I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Christ almighty he's 37. Has it come to this?
He's obviously a numbers man - Oxford history graduate.
He's 6"7. Was he one of those appointed to the Treasury because he's tall?
Yep. Johnson appointed him because he thought the contrast with his miniature boss, Sunak, would be amusing.
Bullingdon type stuff. Some grow out of it, others don't.
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
You directly exited and entered the UK once each, and as I recall it was not directly into and out of the EU.
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
It is. It refers to the Henley Index of “Most Valauble Passsports”, meaning can you enter a country with no visa, or a visa-on-arrival. UK passport is indeed one the the best. Nothing about the Henley Index was changed by the UK leaving the EU, it’s just the Guardian trying to blame everything on Brexit, even things that have absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Christ almighty he's 37. Has it come to this?
Not that this is an endorsement but George Osborne was 38 (by a few days) when he became Chancellor.
39 I think - so older by a year. Assuming it is Truss, who will she want to surround herself with?
Kieran quite rightly suggests it is v. soft support for Labour.
I wonder if Truss’s improving numbers is down, partly, to name recognition and her profile being raised.
Labours lead has always tended to be soft, plenty of Tories sitting on their hands and not moving to labour.
The Bloomberg article Leon linked to is interesting and clearly shows a route to victory at the next GE.
There has been an enormous amount of conjecture over the last few days from the PB faithful that, on the accession of La Truss, Labour are in massive trouble.
Here is a more sensible (less g*mmon and golf club-friendly) way to choose a PM when the leader of the largest parliamentary party has lost its confidence, retired, flounced, or snuffed it:
* allow all MPs (of whatever party, and the independents too) a vote in a secret ballot; * allow write-ins (of MPs) - essentially every vote would be a write-in (and yes you could write in the sitting PM's name if you wanted); * only those who receive at least one vote in a round are allowed to proceed to the next; * worst performer each round (and any who score zero) to drop out.
Additional garnishes might include:
* make voting compulsory OR * require the winner to win a vote of confidence in the Commons (These achieve the same aim and therefore either of them would be sufficient. Personally I'd favour the first.)
Note: voting to be administered by Commons officials; no party involvement.
It'd end up with Rishi Sunak.
Which would be no different to Tory MPs having the final say anyway. However would still lead to revolt from Tory or Labour members depending which of then was in power if they imposed a PM on them they didn't want
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Kieran quite rightly suggests it is v. soft support for Labour.
I wonder if Truss’s improving numbers is down, partly, to name recognition and her profile being raised.
Labours lead has always tended to be soft, plenty of Tories sitting on their hands and not moving to labour.
The Bloomberg article Leon linked to is interesting and clearly shows a route to victory at the next GE.
There has been an enormous amount of conjecture over the last few days from the PB faithful that, on the accession of La Truss, Labour are in massive trouble.
The political reality is the Labour are always either in trouble or not far from it, as the Tories are the natural party of government here. It is kind of true but not a reflection on Truss or Starmer.
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
If you read the article it turns out the number of countries UK passport holders can visit has dropped from 192 to 187. Not much change.
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Christ almighty he's 37. Has it come to this?
He's obviously a numbers man - Oxford history graduate.
He's 6"7. Was he one of those appointed to the Treasury because he's tall?
Because he was so much taller than Sunak yes, to belittle the Chancellor. A bit of public schoolboy humour and control from Boris.
Unquestionably correct. And now Clarke might end up Chancellor.
Politics these days with Trump and Johnson types - never underestimate personal pettiness and 'urges' as a driver of big events.
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
You directly exited and entered the UK once each, and as I recall it was not directly into and out of the EU.
Well, you'd be wrong. I went in and out of Greece
Ah but those lucky enough to enjoy private Lear Jet charters don't suffer the same inconveniences as the rest of us roughing it on Sleazy Jet cattle class.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
It is noticeable that the people who moan the most about the hassles of travel are the people who rarely if ever travel abroad - "I'm scared of driving on the right!" - or, if they do, it is during school holidays and they go to the most obviously crowded pinchpoints - Gatwick, Dover, Eurostar/tunnel, Malaga airport- and then they encounter problems and they whine like crushed elves about "Brexit"
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
You directly exited and entered the UK once each, and as I recall it was not directly into and out of the EU.
Well, you'd be wrong. I went in and out of Greece
Ah but those lucky enough to enjoy private Lear Jet charters don't suffer the same inconveniences as the rest of us roughing it on Sleazy Jet cattle class.
I got a cheap ferry from Kusadusi Turkey to Samos, Greece, and got a budget plane from Athens to Tbilisi
There actually WAS some passport hassle at Samos - a half hour queue - but that's because Samos is under intense pressure from illegal migration from Turkey (the marina is full of EU Frontex boats and officials) and they scrutinise every passport very carefully, including EU passports. Again: nothing to do with Brexit
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
It is noticeable that the people who moan the most about the hassles of travel are the people who rarely if ever travel abroad - "I'm scared of driving on the right!" - or, if they do, it is during school holidays and they go to the most obviously crowded pinchpoints - Gatwick, Dover, Eurostar/tunnel, Malaga airport- and then they encounter problems and they whine like crushed elves about "Brexit"
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
Spent the last month in Pune (travelling via Delhi and Mumbai), Berlin and Cornwall.
The worst parts of it were Gatwick security and traffic on the A30.
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
If you read the article it turns out the number of countries UK passport holders can visit has dropped from 192 to 187. Not much change.
And better than half the EU (and the same as France, Ireland & Portugal).
It’s classic Guardian click-bait, as “Diana” is to the Express “Brexit is beastly” is to the Guardian.
It is noticeable that the people who moan the most about the hassles of travel are the people who rarely if ever travel abroad - "I'm scared of driving on the right!" - or, if they do, it is during school holidays and they go to the most obviously crowded pinchpoints - Gatwick, Dover, Eurostar/tunnel, Malaga airport- and then they encounter problems and they whine like crushed elves about "Brexit"
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
My experience of a few European airports this year has been that NOT being in the EEA queue was quicker.
Kieran quite rightly suggests it is v. soft support for Labour.
I wonder if Truss’s improving numbers is down, partly, to name recognition and her profile being raised.
Labours lead has always tended to be soft, plenty of Tories sitting on their hands and not moving to labour.
The Bloomberg article Leon linked to is interesting and clearly shows a route to victory at the next GE.
There has been an enormous amount of conjecture over the last few days from the PB faithful that, on the accession of La Truss, Labour are in massive trouble.
I’m not convinced but I must say she has surprised me on the upside. She has been nowhere near as bad as I’d expected. Expectation being partly due to her ‘thatcher cosplay’ and partly due to others comments.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor are their results anything special given their intake.
