able to imagine, just a little bit of an issue in the last couple of years. It's also one reason - along with league tables - why our schools have turned into exam factories, rather than places of useful learning.
Your views of education - secondary and higher - are genuinely antediluvian. What's more of a worry is that you are unwilling to take correction from people who actually know what they're talking about.
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
They do.
Mostly they don't. Pay is agreed with unions and depends on seniority not results and performance, even if academies are starting to change that
No, Hyufd, that is not correct, and has not been for 15 years. To go up the pay scale you have to prove you have met agreed targets, one of which will always include good performance of students as measured by exam results.
This has been, as you should be able to imagine, just a little bit of an issue in the last couple of years. It's also one reason - along with league tables - why our schools have turned into exam factories, rather than places of useful learning.
Your views of education - secondary and higher - are genuinely antediluvian. What's more of a worry is that you are unwilling to take correction from people who actually know what they're talking about.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
It's a power grab at the curriculum. Simple. As I noted earlier. There's a huge shortage of teachers right now. Pay is not competitive. Older hands are quitting. And a huge demographic cohort hitting Secondary age. De-professionalise the job is the way to solve it in this government's eyes. It succeeded in FE. Plus. The Tories just adore Red Tape. As much as possible for other people. I expect we'll see volunteers in the classroom before too long. What could possibly go wrong?
Tories don't give a shit about state education because most of them don't use it. My solution is simple: no cabinet minister or senior civil servant can send their child to private school. You would be amazed at how quickly the situation would improve.
I think that is too simplistic, and besides many many labour MPs do the same, such as Dianne Abbot.
I’m mot up to speed on this story, but I have experience of pharmacy accreditation. Years ago my uni was almost refused accreditation despite its students performing superbly in the pre-reg exam (taken around a year after graduation, after work place training). The rationale was based on our course teaching style not being in the current fashion. So despite having some of the best outputs in the country, we were forced to change our degree, to fit in with the current orthodoxy of how a student pharmacist should learn. We are in danger of seeing something similar to the teaching changes. Heath education England wants pharmacy students to spend as much as 40 weeks of their 4 year degree on placement. This will restrict the unis ability to teach some aspects of the course (science mainly) in order to inculcate nhs values and patient focussed learning. I don’t know about teacher training, but for pharmacy we have systems that are not broken, but are being challenged, for no obvious gain.
As a retired pharmacist, who had a strong interest in education, I’m very saddened to read this. IIRC the 4th year was brought in precisely to improve the science. TBH I’m ot sure if the General Pharmaceutical Council knows which way is up!
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school
Citation? You don’t have to go to a Russell group university to be great.
4 out of 5 doctors went to the Russell Group and 81% of law firms recruit mainly from the Russell Group universities.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
Can you define how you join the Russel Group please? And are they all better than, random choice, Bath, conisistently in the top 10 U.K. universities? Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
All the top 10 universities are Russell Group on this ranking and a majority at least always are
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
They do.
Mostly they don't. Pay is agreed with unions and depends on seniority not results and performance, even if academies are starting to change that
No, Hyufd, that is not correct, and has not been for 15 years. To go up the pay scale you have to prove you have met agreed targets, one of which will always include good performance of students as measured by exam results.
This has been, as you should be able to imagine, just a little bit of an issue in the last couple of years. It's also one reason - along with league tables - why our schools have turned into exam factories, rather than places of useful learning.
Your views of education - secondary and higher - are genuinely antediluvian. What's more of a worry is that you are unwilling to take correction from people who actually know what they're talking about.
Some things never change
I'm willing to bet he's now going to explain to me how despite working in education for 16 years, in two unis and four schools (state and private) being a union association president, and being an ex senior leader, I'm still ignorant of pay schemes in teaching because he's more knowledgeable than me due to being at Warwick.
Unfortunately his attitude is entirely typical of far too many in the Conservative Party and the Civil Service, which is one reason why we're in such a mess.
Not that I have confidence Labour will be much better.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/may/13/phage-therapy-fight-against-drug-resistant-infections-antibiotics … The second patient, the 56-year-old man with arthritis, developed a serious skin infection, which is a risk among those on immunosuppressive drugs. He was treated with a single phage, called Muddy, which had been discovered in a sample taken from the underside of a decomposed aubergine. After a few weeks his skin lesions cleared and after two months he tested negative for the bacteria on a biopsy….
