"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Sticks and stones is something you teach kids to help them learn resilience. It seems many adults have bizarrely interpreted as some kind of divine law. It is patently false, words can and do hurt humans immensely.
Worse than that, it seems some adults have interpreted as a kind of divine shield that means they can say what they want, but God Forbid that someone else says what they're thinking which might lead to consequences, or worse "cancellation".
If there's a free for all in speech, then that means everyone can speak, including those unhappy and publicly willing to go on the record to express their thoughts as to why.
I believe in free speech. I also believe that speech has consequences. If you say something, and it bites you back, then that's not your freedom being taken away, that is a consequence of your own actions.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
I mentioned earlier this morning that I think 100-150 Tory seats is the likely landing zone but, currently, I'd say it's nearer the lower end of that figure.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Sticks and stones is something you teach kids to help them learn resilience. It seems many adults have bizarrely interpreted as some kind of divine law. It is patently false, words can and do hurt humans immensely.
Worse than that, it seems some adults have interpreted as a kind of divine shield that means they can say what they want, but God Forbid that someone else says what they're thinking which might lead to consequences, or worse "cancellation".
If there's a free for all in speech, then that means everyone can speak, including those unhappy and publicly willing to go on the record to express their thoughts as to why.
I believe in free speech. I also believe that speech has consequences. If you say something, and it bites you back, then that's not your freedom being taken away, that is a consequence of your own actions.
I believe in free speech You are being rude He/She should shut up, for WrongThink
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written.
Writers worth reading:
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent. 2. William Trevor: the best writer of English fiction, IMO. No-one writes about evil better, about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives - and he can be laugh-out loud funny too. That he was overlooked by the Booker for meretricious rubbish that no-one (well, OK, me) can remember is to their discredit. 3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" - but all his three books are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young. 4. John McGahern - all his books are good but "Memoir" is superb.
I eventually got through The Secret History by Donna Tartt and Scoop by Evelyn Waugh but thought both were vastly overrated
Agree on the first. Found parts of Scoop very funny indeed but it's a while since I read it so may feel differently now.
Jane Eyre is a book I reread. I adored Anna Karenin and Middlemarch when I first read them.
Where would you place Anya Seton? I enjoyed Green Darkness and Katherine, particularly Green Darkness, maybe I was in the right mood.
If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.
Strange Magic involved? The only blues left will be Mr Blue Sky?
Unless the Conservatives refresh their appeal to non-pensioners, most of their vote will have gone to the Blue Sky.
At the moment, they are too busy trying to sign trade deals All Over The World, and not enough making sure that public services like the Last Train To London are working.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
Suspect a non-hopeless (from my and Javid's perspective) Conservative Party would centrally feature Sajd Javid. Suggests Javid doesn't hold much hope for the Tories as a party.
Worth thinking about this in terms of the first-time incumbency bonus. If a lot of those MPs decide to throw in the towel then there's no benefit to the Tories from that.
I can understand on a personal level why people like Javid decide not to hang around for a long stint in opposition, but it's not a good sign for our politics. The Tories risk being left only with the ideological fruitcakes, and I don't think we really want to be attracting the sort of people who don't see the point of being "only" a backbench MP in the first place.
Opposition backbench MPs should be able to achieve useful things. If they can't then it's a sign that the party machines, and the executive generally, are too strong.
I mentioned earlier this morning that I think 100-150 Tory seats is the likely landing zone but, currently, I'd say it's nearer the lower end of that figure.
This is the groundwork for a "Demon Eyes II" strategy - fear of what a huge Labour landslide will mean for the country. I think it unlikely to work, but it is probably worth a go.
As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.
So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written.
Writers worth reading:
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent. 2. William Trevor: the best writer of English fiction, IMO. No-one writes about evil better, about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives - and he can be laugh-out loud funny too. That he was overlooked by the Booker for meretricious rubbish that no-one (well, OK, me) can remember is to their discredit. 3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" - but all his three books are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young. 4. John McGahern - all his books are good but "Memoir" is superb.
I eventually got through The Secret History by Donna Tartt and Scoop by Evelyn Waugh but thought both were vastly overrated
Agree on the first. Found parts of Scoop very funny indeed but it's a while since I read it so may feel differently now.
Jane Eyre is a book I reread. I adored Anna Karenin and Middlemarch when I first read them.
Where would you place Anya Seton? I enjoyed Green Darkness and Katherine, particularly Green Darkness, maybe I was in the right mood.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
Isn't there a thing whereby MPs defeated at election get a much better pension than those who stand down? Or am I making that up?
Yes, although I think it's that you get a redundancy payment if you're defeated but not if you retire (rather than an ongoing pension difference).
In the past, I believe this has led to some eccentric moves to hopeless seats just in order to benefit (although parties strongly discourage it).
But it may not be enough to encourage people to stand rather than retire in the face of very likely defeat. Firstly, however critical we are of some MPs, most genuinely believe in their party and what they are doing and, if they decide not to go again would genuinely rather a younger person gave it a bloody good try than go through the motions themselves. Secondly, standing again is an enormous faff and reduces your ability to pursue other job opportunities (it's not impossible to say "I'll probably be at a loose end after the election" if you're standing again, but it is harder to market yourself). Thirdly, politicians don't like losing and, if you retire instead, you get to say, "of course, I'd probably have hung on with my massive personal vote, but there you are, and it's terribly sad for young Fred who I thought was a jolly good candidate" to anyone who'll listen. If you're beaten, history records that your career ended in defeat.
This is the groundwork for a "Demon Eyes II" strategy - fear of what a huge Labour landslide will mean for the country. I think it unlikely to work, but it is probably worth a go.
As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.
So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.
The politically interesting point about VAT on private schools is that Starmer, a risk averse politician, reckons it will play well for him. The Tories making it into an election issue presumably is exactly what ehe wants.
This is the groundwork for a "Demon Eyes II" strategy - fear of what a huge Labour landslide will mean for the country. I think it unlikely to work, but it is probably worth a go.
As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.
So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.
VAT should be imposed on all paid for education not just one particular type, if Labour go ahead with this.