Here is a more sensible (less g*mmon and golf club-friendly) way to choose a PM when the leader of the largest parliamentary party has lost its confidence, retired, flounced, or snuffed it:
* allow all MPs (of whatever party, and the independents too) a vote in a secret ballot; * allow write-ins (of MPs) - essentially every vote would be a write-in (and yes you could write in the sitting PM's name if you wanted); * only those who receive at least one vote in a round are allowed to proceed to the next; * worst performer each round (and any who score zero) to drop out.
Additional garnishes might include:
* make voting compulsory OR * require the winner to win a vote of confidence in the Commons (These achieve the same aim and therefore either of them would be sufficient. Personally I'd favour the first.)
Note: voting to be administered by Commons officials; no party involvement.
I like it. To speed it up though, anyone with less than 5% of the vote to drop out.
It's not bad but you can't have Opposition MPs voting for who PM should be when the Cons have a majority. They could play silly buggers.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
A very good article. As people may know I am involved in various campaigns one of which is strongly supported by David and in fact he brought a private members bill to parliament in support of it. He is not a bad MP and comes over as pretty normal, unlike many MPs.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
It wasn't a "dose" and the two things are entirely consistent.
It was the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, the eurozone crisis and the limp response of the Conservative government to both (whilst bending over backwards to keep cordial relations with the Liberal Democrats) that prompted the rise of UKIP.
It is noticeable that the people who moan the most about the hassles of travel are the people who rarely if ever travel abroad - "I'm scared of driving on the right!" - or, if they do, it is during school holidays and they go to the most obviously crowded pinchpoints - Gatwick, Dover, Eurostar/tunnel, Malaga airport- and then they encounter problems and they whine like crushed elves about "Brexit"
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
Spent the last month in Pune (travelling via Delhi and Mumbai), Berlin and Cornwall.
The worst parts of it were Gatwick security and traffic on the A30.
lol, yes
Two of my least favourite places on earth during peak holiday season: Gatwick and the A30
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
It's absolute bollocks, but you've got to remember the Guardian are pandering to the prejudices of their readers.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Had I gone to grammar school (80s child in an area they were abolished), my A-Levels would have been better and I might have passed my Cambridge interview (and presumably become a well paid Russian spy). But I would never have met some of my oldest and closest friends and my social circle would be much narrower. On that basis, I’m glad I didn’t go.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Which is the case. Had Lisbon not been so cackhandled then there would not have been the same betrayal of voters leading to the same pressure for a binary in/out referendum.
It all circles back to how badly the past was mishandled.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Ah, the New York Times reverts to its histrionic Britain-bashing. It must please a segment of its liberal readership
A few months ago I worked out why they do this. It's because of the desperate state of American politics, with seemingly no way out of the nightmare. Add in racial conflict, mass shootings, foreign policy disasters, global retreat, surging crime, homelessness and drugs, and America's clear descent from top country status, and it is very depressing to be American right now. But they get some solace from pointing at Britain and saying "but look this place is fucked up too, and by rightwing populists who are just as bad as ours"
I like the fact the majority of Tory MPs are probably going to have to work with a PM they wouldn't have chosen themselves. Most of the time they get their own way so this is a refreshing change.
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
It is noticeable that the people who moan the most about the hassles of travel are the people who rarely if ever travel abroad - "I'm scared of driving on the right!" - or, if they do, it is during school holidays and they go to the most obviously crowded pinchpoints - Gatwick, Dover, Eurostar/tunnel, Malaga airport- and then they encounter problems and they whine like crushed elves about "Brexit"
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
But that's not the point is it?
Johnny Brexit- Voter buys his family holiday from Hays Travel for 2 grand, rocks up to Manchester for a Tui charter and is f*****!
When I flew to Sicily recently, like you, I knew the score, so I limited my potential harassment, by upgrading the EasyJet flight from Bristol to Catania for BA from Heathrow to Palermo. Those flying in from Manchester or Birmingham to Catania on Tui or EasyJet to Catania from Bristol had a torrid time, days late on arrival, return planes rescheduled for a day early, all sorts of rubbish. We were a mere half an hour late, both in and out, so almost perfect.
Like you say, if one knows what they are doing, chaos can be possibly (not guaranteed) mitigated. This isn't how your average blue collar voter manages his vacation.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
Kieran quite rightly suggests it is v. soft support for Labour.
I wonder if Truss’s improving numbers is down, partly, to name recognition and her profile being raised.
Labours lead has always tended to be soft, plenty of Tories sitting on their hands and not moving to labour.
The Bloomberg article Leon linked to is interesting and clearly shows a route to victory at the next GE.
There has been an enormous amount of conjecture over the last few days from the PB faithful that, on the accession of La Truss, Labour are in massive trouble.
I’m not convinced but I must say she has surprised me on the upside. She has been nowhere near as bad as I’d expected. Expectation being partly due to her ‘thatcher cosplay’ and partly due to others comments.
Has she really impressed, or has Sunak seriously disappointed?
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
He does have a way with words, though. His apology for some of his facebook posts begins:
“To be absolutely clear. I do not think that Simon Weston’s injuries deserve ridicule. I emphatically do not think that people who advocate for the West Bank settlers should have their throats cut.”
Kieran quite rightly suggests it is v. soft support for Labour.
I wonder if Truss’s improving numbers is down, partly, to name recognition and her profile being raised.
Labours lead has always tended to be soft, plenty of Tories sitting on their hands and not moving to labour.
The Bloomberg article Leon linked to is interesting and clearly shows a route to victory at the next GE.
There has been an enormous amount of conjecture over the last few days from the PB faithful that, on the accession of La Truss, Labour are in massive trouble.
I’m not convinced but I must say she has surprised me on the upside. She has been nowhere near as bad as I’d expected. Expectation being partly due to her ‘thatcher cosplay’ and partly due to others comments.
Has she really impressed, or has Sunak seriously disappointed?
For me it is a bit of both but having to take Sunak on head to head has undoubtedly raised her debating skills well beyond where they need to be for SKS.
THE SCOTTISH Government asked the UK Government to delete a mention of England’s 1966 World Cup victory in a special children’s book to mark the Queen’s jubilee.
According to an email, released under Freedom of Information, the Curriculum and Qualifications Division said that the win “doesn’t seem to merit this level of exposure” and was “not that relevant in the non-England parts of the UK.”
