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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
The only thing that matters at the next election is that Johnson’s Tories lose power. The Conservative party as it is currently led and operates presents a clear and present threat to democracy and the rule of law, and must be stopped. It’s that simple. Hopefully, some time in opposition will allow for a period of reflection, shame and reconstitution.
By definition, the if there’s an election, then that will be democracy.
I suppose one could argue the scrapping of the fixed term parliaments act was anti-democractic as it bought the government another six months. But if we go beyond may 2024, then I think it’s safe to say the Tories are done.
Elections are necessary, but insufficient to qualify a democracy. If a government uses its power to bend the law or ministerial code so the rules do not apply to it, we do have a major problem. We saw that in the US in Jan 2021.
Absolutely. See also suppression of the right to protest etc. There is more to Democracy than occasional elections. Even Putin has those.
May be worth rereading what I wrote here in July 2019 and March 2020 in light of events in recent weeks.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
Russell Group doesn't really resonate as a factor in ranking universities in Scotland. You have the old 4 (Glasgow/Edinburgh/St Andrews/Aberdeen) and the rest.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
A medical school and a future king, no less. What has Edinburgh got since Sherlock Holmes?
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter has always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Rather surprised that the only Russell Group Unis in Scotland are Edinburgh and Glasgow. No St Andrew’s which has a Med. school
Or indeed, Aberdeen which is a very ancient foundation.
Or Dundee, founded at the same time as Cardiff.
Or Stirling, which was founded at the same time as York and Warwick.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
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.
I think you are underestimating the number of trans people living quiet respectable lives in nice suburban Tory seats. Demonising them isn't necessarily going to be the vote winner you believe it is.
Also proof of the Tories bankruptcy on vision, capability and ethics if that's the only way they think they have a chance of clinging to power.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
Not in software engineering
Even there you have to perform to get high pay and remember state school teachers are paid by taxpayers, most of whom earn less than the average teacher salary of £40k without the long holidays or final salary pensions teachers get
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
Tom Larkin @TomLarkinSky Update: 34 Tory MPs publicly questioning PM's position. 24 now calling for him to go asap. That's up 9 since Gray report was published.
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.
All this focus on the type of gun, particularly scary "assault rifles" and "AR-15s" misses the crucial point that, if all you want to do is shoot kids at close range, then ANY gun will do. So trying to stop school shootings by restricting ownership of certain ill-defined types of firearms is pointless.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour…
There are no simple answers, obviously. But there are relatively straightforward ones in this case.
But the provision of more capable weapons to Ukraine - which they’ve been shouting about for a couple of months - would make a very large difference. Russia does not have unlimited resources; it’s invasion can be defeated.
To take a few examples - we (the west) could have supplied anti-ship missiles months earlier than we did; ditto artillery. We could still supply MLRS - and the US is actively considering this. We could hand over the Polish MIGs. Etc.
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
The vast majority of lawyers and doctors will have mainly A or A* GCSES and A Levels.
That does not mean all those with A or A* GCSES and A Levels get good jobs
Having good exam results doesn’t make you a good doctor.
Having good exam results at school is a very good predictor of good assessment performance at medical school. But that of course leaves us with the question of doing well at medical school exams and other assessments makes you a good doctor. That’s difficult to answer because we have to work out what being a good doctor means.
There’s some studies showing that good exam results predicts not being a bad doctor. I’m sorry I can’t remember the details but there was a US study looking at performance in medical school against whether someone got struck off later in life.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
As is customary, @ydoethur knows exactly what he is talking about when it comes to Wales.
Lampeter is in the empire of Medwin Hughes, one of the highest paid VCs in the UK -- with extremely close connections to the Welsh Government, winkety-wink 😉😉
Medwin is on ~ £500,000 a year, with his expenses and his grace and favour house as well.
Medwin started off being in charge of Carmarthen College which became a University. Medwin then took over the troubled Lampeter University, & then took over the Swansea Metropolitan University, & along the way he picked up the University of Wales as well. it is all now branded as UWTSD (Trinity St David)
Even Putin could learn from that impressive record of territory gain.
So, not bad going for mediocre Medwin. But in the end, there are UWTSD campuses all over the place – Carmarthen, Lampeter, Cardiff, Wuhan (yes, really true), Birmingham, London and the renewed campus on SA1 in Swansea.
It's an unsustainable model of a place of learning, which is struggling to keep up with the demands of a modern institution and has poor rankings against other places
Medwin likes to court favour with the high and mighty. Most of all, he likes to give jobs to those that he thinks have links to Llafur and the Wales Govt – hence the God-awful "Dr" Jane Davidson of Llafur is a pro VC.
How Medwin's empire will survive is an interesting question.
Still, he really did manage to set up a course in Traditional Chinese Medicine with the Jiangxi University of Traditional Medicine and Wuhan University in 2019 .... just before we all got very familiar with the connection between Wuhan and medicine.
Yet again, Wales is really run like a third-rate Central Asian kleptocracy under Llafur.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
Er...I think you need to go back and read your posts again, Hyufd.
As for your sentence, I think I should send you the bill for my irony meter.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Presumably you'd have felt the same way about Kaliningrad and Karelia.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
It's rather sad about Lampeter.
Unfortunately, Lampeter suffers from being very remote and very small. The business model of a uni requires it to have reasonable transport links and critical mass. Which it will never have.
It nearly died in 1971 when it joined the University of Wales. But now Medwyn Hughes seems to be running down the campus for closure.
It is sad, but it's also difficult to see what else can be done. There is no way Lampeter can be turned into a bustling, accessible metropolis.
It does also suffer somewhat from being dominated by Theology, which is not a fashionable subject, but it could have survived if it had been built at Carmarthen from the start. In fact, in all probability it would have become the nucleus for a proper collegiate University of Wales and Carmarthen would now be the capital of Wales.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
Aristotle may have said it but so did (before him) Aeschylus, Socrates and the inscription at Delphi
I learn from wikipedia that the other two headline inscriptions at Delphi, according to Plato, were "nothing to excess" and "certainty brings insanity." Which of these applies to HYUFD is left as an exercise for the reader.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
You mean someone who actually know what he’s talking about is showing you up. You expletive upthread is indicative of the state of your arguments on this.
Twice during my lifetime the far left have succeeded in dominating the Labour Party - once under Foot/Benn/Militant and once under Corbyn. Both times it ended in humiliating defeat and took years to recover from. It's about time that lesson sunk in.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Fuck off to the Donbas then, and fight.