There is no earthly reason why parents who buy houses near good state schools then buying in tutoring should have that subsidised, especially by those who cannot buy or rent such homes. They are buying privilege - and a capital asset to boot - quite as much as those using private schools. And, to my mind, being some of the biggest hypocrites around.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
That is a different argument. My comment was responding to "No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation." I maintain that a proper politician would't use that as a reason to get out of politics.
If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.
Strange Magic involved? The only blues left will be Mr Blue Sky?
Unless the Conservatives refresh their appeal to non-pensioners, most of their vote will have gone to the Blue Sky.
At the moment, they are too busy trying to sign trade deals All Over The World, and not enough making sure that public services like the Last Train To London are working.
It’s all the fault of that Sweet Talkin’ Woman and her botched mini-Budget. She should’ve paid attention to Rishi Sunak’s “Don’t Bring Me Down” approach to tax rates.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
I agree that the Tories' best chance for post-electoral rejuvenation is for a majority of their cohort to be new faces. Sadly, I suspect we are more likely to see Michael Fabricant and John Hayes as the last men standing.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me" is a very good motto to live by IMO.
Well I think we have a framework within which slander and libel can and can't operate, and I'm broadly comfortable with it. But 'where are your antecedents from?' seems to fall a long way short of anything which deserves more than a private moan.
This is the hypocrisy I don't get, if "words can never hurt me" is your motto then what's the problem with public moans about abhorrent behaviour?
Or do those words class as sticks and stones for some reason.
Trying to get people sacked can hurt them if you succeed.
So words can hurt you? 🤔
Um, no.
So there's nothing wrong with public moans about abhorrent behaviour then?
You're being hypocritical. Either words can have consequences, in which case words can hurt, or they don't, in which case moan away in public.
There's a difference between someone saying words that "hurt" emotionally but have no other effect unless the "victim" chooses to let it, and a deliberate attempt to damage someone financially by getting them sacked.
You're not stupid so I know you understand this, so why are you dissembling by pretending that trying to get someone sacked is merely "moaning in public"?
I'm not stupid you're right and I can see that there is there is no difference and that victims don't simply choose or not choose to let themselves be hurt by words.
Words can have consequences. Those consequences can ultimately include depression, suicidal thoughts, being sacked, or even death.
Being sacked by a long shot isn't the worst of those consequences and if you're ruling out all the other consequences as not caused by words, then you need to rule out sackings as 'sticks and stones' too.
Sticks and stones is something you teach kids to help them learn resilience. It seems many adults have bizarrely interpreted as some kind of divine law. It is patently false, words can and do hurt humans immensely.
Worse than that, it seems some adults have interpreted as a kind of divine shield that means they can say what they want, but God Forbid that someone else says what they're thinking which might lead to consequences, or worse "cancellation".
If there's a free for all in speech, then that means everyone can speak, including those unhappy and publicly willing to go on the record to express their thoughts as to why.
I believe in free speech. I also believe that speech has consequences. If you say something, and it bites you back, then that's not your freedom being taken away, that is a consequence of your own actions.
'Sticks and stones' is a useful phrase, because it reminds us that the words of others only have the hurtful power that we assign to them.
If a complete stranger telephoned you one day, and said 'I just want to say, I am never going to see or speak to you again.', you wouldn't care, because you have no emotion invested in that person. We choose whether to put emotional weight on what others think and say. It's not easy to choose not to be hurt, but it is possible.
Suspect a non-hopeless (from my and Javid's perspective) Conservative Party would centrally feature Sajd Javid. Suggests Javid doesn't hold much hope for the Tories as a party.
Or he wants to do a job which pays a lot more money with none of the nonsense of being a politician.
This is the groundwork for a "Demon Eyes II" strategy - fear of what a huge Labour landslide will mean for the country. I think it unlikely to work, but it is probably worth a go.
As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.
So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.
VAT should be imposed on all paid for education not just one particular type, if Labour go ahead with this.
There is no earthly reason why parents who buy houses near good state schools then buying in tutoring should have that subsidised, especially by those who cannot buy or rent such homes. They are buying privilege - and a capital asset to boot - quite as much as those using private schools. And, to my mind, being some of the biggest hypocrites around.
I'd agree with that.
The flight of my friends' kids to local private schools (and tutors), then back to the local state 6th form college for faking out their university applications is a poor show, in my opinion.
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
If Bromsgrove goes Labour then it really will be ELO territory.
I doubt Javid is going due to fear of losing Bromsgrove. Not totally sure how boundary changes affect it, but I'm doubtful the seat will be anything but blue next time.
I suspect it's more that he expects the Tories nationally to lose quite badly. Being an opposition MP in your 50s, facing a large Government majority, is pretty bleak. It's a young person's game - energetic, ambitious 30-somethings cutting their teeth with a view to Government in their 40s and 50s.
The next Tory PM will, one suspects, be elected when Javid is in his 60s. Realistically, Javid isn't going to be first name on that PM's team sheet. So why hang about? He could earn a good sum in the private sector, and has a good shout for a peerage.
That's not to say he isn't a decent constituency MP, or doesn't quite enjoy it - I don't know how he's regarded in his area. But he's done it for over ten years, his time in the frontline is gone, and it's probably the right thing to do to pass the baton to a younger person at this stage.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
I agree that the Tories' best chance for post-electoral rejuvenation is for a majority of their cohort to be new faces. Sadly, I suspect we are more likely to see Michael Fabricant and John Hayes as the last men standing.
The bigger the swing, the higher will be the proportion of time-serving nutters we will be left with. Those resigning are mostly in marginals
This is the groundwork for a "Demon Eyes II" strategy - fear of what a huge Labour landslide will mean for the country. I think it unlikely to work, but it is probably worth a go.
As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.
So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.
VAT should be imposed on all paid for education not just one particular type, if Labour go ahead with this.
There is no earthly reason why parents who buy houses near good state schools then buying in tutoring should have that subsidised, especially by those who cannot buy or rent such homes. They are buying privilege - and a capital asset to boot - quite as much as those using private schools. And, to my mind, being some of the biggest hypocrites around.