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Ah, the New York Times reverts to its histrionic Britain-bashing. It must please a segment of its liberal readership
A few months ago I worked out why they do this. It's because of the desperate state of American politics, with seemingly no way out of the nightmare. Add in racial conflict, mass shootings, foreign policy disasters, global retreat, surging crime, homelessness and drugs, and America's clear descent from top country status, and it is very depressing to be American right now. But they get some solace from pointing at Britain and saying "but look this place is fucked up too, and by rightwing populists who are just as bad as ours"
The kind of liberal American who brackets Brexit and Trump as the same phenomenon and didn't see it coming also holds us in some way responsible for it, so they need to see us as a salutary warning regardless of the reality of British politics.
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I've just breezed around the world for three months, in three continents, and eight countries, with my British passport. Not a single hassle. So this is bollocks
It's absolute bollocks, but you've got to remember the Guardian are pandering to the prejudices of their readers.
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
He does have a way with words, though. His apology for some of his facebook posts begins:
“To be absolutely clear. I do not think that Simon Weston’s injuries deserve ridicule. I emphatically do not think that people who advocate for the West Bank settlers should have their throats cut.”
I will never in any circumstances divulge which sentence on that page I laughed out loud at. not ever.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
Eh? That doesn't follow at all.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
THE SCOTTISH Government asked the UK Government to delete a mention of England’s 1966 World Cup victory in a special children’s book to mark the Queen’s jubilee.
According to an email, released under Freedom of Information, the Curriculum and Qualifications Division said that the win “doesn’t seem to merit this level of exposure” and was “not that relevant in the non-England parts of the UK.”
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
What always strikes me as ironic about the grammar schools 'debate' is that comprehensive education was introduced to provide 'grammar schools for all.'
So if they're not happy with the results, maybe take a minute to ponder whether grammar schools are such a great idea?
But what's infuriating is how everyone in power not only misses the point but as a result invariably draws the wrong conclusion.
It is noticeable that the people who moan the most about the hassles of travel are the people who rarely if ever travel abroad - "I'm scared of driving on the right!" - or, if they do, it is during school holidays and they go to the most obviously crowded pinchpoints - Gatwick, Dover, Eurostar/tunnel, Malaga airport- and then they encounter problems and they whine like crushed elves about "Brexit"
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
But that's not the point is it?
Johnny Brexit- Voter buys his family holiday from Hays Travel for 2 grand, rocks up to Manchester for a Tui charter and is f*****!
When I flew to Sicily recently, like you, I knew the score, so I limited my potential harassment, by upgrading the EasyJet flight from Bristol to Catania for BA from Heathrow to Palermo. Those flying in from Manchester or Birmingham to Catania on Tui or EasyJet to Catania from Bristol had a torrid time, days late on arrival, return planes rescheduled for a day early, all sorts of rubbish. We were a mere half an hour late, both in and out, so almost perfect.
Like you say, if one knows what they are doing, chaos can be possibly (not guaranteed) mitigated. This isn't how your average blue collar voter manages his vacation.
But I have multiple friends and fam who have also travelled recently. Not one has reported a major problem, and plenty of them are NOT experienced worldwide travellers, just normal once-or-twice-a-year to Greece, France or Spain type people
However I readily accept that some poor unlucky souls have had a bitch of a time recently. But this again is practically fuck all to do with Brexit, all travel everywhere is more problematic at the moment
from an idea elsewhere, and with apols. to Julie Andrews:
"The hills are alive with the sound of HIMARS With shells they have flown for a hundred miles The Ukes fill my heart with the sound of HIMARS My heart wants to sing every time it fires
My heart wants to beat like the thud of the shells That hit from the tanks to the dumps My heart wants to sigh like smoke that rises From a T72 on the breeze To laugh like a uke that fires and fires Shells on their way To fly through the night to an orc who can only pray"
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Ah, the New York Times reverts to its histrionic Britain-bashing. It must please a segment of its liberal readership
A few months ago I worked out why they do this. It's because of the desperate state of American politics, with seemingly no way out of the nightmare. Add in racial conflict, mass shootings, foreign policy disasters, global retreat, surging crime, homelessness and drugs, and America's clear descent from top country status, and it is very depressing to be American right now. But they get some solace from pointing at Britain and saying "but look this place is fucked up too, and by rightwing populists who are just as bad as ours"
Well yes, but the American Right also indulges in such silliness: Britain is now overrun with obese, benefit-claiming plebs having unprotected sex all day, or terrorist-supporting Muslims intent on destroying the Enlightenment.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
Eh? That doesn't follow at all.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
A masterclass in Not Getting It.
Your previous post outlines the consequences of the breach of the manifesto commitment. your case is that it was puniushed by the electorate. therefore your ludicrous equivalence of "lacks legal consequences" with "lacks consequences" fails.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
Eh? That doesn't follow at all.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
A masterclass in Not Getting It.
Your previous post outlines the consequences of the breach of the manifesto commitment. your case is that it was puniushed by the electorate. therefore your ludicrous equivalence of "lacks legal consequences" with "lacks consequences" fails.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
Kieran quite rightly suggests it is v. soft support for Labour.
I wonder if Truss’s improving numbers is down, partly, to name recognition and her profile being raised.
Labours lead has always tended to be soft, plenty of Tories sitting on their hands and not moving to labour.
The Bloomberg article Leon linked to is interesting and clearly shows a route to victory at the next GE.
There has been an enormous amount of conjecture over the last few days from the PB faithful that, on the accession of La Truss, Labour are in massive trouble.
I’m not convinced but I must say she has surprised me on the upside. She has been nowhere near as bad as I’d expected. Expectation being partly due to her ‘thatcher cosplay’ and partly due to others comments.
Has she really impressed, or has Sunak seriously disappointed?
For me it is a bit of both but having to take Sunak on head to head has undoubtedly raised her debating skills well beyond where they need to be for SKS.
"Undoubtedly raised her debating skills"? Much doubt remains at this desk.
A great deal of "the King is dead, long live the Queen" in Conservative Party circles now.
THE SCOTTISH Government asked the UK Government to delete a mention of England’s 1966 World Cup victory in a special children’s book to mark the Queen’s jubilee.
According to an email, released under Freedom of Information, the Curriculum and Qualifications Division said that the win “doesn’t seem to merit this level of exposure” and was “not that relevant in the non-England parts of the UK.”
The Department for Education has today advised Hodder to delete all references to the Scottish Government from Politics textbooks.
'They don't really merit this level of exposure,' said a spokesperson, slurring their speech a bit, 'because they only rule a shitty outcrop of stone and heather and are seriously not relevant in the non-Scottish parts of the UK.'
When pressed, the spokesperson said, 'Look, the other problem is, you can't really call them a 'government,' can you? They're a disorganised rabble of nationlists, perverts and muppets. Like this lot only with even stupider voices.'