I've often wondered why phages weren't more studied. Idly wondered if it was because the were quite big in Soviet Europe and thus 'a bad thing'.
Because they aren't easy to commercialise, and infection is tough and expensive to run clinical trials for. Similar reasons that a lot of big pharma gave up on antibiotic research.
There are a couple of small biotechs pursuing it, but they're likely to run out of cash before they get anywhere.
Really interesting piece on the parallels between slave owning oligarchs in US a couple of hundred years ago and the way the GOP is imposing a heavily armed society on a majority who don't want one. Unreformed Senate is major part of problem.
Its almost too late for meaningful gun control anyway. With torrents of physibles no more than a few clicks away, the manufacture of 3d printed ghost guns gets easier all the time.
Baby steps. It is not guns that are the problem but people. Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
And within a decade, batteries and capacitors will be up to the job of coilguns with rapid fire.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
Specifically people with semi-automatic assault rifles that can't (yet) be 3d-printed. As President Biden said, it is not as if deer are running through the forest in kevlar body armour.
To be accuratley described as an 'assault rifle' it would have to have a full auto selective fire option. I'm pretty sure I could make one... There also plenty of phsyibles available for full auto conversions.
What's Biden proposing with his kevlar clad deer comment? A restriction based on Muzzle Energy?
.22LR (which is what was used in Texas) already has quite low ME (~140 ft lb) compared to something that's actually designed for killing people like NATO 5.56x45 (~1200 ft lb).
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
Since when did A Levels indicate intelligence or the ability to do a job?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
YOur party has been in charge for most of the last few decades. Unless they were not true Tories and you are?
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and an end to final salary pensions and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
I expect you say that to every teacher in Epping. And about the Epping teachers to everyone else in Epping, of whom there are enough fools to believe you.
As I’ve explained before, Starmer is following Cameron’s route to Number 10. 96 gains in one election, actually one of the best performances in recent years.
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
And PR of course splits the Labour Party, the Corbynites would form their own party and RefUK would win seats and the LDs would hold the balance of power in most elections.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
Ah ha, here's the rub. Under PR, some of those MPs would move to where they would be more at home, ideologically. So the fact that post-PR you'd have 30 Green MPs doesn't mean 29 totally new parliamentarians. Some of that number would be defections. The Greens aren't going to turn down experienced parliamentarians who want to join them.
They are when their members want the MP position instead and don't select the defectors.
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
MPs who defect and want to stand again for their new party tend to be given the opportunity to do so.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
Amongst the 2 main parties for FPTP seats not a small party with the first chance to get significant numbers of MPs beyond its current 1 into parliament and with many lifelong members eyeing those places on the PR list
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
Since when did A Levels indicate intelligence or the ability to do a job?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
If you're got opinion polls saying things like Labour 40% Green 6%, or Labour 38% Green 8%, it's a decent bet that Labour will actually get over 40%.
This looks like a case of Marxism Derangement Syndrome. Does anyone have any deeper insight as to why so many "outstanding" teacher training courses are failing the new accreditation scheme?
Because although they are the most effective way of training teachers they're also expensive. So the government wants to replace them with on the job training in schools instead which is (a) considerably cheaper and (b) for all their bleatings, masks the fact that rather a lot of vacancies are proving difficult to fill at the moment.
It's the same reason they're grading all schools designed to help those with really complex SEND as 4 so they get closed and the pupils transferred to mainstream schools.
Which is, to reduce it to its essentials, why I literally had to get a child off the roof yesterday afternoon.
I am always curious about teaching Physics, but stories of paperwork, low pay, cheap babysitting and riot control do tend to put you off sharing the wonders of Ohm’s law.
There's plenty of Brownian, well, brown motion involved in teaching right now.
More so than usual? Teachers have always had a raw deal.
The pay is criminally low compared to the impact, responsibility and qualifications required. 24k to teach Physics, doesn’t look quite so generous when you have to pay 9k fees.
The average full time equivalent salary for teachers is £40k, compared to the UK average salary of £31k
So what? If you want to attract experienced professionals to Physics teachers you need to pay more than 24k minus fees. Anyway, £40k is not a lot compared to what they have to do. Teachers are professionals equivalent to lawyers and doctors.
The average lawyer and doctor went to a Russell Group university, the average state school teacher did not unless they teach in a top private school or grammar school or absolutely top comprehensive or academy or free school.