A certain school in Hampstead comes to mind - anyone can go there who owns a multi million pound house.
Labour won’t touch tutoring because it provides an income for a growing number of students.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?
My point being that the charitable act of the private school has an adverse impact on the local state school…
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
The Tory vote share is also on the slide. The relief rally at the end of Truss has dissipated, the panic and desperation that led many voters to support Labour has ebbed, and voters are beginning to cast around for alternatives (Lib Dems and the Farage Grift Vehicle).
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
Absolutely. There’s a large chunk of the party who seems stuck in their old ways who refuse to move with the times. Would expect most will be “humbled” in 2024
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
How senior is "senior" these days ?
In media speak, "senior backbencher" is a tautology, I think.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?
My point being that the charitable act of the private school has an adverse impact on the local state school…
Eh ?
State schools don't (Or shouldn't) make a profit or a loss - the £30k you've 'lost' surely covers the cost of educating the pupil. And they tend to hardly be undersubscribed with all the talk of large class sizes.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?
My point being that the charitable act of the private school has an adverse impact on the local state school…
Never really got why Bromsgrove is a rock-solid Tory seat. Demographically the town is pretty similar to Redditch, Stourbridge, and Nuneaton which are considered to be traditional marginals. Yes, it has a lot of surrounding countryside incorporated into the seat, but so does Redditch.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
This isn't exactly an unbiased news source, but interesting nonetheles, if it's accurate. And it seems a bit odd that our nuclear submariner training wasn't delivered in house (or with the US).
Elbit Systems UK Fired From £280 MILLION Worth Of Ministry of Defence Contracts https://www.palestineaction.org/contract-loss/ Minister of State for Defence Procurement Alex Chalk has confirmed that Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms company Elbit Systems LTD, has been forced out of lucrative contracts to deliver training for Dreadnought submarine and Royal Navy crews [1, 2]. The Ministry of Defence has ejected Elbit from a contract worth £160m to deliver Dreadnought crew training, and is ‘negotiating the departure’ of Elbit from a £123m contract for ‘Project Selborne’ Royal Navy training, stating that Elbit now falls short of ‘operational sovereignty standards for the UK’s highest priority capabilities’.
These submissions were made by Chalk in Parliament in responses to questions by Labour MPs Chris Evans, and Kevan Jones – both associated with the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ group – and by Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey. Elbit’s removal from these contracts was not in the public domain until these questions were asked. Release of this information further damaged Elbit Systems’ plummeting share prices, which fell 10% over November 29th, and is down 18% through November, as the company posts third quarter losses [3].
The loss of these contracts is a huge blow for Elbit, with their attempts to gain MOD favour a major reason for their manufacturing presence in Britain. These contracts were initially awarded after Elbit’s deep involvement in procurement and training for the Israeli defence, across army, navy, and air forces. Not only are Elbit’s manufactured products described as “field-tested on Palestinians”, but their training and simulation contracts have been gained following their performances in Israel, including delivering the ‘Brigade and Battlegroup Mission Training Centre’...
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
I agree that the Tories' best chance for post-electoral rejuvenation is for a majority of their cohort to be new faces. Sadly, I suspect we are more likely to see Michael Fabricant and John Hayes as the last men standing.
The bigger the swing, the higher will be the proportion of time-serving nutters we will be left with. Those resigning are mostly in marginals
Javid isn't in a marginal though? But I think it is fair to say that time serving nutters will not, by definition, be resigning.
There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
Indeed. There’s a long way to run yet in this Parliament. A Tory win is going to be tricky for them, and undeserved, but the fundamentals remain against a majority Labour Gvt. Many people seem to have forgotten all the lessons of history on this..
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
2 would be my preferred option - you want university covered (£50,000 or so) but that still leaves £200,000 for a decent leg up in life.
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
Thing to remember is that the full impact of the cost of living crisis, recession, industrial action and winter NHS crisis hasn't kicked in yet. The current Tory poll numbers are likely to get much worse, before they start to get better. https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1598660308473634817
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
2 would be my preferred option - you want university covered (£50,000 or so) but that still leaves £200,000 for a decent leg up in life.
Right. And also I would point out that - and I know this from friends' experiences - universities are prioritising state school pupils. If you are still intent on education privately, the angle is to switch to a state school Sixth Form.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?
My point being that the charitable act of the private school has an adverse impact on the local state school…
Depends - as that isn't really how state school funding works.
Also, unless the state school is the absolute worst one in the area chances are another child will be taking the place so no-one will be worse off.
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
Just an aside on the private school discussion earlier… an 11 year-old pupil awarded a bursary represents a negligible increase in costs for the private school but a loss of c.£30,000 income for the local state school over the period of the child’s schooling…
And a £30,000 saving out of general taxation?
My point being that the charitable act of the private school has an adverse impact on the local state school…
Eh ?
State schools don't (Or shouldn't) make a profit or a loss - the £30k you've 'lost' surely covers the cost of educating the pupil. And they tend to hardly be undersubscribed with all the talk of large class sizes.
I tend to agree with you, although I suspect quite a lot of the £30k is the child's share of fixed costs (schools can flex some costs including staff costs as numbers enrolled change, but quite a few costs such as repair, maintenance and heating costs are pretty unresponsive to pupil numbers).
So there is a grain of truth in what Simon says, albeit the "loss" is surely much less than £30k, and doesn't disappear but is instead a saving from general taxation that could be applied either to state schools or something else depending on political priorities.
There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
The Tory vote share is also on the slide. The relief rally at the end of Truss has dissipated, the panic and desperation that led many voters to support Labour has ebbed, and voters are beginning to cast around for alternatives (Lib Dems and the Farage Grift Vehicle).
Looking at the dots the Wikiworms are drawn through, there's not much evidence for anything other than stasis over the last couple of weeks. Labour down on their "Truss has gone Tonto with our money" peak, but well above where they were even at Johnson's nadir. Similarly, the Conservatives are doing better than they were when the Conservative rating was chasing the value of the pound down, but the not-Budget brought an end to whatever Rishibounce there was.