At this point, the press conference was interrupted when an ambulance called for the spokesperson, who will be taken away to a gender neutral unit until self-ID has been established, which will require them to dry out a bit first. It may take some time as there were lots of work meetings at the DfE that morning.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I'll post my view (again):
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
Eh? That doesn't follow at all.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
A masterclass in Not Getting It.
Your previous post outlines the consequences of the breach of the manifesto commitment. your case is that it was puniushed by the electorate. therefore your ludicrous equivalence of "lacks legal consequences" with "lacks consequences" fails.
You're confusing two very different things.
A manifesto pledge is meaningless because there is no way to compel it be followed, and the electorate might not be able to take action until it's too late (as happened with Lisbon).
That doesn't mean that breaking the pledge has no consequences - far from it.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
Eh? That doesn't follow at all.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
A masterclass in Not Getting It.
Your previous post outlines the consequences of the breach of the manifesto commitment. your case is that it was puniushed by the electorate. therefore your ludicrous equivalence of "lacks legal consequences" with "lacks consequences" fails.
"meaningless" and "lacks consequences" aren't remotely the same thing.
Highly questionable, but I don't think you are ready for introduction to behaviourist theories of language
But anyway: Labour said (on your case) We will not pass the constitution without a referendum. They could alternatively have said Jabbedee wah wah kwook. Can you tell which of those utterances is meaningless and which is not?
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
Yes, that's obvious, isn't it? Every time the Europhiles blocked the people from having a say, resentment and suspicion of the EU grew.So when we finally got a say, it was seen as the only chance to say no. It would have been better if we could have said no to the euro or to Lisbon. Or even to Maastricht.
So now you DO agree that political pledges - though not legally enforceable - are not "meaningless".
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
Eh? That doesn't follow at all.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
A masterclass in Not Getting It.
Your previous post outlines the consequences of the breach of the manifesto commitment. your case is that it was puniushed by the electorate. therefore your ludicrous equivalence of "lacks legal consequences" with "lacks consequences" fails.
"meaningless" and "lacks consequences" aren't remotely the same thing.
Highly questionable, but I don't think you are ready for introduction to behaviourist theories of language
But anyway: Labour said (on your case) We will not pass the constitution without a referendum. They could alternatively have said Jabbedee wah wah kwook. Can you tell which of those utterances is meaningless and which is not?
The public could rely on both equally as an indication of what would happen.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I'll post my view (again):
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
Well, actually I would not agree. THey're the ones who get the extra funding, the extra support, the specialised tuition.
Our system certainly does fail the brightest, by assuming that if you just put them in a classroom and leave them to it they'll do OK. Which is not the case - quite the reverse. I remember in one of Steven Moffat's earlier efforts, called 'Chalk,' a teacher criticised the head for providing more teaching for abler children with the words 'So we're concentrating the most education on the children who need it the least?' Rubbish. Bright children actually need much more educating, due to the amount of material they can cope with, and speaking as somebody whose taught both types it's much harder work as well.
However, the key thing to remember is that we're trying to run what amounts to a baby-sitting service on the cheap while running an education system designed to cram knowledge. That's a trifecta that ultimately, whatever your views on grammar schools or indeed on the existence of moon pigs, fails *all* children caught up in it.
Until we have a sensible conversation on whether we want a baby-sitting service, a cheap service or an educationally effective service, and make a decision among those three options, we're going to end up with a second-rate service. Alas, no sign of that yet. Certainly not from Truss or Sunak, and not from Labour either.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
Ability/aptitude streaming in comps achieves the same goals as grammars, without the social stigmas for those who don't get in. And without the enormous pressure on 11-year old kids. Also, you learn to look after yourself...!
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I'll post my view (again):
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
I can actually think of a reason to support Grammar Schools - because the children attending are likely to want to learn and won't have many special needs requirements - they could be run at a lower cost to non Grammar Schools.
And I have zero problem with a 2 tier education system where the money is spent on those who need the money (i.e. the none Grammar Schools). What I disliked about the approach in Bucks and Kent back in the 80's was that Grammar Schools got more money than none Grammar schools on most measures. Have Grammar schools but reduce their per pupil funding by 10% compared....
Mr. Roberts, aye. If we'd had a vote on Lisbon then the sceptical side would've won by a landslide and establishment politicians here, those with functioning brains, would've realised they needed to try and stabilise the relationship between the electorate and the EU, and the EU *might* have realised that as well.
By removing the potential for a rejection of integration without leaving the EU there was no release of the building head of steam. UKIP grew and grew until it became electorally significant enough to cause the referendum promise.
But even then, it was winnable by the pro-EU side. While the Leave campaign was very poor indeed, the Remain side was yet worse.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Accepting your premise that the most pressing problem is a lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top university, what evidence do you have that the introduction of Grammar schools into, say, Hull would be the solution most likely to solve the problem…
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Christ almighty he's 37. Has it come to this?
He's obviously a numbers man - Oxford history graduate.
He's 6"7. Was he one of those appointed to the Treasury because he's tall?
Yep. Johnson appointed him because he thought the contrast with his miniature boss, Sunak, would be amusing.
Bullingdon type stuff. Some grow out of it, others don't.
I really rate Simon Clarke as a person. He’s super friendly when I worked with him and seems very down to earth. He’d always make time to chat with a lowly employee which is a good sign in my book. Not to my taste politically but he’s much more in touch than Sunak.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
Hyufd - grammar schools *are* state schools. I think you mean *comprehensive schools.*
But in any case, as I said when hammering at the Wantage MP over private schools, that's a meaningless metric (and not always true, incidentally - my comprehensive at Newent regularly outperformed two of Gloucester's grammar schools, Crypt and Ribstone Hall, in results, until Ribstone hired one of our teachers and put him in charge of improving their teaching).
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
No they wouldn't. The Grammar Schools would get filled with the children of middle class parents who move into the area, putting up house prices and who tutor their children.
In the large poorer village I lived in not a single child passed the 11 plus. In the posh areas loads did. Come A levels a whole bunch of us from the village transferred to the Grammar School. What do you think happened to us between 11 and 16 to suddenly make us brighter? The answer is nothing whatsoever.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
The most pressing problem today is the dogsh*t degree course that gives you a pile of debt, an entitled attitude and a cr*p job for life.
Alternatively take a month out to take a short course to be an HGV driver and almost double your salary.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Or you could just expand Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
The most pressing problem today is the dogsh*t degree course that gives you a pile of debt, an entitled attitude and a cr*p job for life.
Alternatively take a month out to take a short course to be an HGV driver and almost double your salary.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I'll post my view (again):
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
I can actually think of a reason to support Grammar Schools - because the children attending are likely to want to learn and won't have many special needs requirements - they could be run at a lower cost to non Grammar Schools.