You are not fighting, you are drinking beer & having sex in Greece.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
The Ukrainans will start talking, once the Russians have fecked off back to Russia, and rebuilt what they have destroyed in Ukraine. Until then, the Ukranians are in no mood to talk, they want to fight.
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
You mean someone who actually know what he’s talking about is showing you up. You expletive upthread is indicative of the state of your arguments on this.
Twice during my lifetime the far left have succeeded in dominating the Labour Party - once under Foot/Benn/Militant and once under Corbyn. Both times it ended in humiliating defeat and took years to recover from. It's about time that lesson sunk in.
They must never be allowed in again. I am encouraged they now will not be able to get morons on the ballot.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
To take a few examples - we (the west) could have supplied anti-ship missiles months earlier than we did; ditto artillery. We could still supply MLRS - and the US is actively considering this. We could hand over the Polish MIGs. Etc.
An MLRS like HIMARS would really change the Ukrainian counter-battery game but they are fucking expensive...
I don't think the Polish Fulcrums would make any difference at this stage as they have almost no strike capability and neither side is showing any appetite at all for OCA/DCA ops.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Hyufd, are you a big admirer of Ronald Reagan by any chance?
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
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
We're talking about list of more than 30, though. And lets be honest, how many famous Greens are there? Lucas. Bartley, Sian something or other. That dessicated Brexit hag in the Lords.
If a Labour defector, let's say Rushanara Ali purely at random, was up against Zack Polanski, are you confident Zack would get the votes? Can you think of twenty more Greens who would finish higher than someone who could say to the membership "I am currently a Green MP"?
Ah, yes, Zack Polanski, né David Paulden. Let me quote his Wikipedia page:
Polanski has also worked as a hypnotherapist. In 2013, he took a newspaper reporter for The Sun through a hypnotherapy session to increase her breast size at his Harley Street hypnotherapy clinic. He subsequently apologised for having done this, describing his own actions as misogynistic.[15][16]
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
Bath was 12th on that list. I wonder how many Russel group unis were lower?
Bath still demands roughly the same A levels as the Russell Group though, it is not a new post 1992 university
Cardiff became a university in 2005. It's a member of the Russell Group.
Cardiff has been a University College since 1883
So? Many of the polytechnics had history dating back into the nineteenth century. Gloucestershire , for example, was established as a Teacher Training College in 1848. Lampeter was established as a college in 1822. University College Worcester was founded in 1946. Warwick was founded only in 1965.
Age is not a guarantee of success or status. You should be a little more careful about making that elision.
So it has always been a University, just previously as part of the University of Wales not independent.
Cardiff was never a polytechnic or just a former teacher training college converted to a university.
Warwick has also always been a University.
The top research universities which have the highest A level graded entrants and which produce the most doctors and lawyers therefore are almost all Russell Group was the point
Lampeter always been a university college. It's older than almost every university in England (just two exceptions). Does that make it a good university?
I think in any case you are putting the cart before the horse here. It's affluent universities that offer medicine because as I'm sure @Foxy could explain rather better it's an expensive degree to run, and snobbish ones whose law graduates go on to be barristers rather than solicitors.
There is, not unexpectedly, a lot of overlap between the two.
And for a huge number of reasons, not all or even many of them connected with teaching excellence, those unis are almost all Russell Group.
Lampeter is OK but not top rank in terms of A level entry.
Errr...no. Lampeter is not OK. Lampeter is one of the worst universities in the country. There is a non-trivial chance it will be closing in the next 18 months. That is why it has such low entry requirements.
With that remark, you shot your credibility to pieces on anything to do with HE. Not that you had much to start with.
Sod off.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
You made it a much wider point than that Hyufd, and you actually said 'Lampeter is OK.' Which was simply not correct. As most of your points on - well, pretty much any given subject other than opinion polling, are simply not correct.
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
No just you being a patronising pompous bore as usual.
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
You mean someone who actually know what he’s talking about is showing you up. You expletive upthread is indicative of the state of your arguments on this.
He was rude to me, I will be rude back
A soft answer, my fellow Essex man, turneth away wrath! Rudeness does not improve the quality of debate, nor does it inspire others support.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
The Ukrainans will start talking, once the Russians have fecked off back to Russia, and rebuilt what they have destroyed in Ukraine. Until then, the Ukranians are in no mood to talk, they want to fight.
Since the Russians will never pay, is local opinion that Russia and Ukraine will be at war for the rest of history? Does the West also have to pay for this (and China on the other side)?
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Fuck off to the Donbas then, and fight.
You are not fighting, you are drinking beer & having sex in Greece.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
Conservative doctrine is clear that high pay is necessary to attract talent in the private sector, but that this does not translate to the public sector because… well, I think because high-paid people in the private sector vote for them and high-paid people in the public sector don’t.
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
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
We're talking about list of more than 30, though. And lets be honest, how many famous Greens are there? Lucas. Bartley, Sian something or other. That dessicated Brexit hag in the Lords.
If a Labour defector, let's say Rushanara Ali purely at random, was up against Zack Polanski, are you confident Zack would get the votes? Can you think of twenty more Greens who would finish higher than someone who could say to the membership "I am currently a Green MP"?
Ah, yes, Zack Polanski, né David Paulden. Let me quote his Wikipedia page:
Polanski has also worked as a hypnotherapist. In 2013, he took a newspaper reporter for The Sun through a hypnotherapy session to increase her breast size at his Harley Street hypnotherapy clinic. He subsequently apologised for having done this, describing his own actions as misogynistic.[15][16]
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Fuck off to the Donbas then, and fight.
Oh God! Oh God! My boots are WET! We have to surrender NOW!
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Fuck off to the Donbas then, and fight.
You are not fighting, you are drinking beer & having sex in Greece.
I've only seen evidence for the beer.
Please let us not encourage @Leon to post more photos ...
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Corbyn can fuck off if the war hadnt happened there will be still thousands of death as they came not expecting much of a war but equipped with 45000 body bags and death lists. The russian government are scum why does it not surprise me you support them as you always support scum just like you make excuses for scum like polanski.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
Conservative doctrine is clear that high pay is necessary to attract talent in the private sector, but that this does not translate to the public sector because… well, I think because high-paid people in the private sector vote for them and high-paid people in the public sector don’t.