Alternatively you could have performance related pay so the teachers who could the best exam results in the school get the most and bonuses and the teachers who get the worst results get a pay cut
Several questions.
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
Why should teachers be paid more for doing no extra when most of them did not have as good grades as doctors and lawyers did at school outside the absolutely top schools?
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Because if the government doesn't do something about the pay/conditions balance for teachers, there won't be enough teachers left to stand in front of classes. They will go and do other things instead. Supply and demand. It's really not difficult.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
And pay shouldn’t under any circumstances be related to one’s A level grades.
OK then, if you really want top private sector level pay for teachers then you can have performance related pay, plus an end to the long holidays teachers get and also a system which makes it easier to sack poorly performing teachers too
Since when did A Levels indicate intelligence or the ability to do a job?
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
Comments
I’m mot up to speed on this story, but I have experience of pharmacy accreditation. Years ago my uni was almost refused accreditation despite its students performing superbly in the pre-reg exam (taken around a year after graduation, after work place training). The rationale was based on our course teaching style not being in the current fashion. So despite having some of the best outputs in the country, we were forced to change our degree, to fit in with the current orthodoxy of how a student pharmacist should learn.
We are in danger of seeing something similar to the teaching changes. Heath education England wants pharmacy students to spend as much as 40 weeks of their 4 year degree on placement. This will restrict the unis ability to teach some aspects of the course (science mainly) in order to inculcate nhs values and patient focussed learning.
I don’t know about teacher training, but for pharmacy we have systems that are not broken, but are being challenged, for no obvious gain.
3 seats in doubt. Labor still one short of a majority.
They are trailing in Deakin by 655 votes. And in Gilmore by 214. (That would be a rare Liberal gain).
The interesting one is McNamara, where it is all about who comes third. Labor leads on first preferences by nearly 2k. Very close for second. Greens ahead of Liberal by 396.
However. The distribution of 8k + minor Party preferences will decide the result. They are going approximately 48% to the Liberals, a third to Greens and 18% to Labor.
Which leaves it close to a three way tie, with the Liberals probably in front.
If Labor come third, the Greens win. In the first two and Labor wins through transfers and gets a majority.
The ironic outcome would be Liberals come third and deliver a Labor majority with their transfers.
The average is dragged up by those with leadership pay, where you have quite a large number on over £100,000.
https://russellgroup.ac.uk/about/
https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities#:~:text=The Russell Group dominates the market at 81.4%.
You can be a comprehensive teacher however with a 2.2 from Manchester Met or Coventry.
It is not the same pool, ie the Russell Group universities are where most of those with the best GCSES and A Levels go
I'd go for
1. 500,000 affordable new homes for first time buyers
2. Raise the personal allowance to £15,000 so the poorest in society pay no income tax
3. End tuition fees for STEM subjects, create a national apprenticeship programme for skilled jobs
4. Legalise and tax cannabis, decriminalise other soft drugs for personal use
5. Announce national works programme of carbon neutral energy, ranging from nuclear to tidal lagoons
Doubt I'd win a majority on it but it's a platform I'd stand on.
Russel group is not evidence of quality, and you desire to see it so, says more about you ignorance than anything else.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Group
My central forecast is 2010 in reverse. Which I would like because then we might finally get PR
Frankly I think university itself is overrated. Smart people go to uni, dumb people go to uni. Smart people also don’t go to uni.
500 000 new homes would be difficult enough. But we need more social rented desperately.
I think it's interesting that Uxbridge is projected to go Labour by 5% while Cities of London and Westminster is still on a knife edge though given the local election results.
I still think Labour chances in Uxbridge are slightly overhyped though and I still think the Tories will narrowly hold on to seats at the bottom of the list like Newcastle uL and Bishop Auckland.
Alternatively, work towards making more state schools like Michaela Community School, so that parents will choose to send their kids there.
I am not sure Labour MPs who won their seats under FPTP would vote to risk losing it again under PR either as Labour would lose seats to the Greens and LDs with PR
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/best-universities/best-universities-uk
You need top grades to get into them.
As I said if teachers want more pay they can have performance related pay like the top ranks of the private sector. Get good exam results they get bonuses and pay rises, poor results they get a pay cut
1 As conservatives, we believe in the free market, right? If recruitment is a problem, you have to improve pay and conditions. You may begrudge that, you may think you shouldn't have to pay more for teachers to work in classrooms, but you can't buck the market.