And I have zero problem with a 2 tier education system where the money is spent on those who need the money (i.e. the none Grammar Schools). What I disliked about the approach in Bucks and Kent back in the 80's was that Grammar Schools got more money than none Grammar schools on most measures. Have Grammar schools but reduce their per pupil funding by 10% compared....
Yep, and that's fair enough - but IMV the question should be: "How do we ensure that every (*) child leaves primary school able to read and write at an adequate level?"
And spend the money accordingly. There is little point in kids moving onto secondary school of any type if they are already that far behind.
(*) Not 'every', as some children will have quite severe learning difficulties, like one of my son's friends. But every child who can.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
The most pressing problem is the general standard. Degree level students would now fail 1960s O level exams.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Or you could just expand Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
Well, the Gove reforms did that, and it was one of their worst mistakes (which is saying quite something). It's meant that other unis are now struggling financially, but more to the point it's left the Russell Group very dependent on rental income and tuition fee income, but without the necessary teaching resources to cope with the extra students.
When I was at uni, I only had one PhD student teach me. Now that's the norm rather than the exception in many unis. Is this a bad thing? Well, depends on the PhD student. What it isn't, is a way of being taught by the advertised top expert.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
The most pressing problem today is the dogsh*t degree course that gives you a pile of debt, an entitled attitude and a cr*p job for life.
Alternatively take a month out to take a short course to be an HGV driver and almost double your salary.
I know someone who has done just that.
Today? Oxford's been running since before 1167!
And only legitimately really called a dump since 1284.
A view from the States: "Economically stagnant, socially fragmented and politically adrift, [the UK] is being cut down to size. The right’s Brexit fantasy — of a revitalized Britain, able once again to confidently assert itself — is finished." ~AA
Ah, the New York Times reverts to its histrionic Britain-bashing. It must please a segment of its liberal readership
A few months ago I worked out why they do this. It's because of the desperate state of American politics, with seemingly no way out of the nightmare. Add in racial conflict, mass shootings, foreign policy disasters, global retreat, surging crime, homelessness and drugs, and America's clear descent from top country status, and it is very depressing to be American right now. But they get some solace from pointing at Britain and saying "but look this place is fucked up too, and by rightwing populists who are just as bad as ours"
I have seen this effect in play at family weddings, but the NYT are really missing out on an important piece of the jigsaw. They need to discover how bad the governance of Ireland is as well. American visitors always need a crash course in the many past mistakes and misdemeanours of Leo Varadkar and Micheál Martin.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Or you could just expand Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
Can you tell me what makes a Russel group uni special? (Asking as a member of staff at a top ten U.K. university, not in the fecking Russel group...)
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I'll post my view (again):
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
I can actually think of a reason to support Grammar Schools - because the children attending are likely to want to learn and won't have many special needs requirements - they could be run at a lower cost to non Grammar Schools.
And I have zero problem with a 2 tier education system where the money is spent on those who need the money (i.e. the none Grammar Schools). What I disliked about the approach in Bucks and Kent back in the 80's was that Grammar Schools got more money than none Grammar schools on most measures. Have Grammar schools but reduce their per pupil funding by 10% compared....
Yep, and that's fair enough - but IMV the question should be: "How do we ensure that every (*) child leaves primary school able to read and write at an adequate level?"
And spend the money accordingly. There is little point in kids moving onto secondary school of any type if they are already that far behind.
(*) Not 'every', as some children will have quite severe learning difficulties, like one of my son's friends. But every child who can.
simply answer to that SureStart - the stupidest cut Osborne made out of many stupid cuts.
You don't try to fix the problem at Age 9-11. You fix it between the ages of 6 months to 4 years.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
The most pressing problem is the general standard. Degree level students would now fail 1960s O level exams.
The questions don't look that different, except (a) the O-level paper questions are not very good because there are too many leading questions in them and (b) you have to write twice as much at degree level.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
What always strikes me as ironic about the grammar schools 'debate' is that comprehensive education was introduced to provide 'grammar schools for all.'
So if they're not happy with the results, maybe take a minute to ponder whether grammar schools are such a great idea?
But what's infuriating is how everyone in power not only misses the point but as a result invariably draws the wrong conclusion.
I went to school in Wythall, a well to do suburb of Birmingham, but just over the border in North Worcestershire. Woodrush was a well funded early Comprehensive (1972) it had previously been a dynamic Secondary Modern run by a guy called Bingham who had been in the vanguard of SMP Maths and Nuffield Science, and had enthusiastically utilised (the Secondary Modern) school to fine tune his work. The results in the first fifteen years as a Comp. under a guy called Toogood were excellent (I left for Ledbury before O levels- I regret not staying) and this continued until many of the Thatcher Government funding issues bit. It is now a mediocre Academy.
Prior to the Comprehensive system, the children of Wythall who passed their 11 plus were bused from Beckett's Island (roundabout) to the County Grammar School in Redditch, which later became the almost sink Abbey High School. For years no one needed to be bused from Beckett's Island because we had our own excellent, well funded and successful school. Now, one sees uniformed children waiting at Beckett's Island for the school bus to Alcester Grammar School. A real tragedy. I still have connections with Woodrush Rugby Club and a number of members moved to places like Studley and Bidford on Avon so they could take a punt on Grammar Schools in Stratford or Alcester, further weakening the intake and investment to Woodrush.
If one disinvests in a school system for political gain, it is easy to determine that system is failing.
Some emerging signs of moderation from the Truss camp in the last couple of days, at the same time as Rishi's being trying to make a lot of noise with policy farts.
What we can take from this is that Truss knows she's going to win, so is tacking more to realism.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Or you could just expand Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
This is the most obvious problem with the whole notion. The advocates need to name the broad category of young people they want to exclude from the universities they value.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Or you could just expand Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
Can you tell me what makes a Russel group uni special? (Asking as a member of staff at a top ten U.K. university, not in the fecking Russel group...)
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
He's right in one way. Grammar schools are not the answer to the myriad of problems facing education. But in another way he illustrates the problem:
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
Fantastic post!
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
I'll post my view (again):
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
Well, actually I would not agree. THey're the ones who get the extra funding, the extra support, the specialised tuition.
Our system certainly does fail the brightest, by assuming that if you just put them in a classroom and leave them to it they'll do OK. Which is not the case - quite the reverse. I remember in one of Steven Moffat's earlier efforts, called 'Chalk,' a teacher criticised the head for providing more teaching for abler children with the words 'So we're concentrating the most education on the children who need it the least?' Rubbish. Bright children actually need much more educating, due to the amount of material they can cope with, and speaking as somebody whose taught both types it's much harder work as well.