Was talking to a fellow parent who is a senior civil servant yesterday... They said that morale is at absolute rock bottom. The good people are all leaving, the dead wood waiting around for their redundancy packages. They can't attract anyone good because nobody wants to work for the current government.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
And the irony is this.
A little bit upthread, there was some commentary on problems with GCSE exams and the lists of what will and won't come up.
I've not seen the papers involved, but what has happened with some of the earlier papers this year is that the exam board has published its Covid List, and schools have over-interpreted it to really minimise the content to be taught. And they have cut things that they shouldn't have, causing pupils to trip up. (Or individual teachers, tutors, Youtubers or pupils have done the same, with the same effect.)
When it works, question-spotting is an effective strategy to improve results; one of the problems with the pre-Gove GCSEs was that they were getting painfully predictable. But when it goes wrong, it goes badly wrong.
Taking a punt by cutting corners is exactly the behaviour that follows when you overcook the reward/punishment by results model, as shown by the racier bits of banking. Fine in fundamentally frivolous things like sport and high finance, but not a good idea in fields that actually matter.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
Conservative doctrine is clear that high pay is necessary to attract talent in the private sector, but that this does not translate to the public sector because… well, I think because high-paid people in the private sector vote for them and high-paid people in the public sector don’t.
The average public sector pay is higher than the average private sector pay, especially including the final salary pensions they get.
If state school teachers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Taxpayers, most of whom now earn less than the average teacher and are also struggling with cost if living and without teachers' long holidays
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Fuck off to the Donbas then, and fight.
You are not fighting, you are drinking beer & having sex in Greece.
Twice during my lifetime the far left have succeeded in dominating the Labour Party - once under Foot/Benn/Militant and once under Corbyn. Both times it ended in humiliating defeat and took years to recover from. It's about time that lesson sunk in.
To be honest, I think that is unfair.
Corbyn was on to something with his manifesto in 2017 -- Labour need to take what was good about it, not throw it all out.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Some people on Twitter pointing out to the Nat whiners that they themselves have also done a deal with the Tories in D&G. Its local elections. You work with the people you think you can work with. Here in Aberdeenshire we (LDs) have renewed our deal with the Tories but with much stronger protocols in place vs last time. And plan on pummelling them hard - some of their new councillors aren't the brightest.
So is it sometimes the arithmetic leaves no option but pragmatism in order to make business the voters voted for work - like in NI right now so Big John is casting himself in the DUP position? Not just Big John but the bonky Corbynista web pages he’s visiting brainwashing him are trying to make a point about all Starmer’s labour are now blue extrapolated from this one pragmatic deadlocked council, in fact the labour left are adopting the DUP position. They really are all over the place the labour left.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Total bollocks, russian forces have form for this long before ukraine, if someone is a serial rapist we take there protestation they are innocent with huge pinches of salt and thats before we look at the fact that a lot of those bodies in mass graves have been shown to have predated the russian retreats.....stop making excuses for evil
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
We should almost certainly wait before helping any more, just to make sure there aren’t thousands of Ukrainian actresses pretending to have been raped, and thousands of actors playing dead in mass graves.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
Conservative doctrine is clear that high pay is necessary to attract talent in the private sector, but that this does not translate to the public sector because… well, I think because high-paid people in the private sector vote for them and high-paid people in the public sector don’t.
The average public sector pay is higher than the average private sector pay, especially including the final salary pensions they get.
If state school teachers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Taxpayers, most of whom now earn less than the average teacher and are also struggling with cost if living and without teachers' long holidays
If bankers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses banks, most of whom now earn less than the average banker and are also struggling with cost of living and without bankers’ posh meals in expenses.
If energy company executives get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses energy, most of whom now earn less than the average energy company executive and are also struggling with cost of living.
If you want good staff, you have to pay for them. There is a separate question as to why we have an economy where so many people in employment are struggling with cost of living. Maybe one problem is lack of productivity and low skills. Maybe if we had better teachers and more investment in education, we’d have a high-skill economy with fewer people struggling.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Is it a tricky question or no brainier for West to supply the sort of range heavy guns that can go 300 miles and allow them to blast Russia territory, towns and cities?
If you care about stopping Putin winning his colonial war, care and properly stand with the innocent Ukrainians you surely have no choice but to give Ukraine the weapons to strike deep and hard inside Russia?
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Total bollocks, russian forces have form for this long before ukraine, if someone is a serial rapist we take there protestation they are innocent with huge pinches of salt and thats before we look at the fact that a lot of those bodies in mass graves have been shown to have predated the russian retreats.....stop making excuses for evil
Yes they do - they are brutal, destructive, ignorant invaders. However, there have also been false allegations. It's a horrible situation, but when a Government lies in order to inveigle my country into a potential nuclear conflict, my sympathy evaporates fairly fast.
Twice during my lifetime the far left have succeeded in dominating the Labour Party - once under Foot/Benn/Militant and once under Corbyn. Both times it ended in humiliating defeat and took years to recover from. It's about time that lesson sunk in.
To be honest, I think that is unfair.
Corbyn was on to something with his manifesto in 2017 -- Labour need to take what was good about it, not throw it all out.
Yes, the 2017 manifesto was knocked up quickly and wasn't well costed, but was a vote winner. It shouldn't be abandoned completely. Corbyn was very much the Curates egg, some great instincts and some rotten bits.
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
In some parts of the country the Greens have trouble even getting paper candidates. An experienced parliamentarian who defects early would see a lot of support from people grateful for the experience. The major stumbling block would be a perceived ideological impurity, but as long as they aren't really right wing or knee deep in the oil industry, that's not going to be an issue.
Your problem is that you're seeing things through your ultra-loyalist lens, then one that has you questioning people's purity for votes > 20 years ago. Most people aren't like you though. You need to see through other people's eyes.
Nope, PR lists only have limited spaces the party loyalists would want, especially for the top 1 to 3 places.
That is NOT the same as welcoming a defector to keep his old FPTP constituency
We're talking about list of more than 30, though. And lets be honest, how many famous Greens are there? Lucas. Bartley, Sian something or other. That dessicated Brexit hag in the Lords.
If a Labour defector, let's say Rushanara Ali purely at random, was up against Zack Polanski, are you confident Zack would get the votes? Can you think of twenty more Greens who would finish higher than someone who could say to the membership "I am currently a Green MP"?