Other noticeable change- RefUK do seem to be having a growth spurtette. The 2s and 3s are becoming 5s, 6s and 7s. What's driving that?
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.
The privately educated, and the parents of the privately educated, certainly appear to be over-represented here on PB.
Cripes ! I say, chaps, so we are !
More seriously, I think there are sensible reasons to have concerns about this policy. The assisted places policy of the Blair government achieved essentially nothing socially, except to make these schools even more socially exclusive. I would actually prefer a total overhaul of the whole system to this tinkering, which I think is counter-productive gesture politics nonsense.
What worries more is how much of a New Labour approach in general it might presage from Starmer ; in the Blair era these sort of red meat, gestures and mood music were used to cover for a lack of genuine radicalism or new ideas in many other areas, a bit like the way John Prescott was offered up as a kind of mascot , to the left.
This isn't exactly an unbiased news source, but interesting nonetheles, if it's accurate. And it seems a bit odd that our nuclear submariner training wasn't delivered in house (or with the US).
Elbit Systems UK Fired From £280 MILLION Worth Of Ministry of Defence Contracts https://www.palestineaction.org/contract-loss/ Minister of State for Defence Procurement Alex Chalk has confirmed that Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms company Elbit Systems LTD, has been forced out of lucrative contracts to deliver training for Dreadnought submarine and Royal Navy crews [1, 2]. The Ministry of Defence has ejected Elbit from a contract worth £160m to deliver Dreadnought crew training, and is ‘negotiating the departure’ of Elbit from a £123m contract for ‘Project Selborne’ Royal Navy training, stating that Elbit now falls short of ‘operational sovereignty standards for the UK’s highest priority capabilities’.
These submissions were made by Chalk in Parliament in responses to questions by Labour MPs Chris Evans, and Kevan Jones – both associated with the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ group – and by Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey. Elbit’s removal from these contracts was not in the public domain until these questions were asked. Release of this information further damaged Elbit Systems’ plummeting share prices, which fell 10% over November 29th, and is down 18% through November, as the company posts third quarter losses [3].
The loss of these contracts is a huge blow for Elbit, with their attempts to gain MOD favour a major reason for their manufacturing presence in Britain. These contracts were initially awarded after Elbit’s deep involvement in procurement and training for the Israeli defence, across army, navy, and air forces. Not only are Elbit’s manufactured products described as “field-tested on Palestinians”, but their training and simulation contracts have been gained following their performances in Israel, including delivering the ‘Brigade and Battlegroup Mission Training Centre’...
This can't be the full story as the Elbit/KBR joint venture still manages the Grob/T-6/Phenom fleets for MFTS.
I will posit that this fannying around will not make Dreadnought any cheaper or arrive any quicker.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.
(And spend 50k on the various appeals the school will run during your child's time in education.)
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.
I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.
Unreadable / unjustifiably praised book/author list: Part 1
1.The two biographies of Churchill by Martin Gilbert (one long laundry list of everything Churchill ever did with no attempt to put into context or analyse) and Roy Jenkins: insufferably self-regarding and pompous. 2. Martin Amis 3. Kingsley Amis: parts of Lucky Jim were quite funny but only because no-one else made jokes in books in the 1950s and after that he became a Self-Important Saloon Bar Bore. 4. Hilary Mantel - unreadable. 5. Dickens - also unreadable. Vanity Fair, by contrast, is one of the best novels ever written.
Writers worth reading:
1. Norman Lewis - Jackdaw Cake (his autobiography) and Naples '44 (from his time as an Intelligence Officer in Naples in 1944) are superb but all his travel writing (which understates the quality of his writing) is magnificent. 2. William Trevor: the best writer of English fiction, IMO. No-one writes about evil better, about sad, ordinary, half-fulfilled lives - and he can be laugh-out loud funny too. That he was overlooked by the Booker for meretricious rubbish that no-one (well, OK, me) can remember is to their discredit. 3. J G Farrell: "Troubles" - but all his three books are good. He died in a fishing accident off the coast of Ireland much too young. 4. John McGahern - all his books are good but "Memoir" is superb.
I eventually got through The Secret History by Donna Tartt and Scoop by Evelyn Waugh but thought both were vastly overrated
Agree on the first. Found parts of Scoop very funny indeed but it's a while since I read it so may feel differently now.
Jane Eyre is a book I reread. I adored Anna Karenin and Middlemarch when I first read them.
Where would you place Anya Seton? I enjoyed Green Darkness and Katherine, particularly Green Darkness, maybe I was in the right mood.
I have to confess that I have never heard of her.
My pile of unread books gets taller and taller.
Nevermind. It’s the same here. I upload books to kindle app but they mount up as unread or part read too.
This week, after a mini discussion with someone on PB, KJH I think, I thought i had better get around to reading some Stephen Hawking, so I downloaded a Brief History of Time. But it’s more a science fiction book than proper science book, so I have given up as it was wasting my time. To paraphrase Andy Williams, this is the most busiest time of the year.
I looked for the book The Cook of Castamar is based on, but it’s not in English. Yet. I had withdraw symptoms from being immersed in the series.
This won't reverse the tide, but a minor mitigating factor is that ahead of the next election, unlike now, Labour will have to outline how it will handle tax, spending, and public sector pay.
All those dreaming of largesse will be disabused of such notions, or the markets may re-enact the Truss situation. I suspect Starmer is not daft enough to go that far, though.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.
My daughters attended private schools and state schools - they would both say 2) by a mile. No question.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.
I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.
The light it casts is that of opportunity cost. And, importantly, to look at the options from the point of the child. But I take your point about relative schooling in the area.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
It's my belief that the utility gained by private schooling children is more to do with the parent than the child.
There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
The Tory vote share is also on the slide. The relief rally at the end of Truss has dissipated, the panic and desperation that led many voters to support Labour has ebbed, and voters are beginning to cast around for alternatives (Lib Dems and the Farage Grift Vehicle).
Looking at the dots the Wikiworms are drawn through, there's not much evidence for anything other than stasis over the last couple of weeks. Labour down on their "Truss has gone Tonto with our money" peak, but well above where they were even at Johnson's nadir. Similarly, the Conservatives are doing better than they were when the Conservative rating was chasing the value of the pound down, but the not-Budget brought an end to whatever Rishibounce there was.