However, the key thing to remember is that we're trying to run what amounts to a baby-sitting service on the cheap while running an education system designed to cram knowledge. That's a trifecta that ultimately, whatever your views on grammar schools or indeed on the existence of moon pigs, fails *all* children caught up in it.
Until we have a sensible conversation on whether we want a baby-sitting service, a cheap service or an educationally effective service, and make a decision among those three options, we're going to end up with a second-rate service. Alas, no sign of that yet. Certainly not from Truss or Sunak, and not from Labour either.
"Well, actually I would not agree."
Then why are so many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and innumerate? Why are millions of adults functionally illiterate and innumerate?
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
The most pressing problem is the general standard. Degree level students would now fail 1960s O level exams.
The questions don't look that different, except (a) the O-level paper questions are not very good because there are too many leading questions in them and (b) you have to write twice as much at degree level.
Difficult to know really without seeing what depth is expected in the answers tbh.
Ms Truss has absolutely no requirement to go to the country to seek a mandate, she already has one.
She is abandoning the manifesto on which they were elected
But we are always told that party manifestos are meaningless and non binding. Why should they suddenly become meaningful in this specific situation?
To be fair, in our parliamentary system, no candidate should be running on anything other than the manifesto from the previous GE unless they want to submit themselves to a new one.
Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it, with no real democratic mandate.
The democratic mandate applying to manifestos, if it ever existed, was abolished by the Wheeler case.
You what? How in the name of God can election on a manifesto not amount to a democratic mandate for that manifesto?
Because even without the precedent of decades of government's ignoring manifestos, that is what the law says. It was decided, in court, on that specific point. There is (sadly) no room for debate on this. Manifestos have no legal standing in our democratic system.
No, utterly wrong, what that case says is that there is no legally enforceable mandate, not there is no mandate.
Just as, if I solemnly promise to pay you £100 and then decide not to, there is nothing you can legally do about it. Doesn't alter the fact that I have an obligation to pay you.
It doesn't stop the fact that, should you be so minded, you could simply refuse and, apart from some reputational damage there is nothing to prevent you doing so. The same applies to manifestos. They are meaningless unless it is possible to convince a majority of people that failing to enact them should be a reason to remove an MP. And whilst that may have been the case at some point in the distant mists of time, it certainly isn't the case now.
That "apart from some reputational damage" is a bit "apart from that, Mrs Lincoln..." Look at Boris (and May): it wasn't legal mechanisms that got them out in the end, but out they are. I don't think a bet made by me on here with a fellow PBer would be legally enforceable, but i'd pay up on it even if i didn't much want to.
Nor was it failure to enact manifesto pledges. In the grand scheme of things they are meaningless because all that matters to people is that the Government is vaguely competent and does things that people vaguely agree with. If they do that then no one even looks at what they promised in their manifesto.
I am not saying I think it should be this way. I would happily see manifestos be legally binding though I accept that might be impractical. But in the end they really are meaningless.
They just aren't. There are other systems of obligation than the courts.
Glaring example; do you think DC would in a million years have held a referendum in 2016 if he hadn't committed to one by manifesto in 2015?
It was UKIP breathing down the Conservatives' neck that prompted Cameron's referendum commitment.
Well a bunch of leavers on here consistently and vehemently argue that breaking the (not legally binding) pledge for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty was why Brexit happened. Had the latest dose of this just at the weekend.
It wasn't a "dose" and the two things are entirely consistent.
It was the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, the eurozone crisis and the limp response of the Conservative government to both (whilst bending over backwards to keep cordial relations with the Liberal Democrats) that prompted the rise of UKIP.
No, my point was different. I agree there's a case that reneging on the Lisbon Treaty referendum pledge led to Brexit and although I don't buy it fully myself - it's a bit too "knee bone connected to the hip bone etc" and "7 degrees of Kevin Bacon" for me - it was surely a factor.
Driver thinks so too. So I was using this to demonstrate - to this self same aforesaid Driver - that his statements about political pledges being "meaningless" because they are legally unenforceable were off beam.
Phew. I don't just have to *do* brainy things like this I have to explain to all and sundry exactly how I've done them!
I'd back Simon Clarke as next chancellor with Ladbrokes at 5-1 if I could but they'll only let me have 30 pence; and I'll destroy the price as my account is marked should I place the bet - so I'd rather some PBers got what is imo good value (I think he's at least even chance with Kwarteng)
Christ almighty he's 37. Has it come to this?
He's obviously a numbers man - Oxford history graduate.
He's 6"7. Was he one of those appointed to the Treasury because he's tall?
Yep. Johnson appointed him because he thought the contrast with his miniature boss, Sunak, would be amusing.
Bullingdon type stuff. Some grow out of it, others don't.
I really rate Simon Clarke as a person. He’s super friendly when I worked with him and seems very down to earth. He’d always make time to chat with a lowly employee which is a good sign in my book. Not to my taste politically but he’s much more in touch than Sunak.
Never had the pleasure but I agree he comes over well.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
Good on him - brave, for a Tory MP. Essential reading for HYUFD; grammar schools aid the wealthy not the poor, and do not benefit social mobility. Nor is their achievement anything special given their intake.
Utter rubbish. Working class pupils in grammar schools get better results than those of equal intelligence in state schools. Grammar schools are also generally the only state schools that really challenge private schools.
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
OK, let’s resolve this once and for all. Could you set out what you think is the most pressing problem in the education system today and what evidence you have that the introduction of more grammar schools is the solution most likely to solve that problem.
The most pressing problem in education today is lack of opportunity in poor working class areas to get into a top Russell Group university and Oxbridge and a good career. More grammars would expand that opportunity.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
Or you could just expand Oxbridge and Russell Group Universities.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
Can you tell me what makes a Russel group uni special? (Asking as a member of staff at a top ten U.K. university, not in the fecking Russel group...)
Old boys club - with 30 years of continual (sunk cost) advertising that they are better than the rest (even though they aren't)...
The sad bit is that I was there when it was first announced - they bribed students to attend in return for free beer.
Comments
Bullingdon type stuff. Some grow out of it, others don't.
https://www.atlasandboots.com/travel-blog/most-powerful-passports/ <- a better piece on Henley Index.