Ah, yes, Zack Polanski, né David Paulden. Let me quote his Wikipedia page:
Polanski has also worked as a hypnotherapist. In 2013, he took a newspaper reporter for The Sun through a hypnotherapy session to increase her breast size at his Harley Street hypnotherapy clinic. He subsequently apologised for having done this, describing his own actions as misogynistic.[15][16]
How does that even work? Asking for a friend.
Looking to go up a cup size? More than a handful is a waste you know.
That's strange. I have been repeatedly assured she is the very model of a wonderful candidate who would have no bother confounding such impertinence with the eloquence and logic of her responses.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Is it a tricky question or no brainier for West to supply the sort of range heavy guns that can go 300 miles and allow them to blast Russia territory, towns and cities?
If you care about stopping Putin winning his colonial war, care and properly stand with the innocent Ukrainians you surely have no choice but to give Ukraine the weapons to strike deep and hard inside Russia?
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.
I agree with you that there is no huge enthusiasm for Labour, it's not 1997 all over again. I seriously think you overestimate the ability of culture wars to sweep the Cons to victory. Unlike the CoL it doesn't affect 95% of us in any meaningful way. Even on PB only a couple of posters keep trying to make a big thing of it. We are not yet the USA.
The 60-65% who say they will vote Labour/Lib Dem/Green/ Nat already discount most of that stuff. Those voters know the attack lines the Mail and Telegraph are going to use, they are well used to it by now. You either already buy into the stuff the Mail comes out with or you don't. I honestly don't see it changing many votes.
FPTP is the Tories best friend and their biggest fear is that the parties supported by 60-65% manage to come to some form of electoral accommodation. There are many obstacles to that but the omens so far are looking better than they have for a while.
If Johnson is still there at the next GE I think there is a reasonable chance of some sort of pact emerging. It doesn't need to be perfect to do real damage to the Cons. It's the Tories biggest nightmare, hence that hysterical (in both senses of the word) piece about a radical hard left alliance in the Telegraph recently.
The problem the Tories have is that if they are still bumping along at 30-35% where do they look for extra votes? The current Tory polling figures are pretty much the combined sum total for the Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party. There is no longer a separate group of 10-15% of UKIP voters to call on.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Total bollocks, russian forces have form for this long before ukraine, if someone is a serial rapist we take there protestation they are innocent with huge pinches of salt and thats before we look at the fact that a lot of those bodies in mass graves have been shown to have predated the russian retreats.....stop making excuses for evil
Yes they do - they are brutal, destructive, ignorant invaders. However, there have also been false allegations. It's a horrible situation, but when a Government lies in order to inveigle my country into a potential nuclear conflict, my sympathy evaporates fairly fast.
There is no evidence ukraine has lied, the russian state tells more lies than the tory party. You are on the wrong side of this and are being taken in my butchering scum and made to sing their song.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
Conservative doctrine is clear that high pay is necessary to attract talent in the private sector, but that this does not translate to the public sector because… well, I think because high-paid people in the private sector vote for them and high-paid people in the public sector don’t.
The average public sector pay is higher than the average private sector pay, especially including the final salary pensions they get.
If state school teachers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Taxpayers, most of whom now earn less than the average teacher and are also struggling with cost if living and without teachers' long holidays
If bankers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses banks, most of whom now earn less than the average banker and are also struggling with cost of living and without bankers’ posh meals in expenses.
If energy company executives get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses energy, most of whom now earn less than the average energy company executive and are also struggling with cost of living.
If you want good staff, you have to pay for them. There is a separate question as to why we have an economy where so many people in employment are struggling with cost of living. Maybe one problem is lack of productivity and low skills. Maybe if we had better teachers and more investment in education, we’d have a high-skill economy with fewer people struggling.
If bankers don't perform they get pay cuts or sacked. You also have more choice in the private sector.
Countries like Singapore only recruit the brightest into teaching with the highest degree grades but that would also mean many if not most current UK teachers would not make the grade and would have to go elsewhere
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
What makes teachers special is that like many in the private sector there simply aren't enough of them. It's market forces. And of course it will feed through to costs. That's the market again. Not a "complaint".
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
The Ukrainans will start talking, once the Russians have fecked off back to Russia, and rebuilt what they have destroyed in Ukraine. Until then, the Ukranians are in no mood to talk, they want to fight.
Yes, the war will end with negotiations, as they always do in the absence of absolute surrender of one party, and that doesn't look on the cards.
That Russia is trying to start negotiations while Ukraine is refusing suggests that the Russians think that they have got all they can, while the Ukranians think that they can push back the invaders.
Certainly the Donbas looks sticky, but in other areas there is potential as Russia denudes other fronts. The reports from the Kherson region of the new Ukranian tank brigade becoming active for example.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
Fair question. I don't see teachers as more worthy. My point isn't so much about the fairness. It's more that, as things stand, I feel the need to actively consider leaving the profession to seek alternative work. My qualifications will allow me to seek higher pay elsewhere, and I acknowledge that makes me very lucky. But I think it is also true of quite a few teachers, particularly of STEM subjects. As a result the current pressures will, I think, make retention issues even more stark. By contrast I thnk a relatively modest pay award would keep quite a few in schools and have very significant benefits in the long run in terms of institutional memory and expertise.
I do acknowledge the inflation challenge, though, and am not saying this is an easy choice.
I didn't hear many on the left complaining about the inflationary impacy of private sector pay rises, though.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
Conservative doctrine is clear that high pay is necessary to attract talent in the private sector, but that this does not translate to the public sector because… well, I think because high-paid people in the private sector vote for them and high-paid people in the public sector don’t.
The average public sector pay is higher than the average private sector pay, especially including the final salary pensions they get.
If state school teachers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Taxpayers, most of whom now earn less than the average teacher and are also struggling with cost if living and without teachers' long holidays
If bankers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses banks, most of whom now earn less than the average banker and are also struggling with cost of living and without bankers’ posh meals in expenses.
If energy company executives get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses energy, most of whom now earn less than the average energy company executive and are also struggling with cost of living.
If you want good staff, you have to pay for them. There is a separate question as to why we have an economy where so many people in employment are struggling with cost of living. Maybe one problem is lack of productivity and low skills. Maybe if we had better teachers and more investment in education, we’d have a high-skill economy with fewer people struggling.
If bankers don't perform they get pay cuts or sacked. You also have more choice in the private sector.