Other noticeable change- RefUK do seem to be having a growth spurtette. The 2s and 3s are becoming 5s, 6s and 7s. What's driving that?
Sulking Tories. Like the extra “don’t knows” they might not vote Tory but they won’t vote Labour. It’s the groups you target if you’re Sunak, in an attempt to make the Labour “win” a deeply uncomfortable 38/34 win and not a 43/33 win.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.
The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.
I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.
The light it casts is that of opportunity cost. But I take your point about relative schooling in the area.
I suppose so. Maybe people generally don't think about opportunity cost enough. To me, it just seems pretty obvious to think, before spending a significant amount of money, about what else I could spend it on instead. But perhaps people don't focus on it enough.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.
It also depends on the child, and their planned career choices. Marginal gains at A-Level, and private school swagger (much though I despise it) could be the difference that gets them up the greasy pole in a large law firm. Less relevant if that’s not their thing.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.
I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.
The light it casts is that of opportunity cost. But I take your point about relative schooling in the area.
I suppose so. Maybe people generally don't think about opportunity cost enough. To me, it just seems pretty obvious to think, before spending a significant amount of money, about what else I could spend it on instead. But perhaps people don't focus on it enough.
Plus the point of the thought experiment is for the options to be reviewed by the child (later in life) rather than the parents.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
That is a different argument. My comment was responding to "No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation." I maintain that a proper politician would't use that as a reason to get out of politics.
Its related though.
If you're going to spend 10-15 years on the Opposition benches, then retire just as the Tories are coming back into power vacating your seat to a newbie with no chance to get experience in Opposition, then how is that good for you, or your Party or the country?
You can use the next 10-15 years doing something else, while giving a colleague in the party an opportunity to start on the backbenches in Opposition and could potentially be the next Cameron or Osborne [your names may vary] who we've not heard of today but will be the leadership of the future.
This isn't exactly an unbiased news source, but interesting nonetheles, if it's accurate. And it seems a bit odd that our nuclear submariner training wasn't delivered in house (or with the US).
Elbit Systems UK Fired From £280 MILLION Worth Of Ministry of Defence Contracts https://www.palestineaction.org/contract-loss/ Minister of State for Defence Procurement Alex Chalk has confirmed that Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms company Elbit Systems LTD, has been forced out of lucrative contracts to deliver training for Dreadnought submarine and Royal Navy crews [1, 2]. The Ministry of Defence has ejected Elbit from a contract worth £160m to deliver Dreadnought crew training, and is ‘negotiating the departure’ of Elbit from a £123m contract for ‘Project Selborne’ Royal Navy training, stating that Elbit now falls short of ‘operational sovereignty standards for the UK’s highest priority capabilities’.
These submissions were made by Chalk in Parliament in responses to questions by Labour MPs Chris Evans, and Kevan Jones – both associated with the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ group – and by Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey. Elbit’s removal from these contracts was not in the public domain until these questions were asked. Release of this information further damaged Elbit Systems’ plummeting share prices, which fell 10% over November 29th, and is down 18% through November, as the company posts third quarter losses [3].
The loss of these contracts is a huge blow for Elbit, with their attempts to gain MOD favour a major reason for their manufacturing presence in Britain. These contracts were initially awarded after Elbit’s deep involvement in procurement and training for the Israeli defence, across army, navy, and air forces. Not only are Elbit’s manufactured products described as “field-tested on Palestinians”, but their training and simulation contracts have been gained following their performances in Israel, including delivering the ‘Brigade and Battlegroup Mission Training Centre’...
This can't be the full story as the Elbit/KBR joint venture still manages the Grob/T-6/Phenom fleets for MFTS.
I will posit that this fannying around will not make Dreadnought any cheaper or arrive any quicker.
Probably not. A bit of searching parliamentary records indicates the story is essentially correct, though "sacked" is probably a bit of overreach. (Alex Chalk, written answer) The Ministry of Defence (MOD) regularly reviews its capability programmes. As the result of a recent review, MOD is in discussion with Elbit Systems UK about their departure from submarine training in the Project Selborne contract and has already agreed the company's departure from Dreadnought Crew Training contract. This has not happened because of any specific issues with Elbit Systems UK or any wrongdoing on their part but rather a result of applying revised operational sovereignty standards for the UK's highest priority capabilities. Elbit Systems UK remains an important and trusted partner across a range of other contracts in Defence. Capita Business Services Ltd, as the Prime Contractor delivering Project Selborne, are responsible for ensuring its delivery. Any specific impact on the timetable for delivery of the Future Naval Training Programme will depend on the outcome of the negotiations which are currently underway with Elbit Systems UK regarding their involvement in Project Selborne, therefore I am unable to comment further at this time.
If it's being left with Capita, then our future submarine capability is probably somewhat fncked.
There’s an Opinium due tomorow. We’ll see if this little backward step in Tory % from Yougov and people polling is reflected in the coming polls.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.
The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.
Surprised about Javid. (Always thought him and Sunak got on quite well too. Surprised he wasn't in cabinet)
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
If he's only in politics because he wants to be in Cabinet, then good riddance, quite frankly.
No but who really wants to spend 10-15 years squashed up alongside the overspill Labour MPs, watching them cockahoop and piling through legislation, with no hope of returning to power during the remaining golden years of your life?
In some countries the opposition leaders get dodgy prison sentences and get inexplicable illnesses. A proper politician in a strong democracy should be prepared to argue and promote their politics whether in government or in opposition.
Indeed, but in some countries the politicians never change and leaders at the top of politics stay in charge for decades at a time. In a healthy democracy the politicians who've had their turn can recognise when its time to move on rather than cling on and give someone else the stage.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
Absolutely. There’s a large chunk of the party who seems stuck in their old ways who refuse to move with the times. Would expect most will be “humbled” in 2024
My worry is that a lot of the good MPs could be in seats that will be lost, while the seats that survive are largely the ones that were held 97-10 too and could disproportionately be the ones stuck in their old ways.