Plenty of Conservative party members won't like this article. I apologise in advance for that: I know grammar schools are popular with the membership and my view won't be. But bringing them back would be a serious misstep for education policy. They are a distraction from what we should be doing, they serve the wealthy not the poor – and they don't work.
https://twitter.com/david4wantage/status/1553671055256031233
Politics these days with Trump and Johnson types - never underestimate personal pettiness and 'urges' as a driver of big events.
https://twitter.com/keiranpedley/status/1554070392460951553?s=20&t=Ppkp0x8maXzrln45yeH3nA
Clearly forgetting that these places have often been nightmares to get through at busy times
If you're not a pussy you can travel easily around the world: I've just done it
There actually WAS some passport hassle at Samos - a half hour queue - but that's because Samos is under intense pressure from illegal migration from Turkey (the marina is full of EU Frontex boats and officials) and they scrutinise every passport very carefully, including EU passports. Again: nothing to do with Brexit
The worst parts of it were Gatwick security and traffic on the A30.
It’s classic Guardian click-bait, as “Diana” is to the Express “Brexit is beastly” is to the Guardian.
It was the passage of the Lisbon Treaty, the eurozone crisis and the limp response of the Conservative government to both (whilst bending over backwards to keep cordial relations with the Liberal Democrats) that prompted the rise of UKIP.
Two of my least favourite places on earth during peak holiday season: Gatwick and the A30
Hence I have always and will always back grammars. I mean you can't even ballot to open new grammars now only to close existing ones. Hardly parental choice!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/opinion/britain-brexit-truss-sunak.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(21st-century_writer)
Lol.
It all circles back to how badly the past was mishandled.
Wah hey. Somebody on PB.com led by clear and impeccable logic to recognize their previous error.
Always a thrill!
“Richard Seymour (born 1977) is a Northern Irish Marxist writer and broadcaster, activist, and owner of the blog Lenin's Tomb.”
Yes, I’m sure he has a nuanced view.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1554066246664060928?s=20&t=UDl60XFv-EF0lv0oatN3TQ
A few months ago I worked out why they do this. It's because of the desperate state of American politics, with seemingly no way out of the nightmare. Add in racial conflict, mass shootings, foreign policy disasters, global retreat, surging crime, homelessness and drugs, and America's clear descent from top country status, and it is very depressing to be American right now. But they get some solace from pointing at Britain and saying "but look this place is fucked up too, and by rightwing populists who are just as bad as ours"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Seymour_(21st-century_writer)
Johnny Brexit- Voter buys his family holiday from Hays Travel for 2 grand, rocks up to Manchester for a Tui charter and is f*****!
When I flew to Sicily recently, like you, I knew the score, so I limited my potential harassment, by upgrading the EasyJet flight from Bristol to Catania for BA from Heathrow to Palermo. Those flying in from Manchester or Birmingham to Catania on Tui or EasyJet to Catania from Bristol had a torrid time, days late on arrival, return planes rescheduled for a day early, all sorts of rubbish. We were a mere half an hour late, both in and out, so almost perfect.
Like you say, if one knows what they are doing, chaos can be possibly (not guaranteed) mitigated. This isn't how your average blue collar voter manages his vacation.
For the past 12 years, the Conservative party has spearheaded a revolution in education. The brilliant Gove reforms, ably carried forward by his successors, have seen state schools regularly outperform private schools. We recently saw the 10,000th academy school created.
That sentence is total bullshit and anyone who thinks it isn't should be sectioned. Not only have the Gove reforms been a shattering failure, state schools do not 'regularly outperform private schools' because that's a meaningless statement. Which ones? By what metric? Why? Where? Without defining his criteria it's Rhetorical bullshit.
And almost no academies have been 'created.' They are schools rebadged under another name, usually with a nice cushy number for either the former Head or one of their mates.
The next paragraph is simply a lie:
Successive Conservative governments have been right to support phonics, setting/streaming, curriculum reform, academies, free schools and specialist sixth forms for 16-18 year olds, sponsored by independent schools and universities. This has raised standards and promoted genuine competition.
It has done none of those things. In fact, curriculum reform has slammed educational standards into hard reverse because of the gross incompetence and wilful stupidity with which it was mismanaged by the third rate lunatics in charge of it who treated as an ego trip for their personal hobby horses and not as a serious exercise in educational management. Specialist sixth form colleges at the same time are being closed like crazy as a result of his own government's tax policies, in a deliberate bid to run them down. Is he really unaware of this?
Yet another person who does not get it: the issue is we don't know what we want from schools and the policy chaos inflicted from Whitehall reflects that.
*Breathes deeply and unclenches fist*
Rant over.
“To be absolutely clear. I do not think that Simon Weston’s injuries deserve ridicule. I emphatically do not think that people who advocate for the West Bank settlers should have their throats cut.”
According to an email, released under Freedom of Information, the Curriculum and Qualifications Division said that the win “doesn’t seem to merit this level of exposure” and was “not that relevant in the non-England parts of the UK.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/20592260.snp-demanded-englands-world-cup-victory-deleted-childrens-jubilee-book/
Aspirational Tory voters are very supportive of Grammar Schools until their children fail the 11 plus...then not so much.
It is somewhat disingenuous to financially support Grammar Schools in Warwickshire and Kent and laud them as a great success while underfunding, and interfering with everything else and then claiming the woefully underfunded, interfered with system is failing.
Which is an actual difficulty of Brexit for business.
Labour had a manifesto pledge to not pass the constitution (i.e. Lisbon Treaty, they were the same thing) without a referendum. That pledge was broken, irrevocably so and the courts found the pledge could not be enforced, i.e. it was meaningless.
Eg
https://google.co.uk/search?q=england+1966&client=safari&hl=en-gb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWjfLi26X5AhXXPsAKHfugCLgQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1121&bih=728&dpr=2#imgrc=M9QXJMwClRJ84M
So if they're not happy with the results, maybe take a minute to ponder whether grammar schools are such a great idea?
But what's infuriating is how everyone in power not only misses the point but as a result invariably draws the wrong conclusion.
However I readily accept that some poor unlucky souls have had a bitch of a time recently. But this again is practically fuck all to do with Brexit, all travel everywhere is more problematic at the moment
America:
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-aviation-system-remain-challenged-throughout-summer-uniteds-roitman-2022-07-06/
Europe:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/04/eu-airlines-face-strikes-struggle-to-find-workers-post-covid-summer-travel.html
Germany:
https://www.ft.com/content/01652079-737b-49e2-bf15-c123cedf8014
Oz:
https://simpleflying.com/qantas-cuts-flights-travel-chaos/
Everyone:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/summer-travel-costs-airports-flying-driving-inflation-survey/
"The hills are alive with the sound of HIMARS
With shells they have flown for a hundred miles
The Ukes fill my heart with the sound of HIMARS
My heart wants to sing every time it fires
My heart wants to beat like the thud of the shells
That hit from the tanks to the dumps
My heart wants to sigh like smoke that rises
From a T72 on the breeze
To laugh like a uke that fires and fires
Shells on their way
To fly through the night to an orc who can only pray"
Your previous post outlines the consequences of the breach of the manifesto commitment. your case is that it was puniushed by the electorate. therefore your ludicrous equivalence of "lacks legal consequences" with "lacks consequences" fails.