Countries like Singapore only recruit the brightest into teaching with the highest degree grades but that would also mean many if not most current UK teachers would not make the grade and would have to go elsewhere
Top grades in degrees don't necessarily make good teachers. If you sailed thru Oxford to a first and never struggled, how are you going to help the vast majority of students?
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
Nothing at all.
But, if the state wants to have a certain amount of teaching/medicine/civil servanting done to a certain standard, it will cost what it costs; see Margaret Thatcher on the buckability of the market. Improving efficiency is possible, but it's not a magic wand.
If the state is not willing to pay the necessary cost, and can't find acceptable reengineerings, then it can either have those things done by less good people, or have less of them done. The state's choice.
(And to echo @maxh, welcome aboard by the way, teaching has an enormous number of positives as a career. It's not necessary to pay teachers huge amounts to motivate them- mostly, we're nice that way. But there is a limit, and I fear that in some areas, that limit is being crossed.)
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Total bollocks, russian forces have form for this long before ukraine, if someone is a serial rapist we take there protestation they are innocent with huge pinches of salt and thats before we look at the fact that a lot of those bodies in mass graves have been shown to have predated the russian retreats.....stop making excuses for evil
Yes they do - they are brutal, destructive, ignorant invaders. However, there have also been false allegations. It's a horrible situation, but when a Government lies in order to inveigle my country into a potential nuclear conflict, my sympathy evaporates fairly fast.
There is no evidence ukraine has lied
Yeah, that Jack Russell really has dug up 200 mines.
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.
I am reminded of the story behind the “people have had enough of experts” comment.
That it was made after a rather arrogant briefing by an “expert” on education who turned out to have no expertise or knowledge of education.
Your employment history (above) would rule you out for any position in traditional British decision making structure.
No - much better that decisions are made by someone who is a proper generalist, and the ideas come from someone with a comfortingly irrelevant academic background.
The optimal structure is generalists advised by specialists. We are not a technocracy. The danger of putting a specialist on a role in their field is that they don’t consider outside perspectives properly
Twice during my lifetime the far left have succeeded in dominating the Labour Party - once under Foot/Benn/Militant and once under Corbyn. Both times it ended in humiliating defeat and took years to recover from. It's about time that lesson sunk in.
To be honest, I think that is unfair.
Corbyn was on to something with his manifesto in 2017 -- Labour need to take what was good about it, not throw it all out.
I'm not suggesting everything be thrown out but if it was that good how did it end in the worst defeat for decades 24 months on?
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
Fuck off to the Donbas then, and fight.
You are not fighting, you are drinking beer & having sex in Greece.
I've only seen evidence for the beer.
Please let us not encourage @Leon to post more photos ...
More pictures please Leon, much better than whinging about teachers 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 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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
Nothing at all.
But, if the state wants to have a certain amount of teaching/medicine/civil servanting done to a certain standard, it will cost what it costs; see Margaret Thatcher on the buckability of the market. Improving efficiency is possible, but it's not a magic wand.
If the state is not willing to pay the necessary cost, and can't find acceptable reengineerings, then it can either have those things done by less good people, or have less of them done. The state's choice.
(And to echo @maxh, welcome aboard by the way, teaching has an enormous number of positives as a career. It's not necessary to pay teachers huge amounts to motivate them- mostly, we're nice that way. But there is a limit, and I fear that in some areas, that limit is being crossed.)
Expecting public sector workers to accept 2% pay rises when inflation is in double figures is unrealistic. Sunak is smart enough to realise that.
But other things matter for retention too, and need work.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
What makes teachers special is that like many in the private sector there simply aren't enough of them. It's market forces. And of course it will feed through to costs. That's the market again. Not a "complaint".
Market forces is one thing and no complaints if it drives up pay it was the sentiment that because they were having conversations about heating the house they should get paid more than I objected too.
Many in the private sector will have that same conversation was the point. Yet when people like hospitality staff and lorry drivers get paid more you get lefties like Rochdale pioneers bemoaning it because it will raise the cost of things. I think most people in the country are underpaid because bosses could get away with it and profits have increased while pay has remained static for most. Now the boot is on the other foot and employees have the whip hand in pay negotiations for the first time in 20 years.
By all means argue from that perspective.....just dont come with the we should be paid more because we are public sector bull.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
I'm struggling to find anything at all in the post you're responding to that says teachers are a special case, so I'm not sure why you're attacking a new poster (welcome). Toilet cleaners and hospitality workers are underpaid; so are teachers.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Total bollocks, russian forces have form for this long before ukraine, if someone is a serial rapist we take there protestation they are innocent with huge pinches of salt and thats before we look at the fact that a lot of those bodies in mass graves have been shown to have predated the russian retreats.....stop making excuses for evil
Yes they do - they are brutal, destructive, ignorant invaders. However, there have also been false allegations. It's a horrible situation, but when a Government lies in order to inveigle my country into a potential nuclear conflict, my sympathy evaporates fairly fast.
There is no evidence ukraine has lied
Yeah, that Jack Russell really has dug up 200 mines.
I was talking of course about atrocities not silly propaganda stories like Jack russells or the ghost of kyiv.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
I'm struggling to find anything at all in the post you're responding to that says teachers are a special case, so I'm not sure why you're attacking a new poster (welcome).
The part I was objecting to was "we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more." part. I was merely pointing out many in the private sector will be having the same conversation.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
What makes teachers special is that like many in the private sector there simply aren't enough of them. It's market forces. And of course it will feed through to costs. That's the market again. Not a "complaint".
Market forces is one thing and no complaints if it drives up pay it was the sentiment that because they were having conversations about heating the house they should get paid more than I objected too.
Many in the private sector will have that same conversation was the point. Yet when people like hospitality staff and lorry drivers get paid more you get lefties like Rochdale pioneers bemoaning it because it will raise the cost of things. I think most people in the country are underpaid because bosses could get away with it and profits have increased while pay has remained static for most. Now the boot is on the other foot and employees have the whip hand in pay negotiations for the first time in 20 years.
By all means argue from that perspective.....just dont come with the we should be paid more because we are public sector bull.
The public sector is just as susceptible to market forces in employment as the private sector. The particular issue with teaching in Secondary coming up is this huge spike in demand. There are quite simply way more kids about to enter than there have been. So. More teachers are required. And the target numbers being trained are already being missed. And people are leaving for better pay and conditions.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
I'm struggling to find anything at all in the post you're responding to that says teachers are a special case, so I'm not sure why you're attacking a new poster (welcome).