Quite frankly the most embarrassing Tory MPs are primarily those who were around in Thatcher/Major's days, rather than the ones who've reached Parliament in the last 12.5 years.
Next time the Tories reach office, then some of those who were around now will be the dinosaurs of the future.
I could well understand Javid looking around him and thinking "even if I stick around for next 10-15 years, do I then want to be thought of as Redwood is today?"
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.
It also depends on the child, and their planned career choices. Marginal gains at A-Level, and private school swagger (much though I despise it) could be the difference that gets them up the greasy pole in a large law firm. Less relevant if that’s not their thing.
If I had kids, the last thing I'd want them to have is "swagger".
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.
The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.
I don't know what experience this view is based on, but mine is that children who are ahead do not get "showered with attention" by teachers. Quite the reverse: teachers' incentives are focused on getting as many of their charges as possible to a minimum standard, so they tend to ignore anyone who's clearly going to exceed that standard without any intervention.
These narrow definitions of "success" (eg, 5 "good" GCSEs) goes a pretty long way towards explaining what's wrong with the UK education system, in my opinion.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.
The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.
I don't know what experience this view is based on, but mine is that children who are ahead do not get "showered with attention" by teachers. Quite the reverse: teachers' incentives are focused on getting as many of their charges as possible to a minimum standard, so they tend to ignore anyone who's clearly going to exceed that standard without any intervention.
These narrow definitions of "success" (eg, 5 "good" GCSEs) goes a pretty long way towards explaining what's wrong with the UK education system, in my opinion.
That's not my experience at all, either as a high achieving kid or parent of high achieving kids.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
Surely it simply depends on the relative quality of the two schooling options in your area? If there is a high quality state school and the private one isn't all that, clearly it's option 2. If it's a poor state school and good private one, it's clearly option 1.
I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.
The light it casts is that of opportunity cost. But I take your point about relative schooling in the area.
I suppose so. Maybe people generally don't think about opportunity cost enough. To me, it just seems pretty obvious to think, before spending a significant amount of money, about what else I could spend it on instead. But perhaps people don't focus on it enough.
Plus the point of the thought experiment is for the options to be reviewed by the child (later in life) rather than the parents.
In my own case, I'm glad my parents went for option 1. But that's in the context of private school fees being quite a lot lower at that time, the school in question being very good, and the local state schools rather below par (not terrible but pretty unambitious for pupils in many ways).
I can never know for sure, of course, how option 2 would have panned out. But I'm fairly confident just in financial terms it was a better investment than the lump sum at 21. Possibly my sister would disagree from her own experience - not sure.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
It's certainly an interesting question. But you also have to consider the alternative schooling options available.
It also depends on the child, and their planned career choices. Marginal gains at A-Level, and private school swagger (much though I despise it) could be the difference that gets them up the greasy pole in a large law firm. Less relevant if that’s not their thing.
If I had kids, the last thing I'd want them to have is "swagger".
Oh I agree. As I say, I despise it. But that cocky swagger is half of what private schooling delivers.
On private schools, how about this for a thought experiment (which I routinely dredge up when the subject is raised).
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone 2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
From my own experience, I'd have paid not to be sent to a private school, FWIW,
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery. For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
If you have a spare 250k, using it to move to a town with excellent state schools is clearly worth it. Especially if you have multiple kids.
The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.
Inculcate a love of reading ahead of any of that.
Yup.
Schools are a long way from perfect, but the really hopeless schools, whether state or private, are massively rarer than they used to be. Even if school X is better than school Y, is it really £250k better?
(Another story- when we went on our middle aged gap years, Thing 1 and 2 ended up at one of The Worst Schools In The Area. It was the only one with places, because it was The Worst School In The Area. I was a governor there for a while, because they were desperate.
Anyway, the children did fine. Because most young people make about as much learning progress as they're going to make at most schools. That's especially true if the other bits of their development, like reading independently, are in place.)
If the Tories go down to 50-100 seats, can they really come back?
A result like that suggests they are gonna get 15 years in the wilderness, 10 at best. Good candidates won't come forward for seats, activists will give up, even more MPs will drift away, so much talent at the top will be gone
It will be like an army losing all its officers, 70% of its troops, and seeing its ammo dumps, supply lines and HQ blown to bits
At some point a routed army cannot rebuild and fight back: it merely dissolves, and melts into the civilian population. We will see Tory MPs in jeans and hoodies in the local Nandos, pretending they never had anything to do with politics
This is a true concern. The Tories are on the precipice of a historic disaster that could finish them for good
Comments
It's a strange image.
https://www.theipsa.org.uk/freedom-of-information/cas-156839
If there's a free for all in speech, then that means everyone can speak, including those unhappy and publicly willing to go on the record to express their thoughts as to why.
I believe in free speech. I also believe that speech has consequences. If you say something, and it bites you back, then that's not your freedom being taken away, that is a consequence of your own actions.
A nationwide repeat of Thursday's by-election would deliver the worst Tory defeat since 1900, Electoral Calculus estimates
By
Christopher Hope,
ASSOCIATE EDITOR (POLITICS)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/02/labour-heading-super-landslide-general-election-victory-chester/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/02/rishi-sunak-chester-election-results-labour-keir-starmer/
But then, as noted on the previous thread, whilst he's only 52, if Labour win big in 2024 then his route back to frontline politics might never happen.
I wonder how many of Thatcher's rivals in 1975 thought they wouldn't bother running (or even voting against her) thinking that she'd only be in for a few years before they could oust her and their chance would come again. In the end, it was someone who wasn't even an MP in 1975 who would replace her as leader some 15 years later.
Javid might be thinking the same. The next chance he gets could be in the 2030s, and he can't be bothered waiting that long for frontline politics again.
This is far, far, worse than 1997.
You are being rude
He/She should shut up, for WrongThink
At the moment, they are too busy trying to sign trade deals All Over The World, and not enough making sure that public services like the Last Train To London are working.
I can understand on a personal level why people like Javid decide not to hang around for a long stint in opposition, but it's not a good sign for our politics. The Tories risk being left only with the ideological fruitcakes, and I don't think we really want to be attracting the sort of people who don't see the point of being "only" a backbench MP in the first place.