A great deal of "the King is dead, long live the Queen" in Conservative Party circles now.
'They don't really merit this level of exposure,' said a spokesperson, slurring their speech a bit, 'because they only rule a shitty outcrop of stone and heather and are seriously not relevant in the non-Scottish parts of the UK.'
When pressed, the spokesperson said, 'Look, the other problem is, you can't really call them a 'government,' can you? They're a disorganised rabble of nationlists, perverts and muppets. Like this lot only with even stupider voices.'
At this point, the press conference was interrupted when an ambulance called for the spokesperson, who will be taken away to a gender neutral unit until self-ID has been established, which will require them to dry out a bit first. It may take some time as there were lots of work meetings at the DfE that morning.
The grammar school / comprehensive question is the wrong one. It is basically asking: "Where should the brightest kids go?"
The real question is: "How do we help the kids who cannot read and write well by the time they are 11?"
They are the kids that we should be concentrating on. They are the kids who are routinely forgotten.
A manifesto pledge is meaningless because there is no way to compel it be followed, and the electorate might not be able to take action until it's too late (as happened with Lisbon).
That doesn't mean that breaking the pledge has no consequences - far from it.
Followed by the particularly poor results in terms of reading and maths and core GCSEs achieved by white working class boys in particular
But anyway: Labour said (on your case) We will not pass the constitution without a referendum. They could alternatively have said Jabbedee wah wah kwook. Can you tell which of those utterances is meaningless and which is not?
Our system certainly does fail the brightest, by assuming that if you just put them in a classroom and leave them to it they'll do OK. Which is not the case - quite the reverse. I remember in one of Steven Moffat's earlier efforts, called 'Chalk,' a teacher criticised the head for providing more teaching for abler children with the words 'So we're concentrating the most education on the children who need it the least?' Rubbish. Bright children actually need much more educating, due to the amount of material they can cope with, and speaking as somebody whose taught both types it's much harder work as well.
However, the key thing to remember is that we're trying to run what amounts to a baby-sitting service on the cheap while running an education system designed to cram knowledge. That's a trifecta that ultimately, whatever your views on grammar schools or indeed on the existence of moon pigs, fails *all* children caught up in it.
Until we have a sensible conversation on whether we want a baby-sitting service, a cheap service or an educationally effective service, and make a decision among those three options, we're going to end up with a second-rate service. Alas, no sign of that yet. Certainly not from Truss or Sunak, and not from Labour either.
Ability/aptitude streaming in comps achieves the same goals as grammars, without the social stigmas for those who don't get in. And without the enormous pressure on 11-year old kids. Also, you learn to look after yourself...!
And I have zero problem with a 2 tier education system where the money is spent on those who need the money (i.e. the none Grammar Schools). What I disliked about the approach in Bucks and Kent back in the 80's was that Grammar Schools got more money than none Grammar schools on most measures. Have Grammar schools but reduce their per pupil funding by 10% compared....
By removing the potential for a rejection of integration without leaving the EU there was no release of the building head of steam. UKIP grew and grew until it became electorally significant enough to cause the referendum promise.
But even then, it was winnable by the pro-EU side. While the Leave campaign was very poor indeed, the Remain side was yet worse.
But in any case, as I said when hammering at the Wantage MP over private schools, that's a meaningless metric (and not always true, incidentally - my comprehensive at Newent regularly outperformed two of Gloucester's grammar schools, Crypt and Ribstone Hall, in results, until Ribstone hired one of our teachers and put him in charge of improving their teaching).
In the large poorer village I lived in not a single child passed the 11 plus. In the posh areas loads did. Come A levels a whole bunch of us from the village transferred to the Grammar School. What do you think happened to us between 11 and 16 to suddenly make us brighter? The answer is nothing whatsoever.
https://twitter.com/AFCMet/status/1553819745341906949
Met.
@AFCMet
Spurs England captain vs Arsenal England captain
Alternatively take a month out to take a short course to be an HGV driver and almost double your salary.
I know someone who has done just that.
Because if your aim is to get more children into Russell Group Universities and Oxbridge - the only options are to increase the number of places available or reduce the number of places available for different group of students.
And spend the money accordingly. There is little point in kids moving onto secondary school of any type if they are already that far behind.
(*) Not 'every', as some children will have quite severe learning difficulties, like one of my son's friends. But every child who can.
When I was at uni, I only had one PhD student teach me. Now that's the norm rather than the exception in many unis. Is this a bad thing? Well, depends on the PhD student. What it isn't, is a way of being taught by the advertised top expert.
You don't try to fix the problem at Age 9-11. You fix it between the ages of 6 months to 4 years.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/140102040@N07/sets/72157667212036304/
And here's a History paper from Warwick for a current module:
https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/students/modules/hi31v/pastexams/
The questions don't look that different, except (a) the O-level paper questions are not very good because there are too many leading questions in them and (b) you have to write twice as much at degree level.
Prior to the Comprehensive system, the children of Wythall who passed their 11 plus were bused from Beckett's Island (roundabout) to the County Grammar School in Redditch, which later became the almost sink Abbey High School. For years no one needed to be bused from Beckett's Island because we had our own excellent, well funded and successful school. Now, one sees uniformed children waiting at Beckett's Island for the school bus to Alcester Grammar School. A real tragedy. I still have connections with Woodrush Rugby Club and a number of members moved to places like Studley and Bidford on Avon so they could take a punt on Grammar Schools in Stratford or Alcester, further weakening the intake and investment to Woodrush.
If one disinvests in a school system for political gain, it is easy to determine that system is failing.
What we can take from this is that Truss knows she's going to win, so is tacking more to realism.
Then why are so many kids leaving school functionally illiterate and innumerate? Why are millions of adults functionally illiterate and innumerate?
This is back to 2010, but highlights the problem:
"The prison population is some 85,000. More than three-quarters of them cannot read, write or count to the standard expected of an 11-year-old."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/03/illiteracy-innumeracy-prisons
Tackle functional innumeracy and illiteracy, and you ease a heck of a lot of social and other problems in future decades.
Also: if we are 'concentrating' on them, then why are we having episode #234234 of 'grammar schools vs comps' on here?
Driver thinks so too. So I was using this to demonstrate - to this self same aforesaid Driver - that his statements about political pledges being "meaningless" because they are legally unenforceable were off beam.
Phew. I don't just have to *do* brainy things like this I have to explain to all and sundry exactly how I've done them!
The sad bit is that I was there when it was first announced - they bribed students to attend in return for free beer.