Thanks! I don't mind the response. I enjoy reading the bickering on here, so would feel hypocritical if I wasn't OK to be part of it. Anyway, I'm not sure that was an attack so much as a valid point (albeit misreading my poorly expressed point).
If Boris wanted to get a leadership ballot out of the way, instead of waiting for 54 letters, could he make one happen earlier? I can't remember the rules.
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.
Ah. That seems a rather trickier problem to solve than just saying 'not everything from the Soviet era was bad, come along now'.
Phage and microbiome are absolutely studied. The issue with antibiotic research is that the FDA killed it with their treatment of Tygacil. From a narrow perspective reserving it for third line might make sense but it destroyed the economic incentives for big pharma. The subsequent incentives resulted in antibiotics that had a technical point of differentiation but weren’t commercially relevant (eg eliminating the need for potassium monitoring might be an advantage but it didn’t change prescribing patterns). So it needs a rethink.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
What makes teachers special is that like many in the private sector there simply aren't enough of them. It's market forces. And of course it will feed through to costs. That's the market again. Not a "complaint".
Market forces is one thing and no complaints if it drives up pay it was the sentiment that because they were having conversations about heating the house they should get paid more than I objected too.
Many in the private sector will have that same conversation was the point. Yet when people like hospitality staff and lorry drivers get paid more you get lefties like Rochdale pioneers bemoaning it because it will raise the cost of things. I think most people in the country are underpaid because bosses could get away with it and profits have increased while pay has remained static for most. Now the boot is on the other foot and employees have the whip hand in pay negotiations for the first time in 20 years.
By all means argue from that perspective.....just dont come with the we should be paid more because we are public sector bull.
The public sector is just as susceptible to market forces in employment as the private sector. The particular issue with teaching in Secondary coming up is this huge spike in demand. There are quite simply way more kids about to enter than there have been. So. More teachers are required. And the target numbers being trained are already being missed. And people are leaving for better pay and conditions.
And I said no objection to market forces driving up public sector pay. I objected merely to the sentiment....we cant afford x so should be paid more. Its a silly argument that many people could make, in this case it was heating. If retaining teachers becomes difficult on current pay and they leave to earn more then the government will need to raise pay....they shouldn't do it purely because people say I cant afford x is my point.
I’m not sure I’ve been to a more immediately appealing city
Did you take a midnight train to get there?
Midnight plane from Athens. Arrived dawn. Am knackered but consoling myself with delicious cold Georgian wine at £2 a glass
It’s also absurdly easy to get in. Show your vax status - takes 30 seconds - no visa required. Nothing. You’re in. And you can stay for a year
Also, they are REALLY grateful for our help with Ukraine. There are probably more England flags than Ukrainian
It's no coincidence that those closest to Russia best understand what's at stake in this war.
Best for the entire world that it ends as quickly as possible, in a Russian defeat.
Whilst that is correct, there is no way of reaching that endpoint swiftly.
It is a bit like saying we need to eliminate world hunger swiftly by making sure everyone is fed. Well, no-one disputes it, but without a practical means of achieving it, then it is just vapour.
So, as in most problems, it is a trade-off. There is huge damage that is done by the ongoing war (to Ukraine and the wider world, some poor countries will soon be in real food difficulties) and there is huge damage that is done by finding an unpalatable compromise and rewarding the original violence.
The war was far worse than conceding the original plebiscites under Minsk. If Ukraine had lost the plebiscites (arguable, in fact, as @rcs1000 has pointed out), it would at most have lost the whole of the Donbas.
The war will unfortunately end with Ukraine losing all the Donbas and a swathe of southern Ukraine. There is no way that Putin (or any likely successor) will give up the water supply to the Crimea, or the land corridor to the Crimea, or the Crimea itself.
Wars often end with the bad guys winning. Violence is often rewarded. The recent histories of Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland & Tibet show exactly that.
The script for the Ukraine War was not written in Hollywood ...
As @Dura_Ace predicted, the Russian army will grind out a slow, remorseless, destructive victory of sorts.
It ends with a de facto annexation of some of East Ukraine, and destabilisation of the rest of Ukraine.
Our very own Jeremy Corbyn said on day one that the only certainty was that this war -if it happens -is going to end in a negotiated settlement. 'Why not save thousands of lives and have the negotiation now without the war'. It might sound simplistic but if the Russians prevail it will sound like the most sane thing he has ever said.
Because, you stupid appeasing c*nt, wherever Russia has taken territory it has raped the women wholesale, tortured and slaughtered many civilians, dragged thousands off to Siberia, and liquidated the intelligentsia.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
I am sure atrocities have been committed by the Russian side, but at this point it's impossible to verify most what we're hearing, as it comes from a Ukrainian side desperate for greater Western intervention, reported unquestioningly by a Western media anxious to be supportive.
Total bollocks, russian forces have form for this long before ukraine, if someone is a serial rapist we take there protestation they are innocent with huge pinches of salt and thats before we look at the fact that a lot of those bodies in mass graves have been shown to have predated the russian retreats.....stop making excuses for evil
Yes they do - they are brutal, destructive, ignorant invaders. However, there have also been false allegations. It's a horrible situation, but when a Government lies in order to inveigle my country into a potential nuclear conflict, my sympathy evaporates fairly fast.
There is no evidence ukraine has lied, the russian state tells more lies than the tory party. You are on the wrong side of this and are being taken in my butchering scum and made to sing their song.
They've admitted lying about the phantom pilot, and also — I think — about the attack on the island right at the start of the war.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
I'm struggling to find anything at all in the post you're responding to that says teachers are a special case, so I'm not sure why you're attacking a new poster (welcome).
Thanks! I don't mind the response. I enjoy reading the bickering on here, so would feel hypocritical if I wasn't OK to be part of it. Anyway, I'm not sure that was an attack so much as a valid point (albeit misreading my poorly expressed point).
I wasn't particularly attacking you merely the point which perhaps didn't come across as you meant it. If you had said they need to up teachers pay else we will see an exodus greater than intake I would have probably agreed.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
I'm the son of a teacher, husband of one and grandfather of, so far, two. Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Long-time lurker, first comment. I'm a teacher myself so interested in this one (also, as an aside, attended a Russell Group uni and have only ever taught in state comprehensives).