2 Shouldn't we want more highly educated people in schools, where there's a huge multiplier effect?
3 The Aaron Bell question. People who go to top universities, then go and teach in bog standard comps. There are more of them than you think. Are they mugs?
What I met a great deal of was many with an extensive knowledge of a niche specialism, but little knowledge of, and a bewildering lack of curiosity about, anything outwith their area.
ETA the law stat also just tells you where the biggest firms (ie the ones surveyed) recruit.
As for your other points, current polls have progressive parties on 60% of the vote. Why do you think BXP would suddenly increase?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/27/opinion/uvalde-senate-gun-control.html
Demographic change will help labour in places like Worthing and Hastings but will work against them elsewhere.
If they want to be paid more they can have performance related pay
Nobody seriously thinks Queen Mary is better than Bath
It was surreal
https://twitter.com/SashaClarkson/status/1530474793757188096
The LDs too would also win seats at Labour expense
Don’t fear, call BJO today, he’ll guarantee another Tory Government
No surprise there
Social rented is also a good one, but I'm not sure it's a vote winner. People want to own their own home, would they vote in as many numbers for the chance to live in a council house as opposed to a private landlord? Maybe.
And to repeat the Aaron Bell question. Are well-qualified teachers mugs? It feels like it sometimes.
They tend not to win the seat back under FPTP but that's besides the point if we're talking about a change to PR
That and the new "executive" housing.
3000 homes they’d built since 2015. They thought that was worth shouting about
This has been, as you should be able to imagine, just a little bit of an issue in the last couple of years. It's also one reason - along with league tables - why our schools have turned into exam factories, rather than places of useful learning.
Your views of education - secondary and higher - are genuinely antediluvian. What's more of a worry is that you are unwilling to take correction from people who actually know what they're talking about.
TBH I’m ot sure if the General Pharmaceutical Council knows which way is up!
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RVHIyV3KuCdSw_3bAQ7Ml9UZy_gQv_IrRdQN5HNUQnQ/edit
Where am I?
Hint: it’s ridiculously picturesque and pleasant
Not much of a hint
Fair enough
Corinth Canal?
Unfortunately his attitude is entirely typical of far too many in the Conservative Party and the Civil Service, which is one reason why we're in such a mess.
Not that I have confidence Labour will be much better.
For a start, Labour is still struggling to get past 40% in the polls. More to the point, they are still struggling to do well in actual results. Their by-election performance has been generally mediocre although Wakefield may change things. In the local elections, outside Central London, they were poor. It’s clear people still don’t see Labour as that great an alternative.
As for the LDs taking huge swathes of Tory seats, sure they are doing well in by-elections but they haven’t had any sort of scrutiny yet. How many of those nice suburban Tory seats are going to be going LD when the press let’s rip on how the Lib Dems want to turn your boys into girls and vice versa and are all for the pro-trans agenda? Not much would be my guess. It’s one thing being liberal on Green issues, it’s another when you think there’s a chance an incoming Government will quite happily abolish women only spaces to appease the trans lobby. Look at the debate on here when it’s mentioned. Same point goes for Labour.
Given the Tories are giving out money left, right and centre, who you choose at the next election is likely to come down to the social / cultural stuff. Labour and the Lib Dems are way to the left of what most people consider acceptable.
Similar reasons that a lot of big pharma gave up on antibiotic research.
There are a couple of small biotechs pursuing it, but they're likely to run out of cash before they get anywhere.
No parts that need special work - no hammerforged barrels. Ammunition can be a ball bearing. Silent. The whole thing will be 3D printed. No explosives.
They will be coming to the U.K.
https://youtu.be/eAHKS0nVlL4 Is what they can do now. You can build this in a home workshop….
What's Biden proposing with his kevlar clad deer comment? A restriction based on Muzzle Energy?
.22LR (which is what was used in Texas) already has quite low ME (~140 ft lb) compared to something that's actually designed for killing people like NATO 5.56x45 (~1200 ft lb).
My friend got 4 A*s, he’s never been able to get a job
Betting PostF1: decided to back with a split stake (1/3 on Perez, 2/3 on Sainz) those two drivers at 16 and 6.5 each way to be fastest qualifier.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/05/monaco-pre-qualifying-2022.html
I prefer to wait before betting but don't have the time today.