Opposition backbench MPs should be able to achieve useful things. If they can't then it's a sign that the party machines, and the executive generally, are too strong.
As to the VAT on school fees thing. Less than 2% of voters have children at private schools (According to ONS, ~6.5% of kids are at private schools; on average there are 1.4 kids-per-family, and 40% of families have school-age kids). Of that 2% a good many will be solid Tories.
So this feels like exactly the sort of policy to float around to get the blood up without having any material impact one way or the other. The calculation must be that most policy will be pure mogadon to avoid scaring the voters and this is a comparatively safe piece of red meat to throw to the believers.
My pile of unread books gets taller and taller.
Javid's done his time in the Cabinet. By the time the Tories are next ready for office, they'll have some fresh blood and the [far fewer] seats they'll have in the Commons next time shouldn't be all filled by what are frankly political bed blockers.
In the past, I believe this has led to some eccentric moves to hopeless seats just in order to benefit (although parties strongly discourage it).
But it may not be enough to encourage people to stand rather than retire in the face of very likely defeat. Firstly, however critical we are of some MPs, most genuinely believe in their party and what they are doing and, if they decide not to go again would genuinely rather a younger person gave it a bloody good try than go through the motions themselves. Secondly, standing again is an enormous faff and reduces your ability to pursue other job opportunities (it's not impossible to say "I'll probably be at a loose end after the election" if you're standing again, but it is harder to market yourself). Thirdly, politicians don't like losing and, if you retire instead, you get to say, "of course, I'd probably have hung on with my massive personal vote, but there you are, and it's terribly sad for young Fred who I thought was a jolly good candidate" to anyone who'll listen. If you're beaten, history records that your career ended in defeat.
There is no earthly reason why parents who buy houses near good state schools then buying in tutoring should have that subsidised, especially by those who cannot buy or rent such homes. They are buying privilege - and a capital asset to boot - quite as much as those using private schools. And, to my mind, being some of the biggest hypocrites around.
If a complete stranger telephoned you one day, and said 'I just want to say, I am never going to see or speak to you again.', you wouldn't care, because you have no emotion invested in that person. We choose whether to put emotional weight on what others think and say. It's not easy to choose not to be hurt, but it is possible.
The flight of my friends' kids to local private schools (and tutors), then back to the local state 6th form college for faking out their university applications is a poor show, in my opinion.
LAB: 49% (-1)
CON: 26% (-1)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
GRN: 4% (-)
REF: 5% (NA)
via @techneUK, 30 Nov - 01 Dec
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts
Overnight TalkTV and the Sun also revealed that a senior Tory backbencher has been reported by colleagues to police over allegations of rape and sexual assault. A group of Tory MPs submitted a report to police about the MP relating to allegations spanning two years, which have been investigated by a law firm. The MP has not been suspended from the Tory whip or from party membership, despite reports that senior party figures knew about the allegations for about two years.
I think not, I thinking yougov and people pollin are outliers, Opinium up to 29% Redfield and Savanta up one too when they next report. Delta has shown leap for the Tories into the thirties this week.
As I predicted spot on, just looking at gap between the parties is meaningless, just look at how the Labour position is continuing to erode away now the Tory adults are in charge. Watching the Tory share for their recovery is the game in town.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election > LABOUR VOTE SHARE ON THE SLIDE DEFYING THE NARRATIVES
I suspect it's more that he expects the Tories nationally to lose quite badly. Being an opposition MP in your 50s, facing a large Government majority, is pretty bleak. It's a young person's game - energetic, ambitious 30-somethings cutting their teeth with a view to Government in their 40s and 50s.
The next Tory PM will, one suspects, be elected when Javid is in his 60s. Realistically, Javid isn't going to be first name on that PM's team sheet. So why hang about? He could earn a good sum in the private sector, and has a good shout for a peerage.
That's not to say he isn't a decent constituency MP, or doesn't quite enjoy it - I don't know how he's regarded in his area. But he's done it for over ten years, his time in the frontline is gone, and it's probably the right thing to do to pass the baton to a younger person at this stage.
I'm on the fence about VAT charging on fees, but those who want to ban private schools haven't thought it through.
Labour won’t touch tutoring because it provides an income for a growing number of students.
State schools don't (Or shouldn't) make a profit or a loss - the £30k you've 'lost' surely covers the cost of educating the pupil. And they tend to hardly be undersubscribed with all the talk of large class sizes.
Image a (lucky) couple have £250k in savings which they have resolved to provide exclusively for their child. There are two options:
1) pay for school fees. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k has gone
2) send to a state school. At the end of the child's A Levels the £250k (plus growth) is still there and child can use it for, say, house deposit, car, pension contribution, ISA, emergencies, etc.
If you were the child, which option would you want your parent to choose?
I disagree with Mrs Stocky on this. She says 1) and I say 2).
And it seems a bit odd that our nuclear submariner training wasn't delivered in house (or with the US).
Elbit Systems UK Fired From £280 MILLION Worth Of Ministry of Defence Contracts
https://www.palestineaction.org/contract-loss/
Minister of State for Defence Procurement Alex Chalk has confirmed that Elbit Systems UK, a subsidiary of Israel’s largest arms company Elbit Systems LTD, has been forced out of lucrative contracts to deliver training for Dreadnought submarine and Royal Navy crews [1, 2]. The Ministry of Defence has ejected Elbit from a contract worth £160m to deliver Dreadnought crew training, and is ‘negotiating the departure’ of Elbit from a £123m contract for ‘Project Selborne’ Royal Navy training, stating that Elbit now falls short of ‘operational sovereignty standards for the UK’s highest priority capabilities’.
These submissions were made by Chalk in Parliament in responses to questions by Labour MPs Chris Evans, and Kevan Jones – both associated with the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ group – and by Shadow Defence Secretary John Healey. Elbit’s removal from these contracts was not in the public domain until these questions were asked. Release of this information further damaged Elbit Systems’ plummeting share prices, which fell 10% over November 29th, and is down 18% through November, as the company posts third quarter losses [3].