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
You don't think private sector workers will be having the same conversations? When private sector workers like hospitality and lorry drivers were getting pay rises many of the left were complaining though that it would feed through to the cost of things. What makes teachers special in this regard and more worthy than that person who cleans your toilet, delivers your food so you can eat
What makes teachers special is that like many in the private sector there simply aren't enough of them. It's market forces. And of course it will feed through to costs. That's the market again. Not a "complaint".
Market forces is one thing and no complaints if it drives up pay it was the sentiment that because they were having conversations about heating the house they should get paid more than I objected too.
Many in the private sector will have that same conversation was the point. Yet when people like hospitality staff and lorry drivers get paid more you get lefties like Rochdale pioneers bemoaning it because it will raise the cost of things. I think most people in the country are underpaid because bosses could get away with it and profits have increased while pay has remained static for most. Now the boot is on the other foot and employees have the whip hand in pay negotiations for the first time in 20 years.
By all means argue from that perspective.....just dont come with the we should be paid more because we are public sector bull.
You're a bit tetchy today, with the "bull" and using lefties regularly. Perhaps some of our contributors should be using "right wingers" and "fascists" more.
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.
If you work for Goldman Sachs say yes you earn a lot and if you perform well you get big bonuses.
However if you are in the bottom 10% or so each year you get sacked. If you really want high salaries for the best teachers you could have a similar system
You’re now descending (further) into self satire. That’s not even a decent model for banking.
It is a model for high pay for top performers, which was the point
A bad one. Which is the point you don’t get.
So teachers can't complain about not being very highly paid then. They will stick to pay largely based on seniority not performance and bonuses for the best and pay cuts and sackings for the worst
Leaving aside whether or not teachers complain, and ignoring universities and banks, surely the Conservative solution, the market solution, to attract more teachers is to pay them more and offer better conditions generally.
The Conservative solution would be to let the schools set their own pay, and compete with each other for the teachers.
Seems the Ukr army are planning to try and hold the fragile little pocket they are at risk of being encircled in in the Donbas, N of Popsana:
Phillips P. OBrien @PhillipsPOBrien Ukrainian strategy in the Donbas has certainly been the subject of some discussion--primarily because they have taken the decision to fight for what seems like a shrinking pocket which the Russians are clearly trying to encircle.
Twice during my lifetime the far left have succeeded in dominating the Labour Party - once under Foot/Benn/Militant and once under Corbyn. Both times it ended in humiliating defeat and took years to recover from. It's about time that lesson sunk in.
To be honest, I think that is unfair.
Corbyn was on to something with his manifesto in 2017 -- Labour need to take what was good about it, not throw it all out.
I'm not suggesting everything be thrown out but if it was that good how did it end in the worst defeat for decades 24 months on?
I expect you disagree, but I would say:
(i) Corbyn made mistakes, and (ii) his enemies on the right in the Labour party gleefully exploited them.
Comments
You ought to change your PB handle.
The point was about A level entry and A level entry alone, of which I already said Lampeter was not top rank
That’s not even a decent model for banking.
You cannot ‘negotiate’ with this. You fight
It's OK to be wrong, or to lack knowledge in an area. It's not OK to pretend to expertise and to fail to accept correction when you are demonstrated to be wrong.
I would advise you to ponder the words of Aristotle: 'Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.'
@TomLarkinSky
Update: 34 Tory MPs publicly questioning PM's position. 24 now calling for him to go asap. That's up 9 since Gray report was published.
But the provision of more capable weapons to Ukraine - which they’ve been shouting about for a couple of months - would make a very large difference.
Russia does not have unlimited resources; it’s invasion can be defeated.
To take a few examples - we (the west) could have supplied anti-ship missiles months earlier than we did; ditto artillery. We could still supply MLRS - and the US is actively considering this. We could hand over the Polish MIGs. Etc.
There’s some studies showing that good exam results predicts not being a bad doctor. I’m sorry I can’t remember the details but there was a US study looking at performance in medical school against whether someone got struck off later in life.
This paper touches on some of these issues: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1339899/
The discussion was entirely about A level grades required for the professions as shown via Russell Group entry until you barged in
Lampeter is in the empire of Medwin Hughes, one of the highest paid VCs in the UK -- with extremely close connections to the Welsh Government, winkety-wink 😉😉
Medwin is on ~ £500,000 a year, with his expenses and his grace and favour house as well.
Medwin started off being in charge of Carmarthen College which became a University. Medwin then took over the troubled Lampeter University, & then took over the Swansea Metropolitan University, & along the way he picked up the University of Wales as well. it is all now branded as UWTSD (Trinity St David)
Even Putin could learn from that impressive record of territory gain.
So, not bad going for mediocre Medwin. But in the end, there are UWTSD campuses all over the place – Carmarthen, Lampeter, Cardiff, Wuhan (yes, really true), Birmingham, London and the renewed campus on SA1 in Swansea.
It's an unsustainable model of a place of learning, which is struggling to keep up with the demands of a modern institution and has poor rankings against other places
Medwin likes to court favour with the high and mighty. Most of all, he likes to give jobs to those that he thinks have links to Llafur and the Wales Govt – hence the God-awful "Dr" Jane Davidson of Llafur is a pro VC.
How Medwin's empire will survive is an interesting question.
Still, he really did manage to set up a course in Traditional Chinese Medicine with the Jiangxi University of Traditional Medicine and Wuhan University in 2019 .... just before we all got very familiar with the connection between Wuhan and medicine.
Yet again, Wales is really run like a third-rate Central Asian kleptocracy under Llafur.
It is the Kazakhstan of Western Europe.
As for your sentence, I think I should send you the bill for my irony meter.
Which is the point you don’t get.
It nearly died in 1971 when it joined the University of Wales. But now Medwyn Hughes seems to be running down the campus for closure.
It is sad, but it's also difficult to see what else can be done. There is no way Lampeter can be turned into a bustling, accessible metropolis.
It does also suffer somewhat from being dominated by Theology, which is not a fashionable subject, but it could have survived if it had been built at Carmarthen from the start. In fact, in all probability it would have become the nucleus for a proper collegiate University of Wales and Carmarthen would now be the capital of Wales.
I learn from wikipedia that the other two headline inscriptions at Delphi, according to Plato, were "nothing to excess" and "certainty brings insanity." Which of these applies to HYUFD is left as an exercise for the reader.
You expletive upthread is indicative of the state of your arguments on this.
You are not fighting, you are drinking beer & having sex in Greece.
Fascinating article.
Starmer is a lot more intelligent and devious than his critics would give him credit for. He destroyed Corbynism from the inside.
I don't think the Polish Fulcrums would make any difference at this stage as they have almost no strike capability and neither side is showing any appetite at all for OCA/DCA ops.
Polanski has also worked as a hypnotherapist. In 2013, he took a newspaper reporter for The Sun through a hypnotherapy session to increase her breast size at his Harley Street hypnotherapy clinic. He subsequently apologised for having done this, describing his own actions as misogynistic.[15][16]
Teaching quality is far, far more than exam results.
Oh God! Oh God! My boots are WET! We have to surrender NOW!
A little bit upthread, there was some commentary on problems with GCSE exams and the lists of what will and won't come up.
I've not seen the papers involved, but what has happened with some of the earlier papers this year is that the exam board has published its Covid List, and schools have over-interpreted it to really minimise the content to be taught. And they have cut things that they shouldn't have, causing pupils to trip up. (Or individual teachers, tutors, Youtubers or pupils have done the same, with the same effect.)
When it works, question-spotting is an effective strategy to improve results; one of the problems with the pre-Gove GCSEs was that they were getting painfully predictable. But when it goes wrong, it goes badly wrong.
Taking a punt by cutting corners is exactly the behaviour that follows when you overcook the reward/punishment by results model, as shown by the racier bits of banking. Fine in fundamentally frivolous things like sport and high finance, but not a good idea in fields that actually matter.
If state school teachers get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Taxpayers, most of whom now earn less than the average teacher and are also struggling with cost if living and without teachers' long holidays
Corbyn was on to something with his manifesto in 2017 -- Labour need to take what was good about it, not throw it all out.
An anecdote to back up what Old King Cole and others say: I teach in a very high performing maths department. We *could* get even better GCSE results by gaming the system (there is an obvious opportunity to achieve more passes at GCSE maths by entering low attaining students for higher tier and coaching them through a few key topics - a friend at another school does this with real flair). We choose not to do this. Should I be paid less as a result HYUFD?
I have never had much truck with those who complain in teaching. It is by far the most rewarding job I've done (and I've done quite a few). However, with my wife also a teacher and with a reasonably big mortgage on a house in south Bristol and a two-year old, we are having genuine conversations about not heating our house this coming winter to pay the bills. That's why teachers should be paid more.
Tiverton and Honiton by-election: Tory candidate ‘told not to speak to media because of fear of partygate questions’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tiverton-honiton-byelection-ben-bradshaw-b2088792.html
If energy company executives get big pay rises regardless of performance who pays for that? Everyone who uses energy, most of whom now earn less than the average energy company executive and are also struggling with cost of living.
If you want good staff, you have to pay for them. There is a separate question as to why we have an economy where so many people in employment are struggling with cost of living. Maybe one problem is lack of productivity and low skills. Maybe if we had better teachers and more investment in education, we’d have a high-skill economy with fewer people struggling.
If you care about stopping Putin winning his colonial war, care and properly stand with the innocent Ukrainians you surely have no choice but to give Ukraine the weapons to strike deep and hard inside Russia?
I have been repeatedly assured she is the very model of a wonderful candidate who would have no bother confounding such impertinence with the eloquence and logic of her responses.
The 60-65% who say they will vote Labour/Lib Dem/Green/ Nat already discount most of that stuff. Those voters know the attack lines the Mail and Telegraph are going to use, they are well used to it by now. You either already buy into the stuff the Mail comes out with or you don't. I honestly don't see it changing many votes.
FPTP is the Tories best friend and their biggest fear is that the parties supported by 60-65% manage to come to some form of electoral accommodation. There are many obstacles to that but the omens so far are looking better than they have for a while.
If Johnson is still there at the next GE I think there is a reasonable chance of some sort of pact emerging. It doesn't need to be perfect to do real damage to the Cons. It's the Tories biggest nightmare, hence that hysterical (in both senses of the word) piece about a radical hard left alliance in the Telegraph recently.
The problem the Tories have is that if they are still bumping along at 30-35% where do they look for extra votes? The current Tory polling figures are pretty much the combined sum total for the Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party. There is no longer a separate group of 10-15% of UKIP voters to call on.
Countries like Singapore only recruit the brightest into teaching with the highest degree grades but that would also mean many if not most current UK teachers would not make the grade and would have to go elsewhere
It's market forces.
And of course it will feed through to costs. That's the market again. Not a "complaint".
That Russia is trying to start negotiations while Ukraine is refusing suggests that the Russians think that they have got all they can, while the Ukranians think that they can push back the invaders.
Certainly the Donbas looks sticky, but in other areas there is potential as Russia denudes other fronts. The reports from the Kherson region of the new Ukranian tank brigade becoming active for example.
I do acknowledge the inflation challenge, though, and am not saying this is an easy choice.
I didn't hear many on the left complaining about the inflationary impacy of private sector pay rises, though.
But, if the state wants to have a certain amount of teaching/medicine/civil servanting done to a certain standard, it will cost what it costs; see Margaret Thatcher on the buckability of the market. Improving efficiency is possible, but it's not a magic wand.
If the state is not willing to pay the necessary cost, and can't find acceptable reengineerings, then it can either have those things done by less good people, or have less of them done. The state's choice.
(And to echo @maxh, welcome aboard by the way, teaching has an enormous number of positives as a career. It's not necessary to pay teachers huge amounts to motivate them- mostly, we're nice that way. But there is a limit, and I fear that in some areas, that limit is being crossed.)
But other things matter for retention too, and need work.
Many in the private sector will have that same conversation was the point. Yet when people like hospitality staff and lorry drivers get paid more you get lefties like Rochdale pioneers bemoaning it because it will raise the cost of things. I think most people in the country are underpaid because bosses could get away with it and profits have increased while pay has remained static for most. Now the boot is on the other foot and employees have the whip hand in pay negotiations for the first time in 20 years.
By all means argue from that perspective.....just dont come with the we should be paid more because we are public sector bull.
The particular issue with teaching in Secondary coming up is this huge spike in demand. There are quite simply way more kids about to enter than there have been. So. More teachers are required. And the target numbers being trained are already being missed. And people are leaving for better pay and conditions.
(i) Corbyn made mistakes, and
(ii) his enemies on the right in the Labour party gleefully exploited them.
No-one will sing "Oh, Keir Starmer" at Glasto.