The loss of these contracts is a huge blow for Elbit, with their attempts to gain MOD favour a major reason for their manufacturing presence in Britain. These contracts were initially awarded after Elbit’s deep involvement in procurement and training for the Israeli defence, across army, navy, and air forces. Not only are Elbit’s manufactured products described as “field-tested on Palestinians”, but their training and simulation contracts have been gained following their performances in Israel, including delivering the ‘Brigade and Battlegroup Mission Training Centre’...
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1598660308473634817
Also, unless the state school is the absolute worst one in the area chances are another child will be taking the place so no-one will be worse off.
So there is a grain of truth in what Simon says, albeit the "loss" is surely much less than £30k, and doesn't disappear but is instead a saving from general taxation that could be applied either to state schools or something else depending on political priorities.
Other noticeable change- RefUK do seem to be having a growth spurtette. The 2s and 3s are becoming 5s, 6s and 7s. What's driving that?
More seriously, I think there are sensible reasons to have concerns about this policy. The assisted places policy of the Blair government achieved essentially nothing socially, except to make these schools even more socially exclusive. I would actually prefer a total overhaul of the whole system to this tinkering, which I think is counter-productive gesture politics nonsense.
What worries more is how much of a New Labour approach in general it might presage from Starmer ; in the Blair era these sort of red meat, gestures and mood music were used to cover for a lack of genuine radicalism or new ideas in many other areas, a bit like the way John Prescott was offered up as a kind of mascot , to the left.
I will posit that this fannying around will not make Dreadnought any cheaper or arrive any quicker.
I get the point of your thought experiment, but I'm not really sure it casts all that much light on the issue. Yes, the question is whether the benefits of private education exceed the costs. But I think I was well aware of that before you unpacked it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_(Seton_novel)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Darkness
This week, after a mini discussion with someone on PB, KJH I think, I thought i had better get around to reading some Stephen Hawking, so I downloaded a Brief History of Time. But it’s more a science fiction book than proper science book, so I have given up as it was wasting my time. To paraphrase Andy Williams, this is the most busiest time of the year.
I looked for the book The Cook of Castamar is based on, but it’s not in English. Yet. I had withdraw symptoms from being immersed in the series.
All those dreaming of largesse will be disabused of such notions, or the markets may re-enact the Truss situation. I suspect Starmer is not daft enough to go that far, though.
And if you opt for state education,it's not necessarily true that you have to pay to win the postcode lottery.
For example, the very large 6th form college which my children attended served a very large catchment area indeed, and provided excellent teaching.
The other mistake people make is to spend the money on private secondary school, when the best bang for your buck is to get them into great nursery and infant schools. That way they will be ahead when they get into junior school and teachers will shower them with attention anyway.
If you're going to spend 10-15 years on the Opposition benches, then retire just as the Tories are coming back into power vacating your seat to a newbie with no chance to get experience in Opposition, then how is that good for you, or your Party or the country?
You can use the next 10-15 years doing something else, while giving a colleague in the party an opportunity to start on the backbenches in Opposition and could potentially be the next Cameron or Osborne [your names may vary] who we've not heard of today but will be the leadership of the future.
A bit of searching parliamentary records indicates the story is essentially correct, though "sacked" is probably a bit of overreach.
(Alex Chalk, written answer)
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) regularly reviews its capability programmes. As the result of a recent review, MOD is in discussion with Elbit Systems UK about their departure from submarine training in the Project Selborne contract and has already agreed the company's departure from Dreadnought Crew Training contract. This has not happened because of any specific issues with Elbit Systems UK or any wrongdoing on their part but rather a result of applying revised operational sovereignty standards for the UK's highest priority capabilities. Elbit Systems UK remains an important and trusted partner across a range of other contracts in Defence.
Capita Business Services Ltd, as the Prime Contractor delivering Project Selborne, are responsible for ensuring its delivery. Any specific impact on the timetable for delivery of the Future Naval Training Programme will depend on the outcome of the negotiations which are currently underway with Elbit Systems UK regarding their involvement in Project Selborne, therefore I am unable to comment further at this time.
If it's being left with Capita, then our future submarine capability is probably somewhat fncked.
(or maybe your post was a joke?)
Quite frankly the most embarrassing Tory MPs are primarily those who were around in Thatcher/Major's days, rather than the ones who've reached Parliament in the last 12.5 years.
Next time the Tories reach office, then some of those who were around now will be the dinosaurs of the future.
I could well understand Javid looking around him and thinking "even if I stick around for next 10-15 years, do I then want to be thought of as Redwood is today?"
(Mykola Leontovych in 1914)
https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1598362573933613056
These narrow definitions of "success" (eg, 5 "good" GCSEs) goes a pretty long way towards explaining what's wrong with the UK education system, in my opinion.
I can never know for sure, of course, how option 2 would have panned out. But I'm fairly confident just in financial terms it was a better investment than the lump sum at 21. Possibly my sister would disagree from her own experience - not sure.
Schools are a long way from perfect, but the really hopeless schools, whether state or private, are massively rarer than they used to be. Even if school X is better than school Y, is it really £250k better?
(Another story- when we went on our middle aged gap years, Thing 1 and 2 ended up at one of The Worst Schools In The Area. It was the only one with places, because it was The Worst School In The Area. I was a governor there for a while, because they were desperate.
Anyway, the children did fine. Because most young people make about as much learning progress as they're going to make at most schools. That's especially true if the other bits of their development, like reading independently, are in place.)
A result like that suggests they are gonna get 15 years in the wilderness, 10 at best. Good candidates won't come forward for seats, activists will give up, even more MPs will drift away, so much talent at the top will be gone
It will be like an army losing all its officers, 70% of its troops, and seeing its ammo dumps, supply lines and HQ blown to bits
At some point a routed army cannot rebuild and fight back: it merely dissolves, and melts into the civilian population. We will see Tory MPs in jeans and hoodies in the local Nandos, pretending they never had anything to do with politics
This is a true concern. The Tories are on the precipice of a historic disaster that could finish them for good
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable