The social pool these schools draw from has certainly declined in recent years ; in the 1980's and 1990's, the more "intellectual" public schools - Winchester, Westminster, St. Paul's, etc .. certainly had many more from media, academe and the arts. Because of the arms race in resources, and the fact that they fixed their prices in a cartel for many years without being caught, a much greater proportion are already from the global super-rich. Labour's policy will simply remove the last members of the professional middle classes who aren't on a bursary.
I think the 1970's idea of turning several top schools into autonomous state-funded selective schools would be better.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
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".
"Swagger" is a rather loaded term.
Some people have the inner confidence to believe that if they try to make a success of something, they have a good chance of doing so. They seize on opportunities. They have a resilience where setbacks occur. That's all positive, and entirely consistent with being a pleasant, warm and generous person.
Of course, some people have the same confidence and are also total arseholes, but I'm not entirely sure that's a necessary part of what's being referred to.
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.
I think that would depend upon the school and/or teacher.
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.)
I'd question "most", but I agree with your general point.
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.
I can't (and wouldn't want to) comment on your children, but are you absolutely sure your teachers would have agreed you were a high achieving kid?
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.
Yeah, but that's Sixth form. I went to Godalming College - which I think had kids from as far away as Portsmouth - and it was excellent. In fact, it was so good that a lot of parents who sent their kids to RGS in Guildford, skipped on school fees for the last two years as they could count on Godalming to do an excellent job.
Sadly, the same doesn't apply to secondary schools.
The legal tools to do so are already available and in many cases are written into state constitutions, in laws prohibiting private paramilitary activity. “I fear that the country is entering a phase of history with more organized domestic civil violence than we’ve seen in 100 years,” said Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who pioneered legal strategies to go after violent extremists earlier in his career. “We have done it in the past and can do so again.”..
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".
"Swagger" is a rather loaded term.
Some people have the inner confidence to believe that if they try to make a success of something, they have a good chance of doing so. They seize on opportunities. They have a resilience where setbacks occur. That's all positive, and entirely consistent with being a pleasant, warm and generous person.
Of course, some people have the same confidence and are also total arseholes, but I'm not entirely sure that's a necessary part of what's being referred to.
I reckon one could sort regulars on here into public/state schooled based on their contributions with a very high degree of accuracy.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
They were defeated forever and doomed to extinction and irrelevance in 97, and 01. And 05. And then 2010 and 2015 showed they could only ever hope for a wafer thin majority.
And then Labour was doomed to irrelevance and extinction in 2015, and 2017, and 2019. Until it wasn’t.
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.
Wishful thinking on your part. The experience of the 2017 election was that when Labour made an effort to fully cost its proposals and fought an election on policy rather than the (then) rather distant question of Brexit, they did well and improved in the polling. One of those proposals was for investment in state education funded by ending the charitable status of private schools, if I recall correctly.
Obviously 2019 was a different kettle of fish, but that manifesto was far too extreme to carry any credibility and, in any case, Brexit dominated that election.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
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.
Interesting. The friend I mentioned yesterday, however, remarked that when he was at his 'public school' in the 1970s there was plenty of pressure for the bright to do well - Oxbridge scholarship scores were very much looked to, highlighted at speech day, etc. etc. When he sent his children there in the 2000s he found a more mediocre approach, the teachets much more focussed on bringing on the thickies than in his day. A key reason was the commercial market and parental pressure - they expected so many exam results, Int Bacs etc. per £££ they were paying. The bright ones weren't pushed nearly so much as in the old days, and the Oxbridge scholarship results had almost completely collapsed. Edit: He certainly ascribed that to the changing pattern of teaching, rather than wider changes in selection.
In other words, I suppose, the school had shifted from being a primarily educational and quite academic institution for the region's professionals' children toward a commercial operation for the global market.
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.
It was true for a while, because the only stat that mattered was "what percentage of children get 5 good GCSEs, of which one is English and another is Maths?". That encouraged massive gaming of the system, and working with borderline kids to within an inch of their lives. It also allowed grammar schools to preen themselves without much merit, because nobody going to a grammar school should be anywhere near that line at the end of Year 11.
Moving to a progress measure across 8 subjects means that every kid's success and failure counts in the scores, which is a much better incentive for schools to do the right thing.
It's not perfect- many schools have limited the GCSE choices to 8 subjects, and some have done similar things lower down the school, to maximise the time spent on lessons that will count in the final score.
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.
Yeah, but that's Sixth form. I went to Godalming College - which I think had kids from as far away as Portsmouth - and it was excellent. In fact, it was so good that a lot of parents who sent their kids to RGS in Guildford, skipped on school fees for the last two years as they could count on Godalming to do an excellent job.
Sadly, the same doesn't apply to secondary schools.
That's true, but might be addressable by a competent Education ministry.
The deal in the town where my kids went to school was that the secondary schools agreed to all shut their sixth forms in exchange for guaranteed access to the 6th form college, with a fairly minimal entrance hurdle in terms of GCSEs.
As well as allowing a specialist 6th form institution, which has large advantage in breadth of curriculum and ability to recruit subject specialists, it ought also to enable more focused reform of the pre-sixth form schooling. And it greatly mitigates the problems inherent in having selective schools.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
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.
Completely OT. I'm sure this will be known to everyone on here but because I've not been following closely it wasn't known to me. The disgraced Mrs Hussey was the widow of Marmaduke the stooge of Maggie when she was attempting the Tories first takeover of the BBC.
Despite the disgraceful politics that surrounded it at the time I always had a soft spot for Marmaduke. He wasn't the villain. He was simply Thatcher's lapdog. Just a weak man chosen to do her dirty work for her.....
Anyway I now feel even more sorry the the hapless Mrs Hussey. It seems like they were both thrust into the limelight unwillingly
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".
"Swagger" is a rather loaded term.
Some people have the inner confidence to believe that if they try to make a success of something, they have a good chance of doing so. They seize on opportunities. They have a resilience where setbacks occur. That's all positive, and entirely consistent with being a pleasant, warm and generous person.
Of course, some people have the same confidence and are also total arseholes, but I'm not entirely sure that's a necessary part of what's being referred to.
I reckon one could sort regulars on here into public/state schooled based on their contributions with a very high degree of accuracy.
Completely OT. I'm sure this will be known to everyone on here but because I've not been following closely it wasn't known to me. The disgraced Mrs Hussey was the widow of Marmaduke the stooge of Maggie when she was attempting the Tories first takeover of the BBC.
Despite the disgraceful politics that surrounded it at the time I always had a soft spot for Marmaduke. He wasn't the villain. He was simply Thatcher's lapdog. Just a weak man chosen to do her dirty work for her.....
Anyway I now feel even more sorry the the hapless Mrs Hussey. It seems like they were both thrust into the limelight unwillingly
How bizarre - his name just came into my mind the other day. Maybe it was because of the Hussey name, without realising it. Marmaduke - what a name for a child to have to deal with.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
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.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
it is dying, and yet 50% of the country (if not more) still has small-c conservative views - from immigration to crime & punishment, to Wokeness and education and foreign policy and the rest
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
They were defeated forever and doomed to extinction and irrelevance in 97, and 01. And 05. And then 2010 and 2015 showed they could only ever hope for a wafer thin majority.
And then Labour was doomed to irrelevance and extinction in 2015, and 2017, and 2019. Until it wasn’t.
The worm turns.
It does, and nothing is forever. But there are defeats that are impossible to recover from.
As long as the Conservatives are clearly the Opposition, they should be OK eventually. After all, someone will have to stand up to Starmer. Even if they end up with 100 MPs, maybe even 75, that will be more than the SNP, and should be more than the Lib Dems.
If they slip into third place, that's going to be much harder to recover from. Less exposure, and the eternal victims of tactical squeezes by the new Big Two. And FPTP is brutal to third parties.
(Example: when I first lived in Cambridge in the early 1990's, the Conservatives got about a third of the vote and had a decent block of seats. They were squeezed to almost nothing by the fight betwen Labour and the Lib Dems. Now, partly because of the way the city has changed, they come fourth in most wards. Their only second place is hopelessly distant.)
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
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.
Mine too, and in no way was there neglect of the bright pupils, or any bullying on that basis.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
it is dying, and yet 50% of the country (if not more) still has small-c conservative views - from immigration to crime & punishment, to Wokeness and education and foreign policy and the rest
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
And I was once an enemy of PR; not any more
We are very badly governed. Could not agree more. I have always been pro-PR and remain so. We are much more likely to get it with a minority Labour government than with a majority one, though.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
Armies can dissolve without being replaced but in politics there will always need to be an opposition.
The saving grace for the Tories at present is that the Lib Dems are not currently looking capable of supplanting them as the main opposition, and neither is the latest Farage Grift Vehicle. This means the Tories are likely to end up not just with more MPs than those two parties put together, but more second places too - and that means they will remain well-placed to return. Eventually.
In some respects this is an argument for an early election. The longer the Tories delay the election, the more time there is for the Lib Dems to regain their strength and pose a challenge for second 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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
it is dying, and yet 50% of the country (if not more) still has small-c conservative views - from immigration to crime & punishment, to Wokeness and education and foreign policy and the rest
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
And I was once an enemy of PR; not any more
Every so often you post something I agree with entirely, and this is one of those times; every sentence of that post is correct.
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.
Yeah, but that's Sixth form. I went to Godalming College - which I think had kids from as far away as Portsmouth - and it was excellent. In fact, it was so good that a lot of parents who sent their kids to RGS in Guildford, skipped on school fees for the last two years as they could count on Godalming to do an excellent job.
Sadly, the same doesn't apply to secondary schools.
That's true, but might be addressable by a competent Education ministry.
The deal in the town where my kids went to school was that the secondary schools agreed to all shut their sixth forms in exchange for guaranteed access to the 6th form college, with a fairly minimal entrance hurdle in terms of GCSEs.
As well as allowing a specialist 6th form institution, which has large advantage in breadth of curriculum and ability to recruit subject specialists, it ought also to enable more focused reform of the pre-sixth form schooling. And it greatly mitigates the problems inherent in having selective schools.
Yes, totes agree
As I say below, my mediocre education 11-16 was rescued by an excellent and free-thinking VI Form College. They were two of the best years of my life (albeit thoroughly misbehaved). I am not cut out for regimented life and being-bossed-about, I hate it with a passion
The VI Form recognised that some kids are more rebellious or free spirted and need to find their own way. They let me do that (they only suspended me once for a week, despite my persistent miscreancy). In the end I got rather good A Levels and went to one of the best universities in Europe. So there, doubters from my school!
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
it is dying, and yet 50% of the country (if not more) still has small-c conservative views - from immigration to crime & punishment, to Wokeness and education and foreign policy and the rest
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
And I was once an enemy of PR; not any more
We are very badly governed. Could not agree more. I have always been pro-PR and remain so. We are much more likely to get it with a minority Labour government than with a majority one, though.
Yes, my sad fear is that Starmer will get a good majority.... and do nothing with it. Cautious reform. Tinkering. Chuck some more money at the unions and the public sector. Tax the rich more - probably just enough to damage the economy. That's it
Feeble crap, in other words. And he won't pursue PR because, why should he? He'll have a big majority
However I hold a candle of hope. Maybe Starmer can - like Liz Truss - surprise on the upside. I really don't give a fuck if the Tories now go into non-existence. Enough
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
it is dying, and yet 50% of the country (if not more) still has small-c conservative views - from immigration to crime & punishment, to Wokeness and education and foreign policy and the rest
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
And I was once an enemy of PR; not any more
We are very badly governed. Could not agree more. I have always been pro-PR and remain so. We are much more likely to get it with a minority Labour government than with a majority one, though.
Yes, my sad fear is that Starmer will get a good majority.... and do nothing with it. Cautious reform. Tinkering. Chuck some more money at the unions and the public sector. Tax the rich more - probably just enough to damage the economy. That's it
Feeble crap, in other words. And he won't pursue PR because, why should he? He'll have a big majority
However I hold a candle of hope. Maybe Starmer can - like Liz Truss - surprise on the upside. I really don't give a fuck if the Tories now go into non-existence. Enough
Hehe... I thought Truss would be a disaster and she still managed to surprise me on the downside.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
One advantage of going to a school full of low achievers was that very few stayed on to take A-Levels. My A-Level Physics group consisted of me and two others. Virtually private tuition, but free.
In the year above mine there were only 4 people in Sixth Form!
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
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.
I saw this with my eldest daughter at very good state primary. The top table in the class would be left alone while the teacher and assistant put lots of effort into the bottom tables.
The problem is that these children weren’t getting 100% on everything - there was plenty of learning for them to do.
The contrast with the free school, where my youngest went, (run private style) was very interesting.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
Yes, remember that well. My technique was to wait until action broke out in the middle and then ghost down the side with the grace of a cat.
We used to play bulldog in the gym in PE lessons. I remember when one lad was so keen to reach the other end of the gym that he ran full pelt into the wall and broke his arm.
Lab Maj looks like value, and Lab most seats surely nailed on.
If you are right both William Hills and Smarkets have free money for you by backing most seats. They both give the Tories about a 30% + chance of most seats.
I see this again and again on discussions on schools. People's own experiences of schooling radically inform their view of what is best in general.
Go to a successful state comprehensive or grammar - often radically in favour of state education. Go to a failing comprehensive school - often in favour of, or at least more open to, private education.
The same applies to those who enjoyed and had terrible private educations. I went to an average but not awful local school - some bullying, some good teachers - followed by a progressive-minded private school, full of interesting teachers and a generally intellectual and creative atmosphere that I did enjoy. I do still notice , from time to time , that in my view people with no experience of state education at all sometimes seem to find it harder to relate to people across classes.
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
It is still unlikely, but not entirely improbable
The Tories seem to have lost any connection with most people under 50. That's their challenge. England has always been a pretty small c conservative country, the land of "Mustn't grumble", "It could be worse", "Worse things happen at sea", etc. But England is changing. The Tories need to catch up.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
it is dying, and yet 50% of the country (if not more) still has small-c conservative views - from immigration to crime & punishment, to Wokeness and education and foreign policy and the rest
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
And I was once an enemy of PR; not any more
We are very badly governed. Could not agree more. I have always been pro-PR and remain so. We are much more likely to get it with a minority Labour government than with a majority one, though.
Quite. Labour are just as cynical about FPTP as the Tories.
Helpful note for bourgeois whether Tory or otherwise:
it's not the services that segregated private schools supply to your children that are supposed to be the public good, the charitable work. It's their letting prole children into their swimming pools to swim a few lengths when your children are otherwise engaged.
Similarly, it's not Oxfam selling good stuff in their shops that's charitable. That's just a way they raise money. What they do that's charitable is e.g. give relief to famine victims in Africa.
How much has changed in school segregation since "7 Up" was made in 1964? Essentially nothing. Watch the documentary and see:
Those who attended only down-the-road dump schools don't have a clue what it's like at private boarding schools, and the converse is also true. Nothing has changed on that score since 1964. It's true that most private schools nowadays don't have many boarders, but the top schools are still the top schools, and they do have boarders, and they are also the richest schools and the central training grounds for the ruling class.
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Every week there is a new battery 'breakthrough' but maybe one or more will reach production. Some of these use different chemistry such as sulphur or graphene. I think there's more to come on the battery front.
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Never bet against human ingenuity.
People have been making ridiculous Malthusian prophecies about the scarcity of resources being an issue for centuries now. Each and every time they've been false and human ingenuity has found a way to get around whatever scarcity stood in the way, whether it be new sources of that good, or more efficiency, or alternatives.
The notion of there being a shortage of cobalt etc so batteries couldn't displace oil was always as foolish as the notion we only had 10 years left of oil, 40 years ago.
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Every week there is a new battery 'breakthrough' but maybe one or more will reach production. Some of these use different chemistry such as sulphur or graphene. I think there's more to come on the battery front.
There’s a decade worth of improvements to Li batteries in the pipeline from the lab to production. That’s is, real, small improvements that will keep batteries getting cheaper and more powerful, year on year. It often takes that long to turn lab improvements into reliable production changes.
These are generally not headline stuff.
Other chemistries are advancing in a similar way.
I very much doubt that someone will sell a battery with double the capacity of the previous one. More a few percent of improvement each year…
One Party state not good, albeit no party has deserved oblivion more than the current Conservative Party.
For some Tory mouthfoamers, anything to do with the Labour party or the trade unions - let alone disrespecting the monarch - will always be tantamount to giving in to Russia.
A Lab maj of that size would be similar to 1997, but Starmer is not a Camelot figure as Blair then was. He won't become one either.
It would be good if some of the Labour leaders could follow Angela Rayner and Nye Bevan and f***ing give it to the Tories. Bevan called them "lower than vermin", Rayner called them "scum". More, please! Enthuse people. Don't bore the electorate's t*ts off. Don't just say you're more competent managers, more careful budgeters, etc.
My madcap bet, placed last night, was BF's 200 on France winning the WC in combo with Rashford being top scorer.
France and england are likely to meet in the QF, so better choose a team in the top half of the draw - Argentina or possibly Netherlands.
But the odds would be accordingly worse - bookies do look at these things.
200-1 on France to win and Rashford golden boot isn't that crazy. It's pretty unlikely given France winning would involve England not getting beyond quarter finals. But maybe not 200-1 unlikely... Rodrigez won it in 2014 despite Colombia going out at that stage. Six goals would give Rashford a good shout of the golden boot, and he has three so three more in two games is possible. The problem then, though, is Mbappe also has three so far and looking pretty good with it.
One advantage of going to a school full of low achievers was that very few stayed on to take A-Levels. My A-Level Physics group consisted of me and two others. Virtually private tuition, but free.
In the year above mine there were only 4 people in Sixth Form!
Incredibly inefficient, of course.
If I were Ed Sec, every LA would have a large 6th form college - with an increase on the currently pitiful per capita funding.
One Party state not good, albeit no party has deserved oblivion more than the current Conservative Party.
For some Tory mouthfoamers, anything to do with the Labour party or the trade unions - let alone disrespecting the monarch - will always be tantamount to giving in to Russia.
A Lab maj of that size would be similar to 1997, but Starmer is not a Camelot figure as Blair then was. He won't become one either.
It would be good if some of the Labour leaders could follow Angela Rayner and Nye Bevan and f***ing give it to the Tories. Bevan called them "lower than vermin", Rayner called them "scum". More, please! Enthuse people. Don't bore the electorate's t*ts off. Don't just say you're more competent managers, more careful budgeters, etc.
That's not the problem, mainly, I would say. They need ideas. "British Energy" is the first good one.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
Yeah, but that's Sixth form. I went to Godalming College - which I think had kids from as far away as Portsmouth - and it was excellent. In fact, it was so good that a lot of parents who sent their kids to RGS in Guildford, skipped on school fees for the last two years as they could count on Godalming to do an excellent job.
Sadly, the same doesn't apply to secondary schools.
It's still well-regarded (unrelatedly, I live round the corner from it).
One advantage of going to a school full of low achievers was that very few stayed on to take A-Levels. My A-Level Physics group consisted of me and two others. Virtually private tuition, but free.
In the year above mine there were only 4 people in Sixth Form!
Incredibly inefficient, of course.
If I were Ed Sec, every LA would have a large 6th form college - with an increase on the currently pitiful per capita funding.
Would they get the VAT exemption currently enjoyed by state schools as well?
The Charity Commission has launched a statutory inquiry into the transgender charity Mermaids after identifying concerns about its management.
The regulator said the inquiry — its most serious form of investigation — was triggered by “newly identified issues” around the youth charity’s “governance and management”. It had already announced a compliance case into Mermaids after safeguarding concerns but a statutory inquiry marks a significant ramping up of its examination of the charity. It will try to establish if there was any mismanagement or misconduct by trustees.
The commission said today that Mermaids’ response to the initial compliance case “has not provided the necessary reassurance or satisfied the commission at this stage”. It added: “The regulator will seek to determine whether the charity’s governance is appropriate
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Never bet against human ingenuity.
People have been making ridiculous Malthusian prophecies about the scarcity of resources being an issue for centuries now. Each and every time they've been false and human ingenuity has found a way to get around whatever scarcity stood in the way, whether it be new sources of that good, or more efficiency, or alternatives.
The notion of there being a shortage of cobalt etc so batteries couldn't displace oil was always as foolish as the notion we only had 10 years left of oil, 40 years ago.
To be fair to Malthus, at the time he died famines in Europe were not yet at an end. Our experience this year with fuel and food prices should also teach us that the surpluses delivered by capitalism are a bit less secure thank we would like to think, human ingenuity or not.
Furthermore, the experience of gaming over the last few decades is that human ingenuity does not yet extend fully to the distribution of material surplus as much as it does to the production thereof.
One Party state not good, albeit no party has deserved oblivion more than the current Conservative Party.
For some Tory mouthfoamers, anything to do with the Labour party or the trade unions - let alone disrespecting the monarch - will always be tantamount to giving in to Russia.
A Lab maj of that size would be similar to 1997, but Starmer is not a Camelot figure as Blair then was. He won't become one either.
It would be good if some of the Labour leaders could follow Angela Rayner and Nye Bevan and f***ing give it to the Tories. Bevan called them "lower than vermin", Rayner called them "scum". More, please! Enthuse people. Don't bore the electorate's t*ts off. Don't just say you're more competent managers, more careful budgeters, etc.
Your last paragraph is exactly what Starmer and Labour should not do if they want to be seen as a centre party of government
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Every week there is a new battery 'breakthrough' but maybe one or more will reach production. Some of these use different chemistry such as sulphur or graphene. I think there's more to come on the battery front.
There’s a decade worth of improvements to Li batteries in the pipeline from the lab to production. That’s is, real, small improvements that will keep batteries getting cheaper and more powerful, year on year. It often takes that long to turn lab improvements into reliable production changes.
These are generally not headline stuff.
Other chemistries are advancing in a similar way.
I very much doubt that someone will sell a battery with double the capacity of the previous one. More a few percent of improvement each year…
It's a bit better than that, with stuff like the introduction of silicon into anodes etc. But the faster improvement is likely to be in cost per kWh. Couple that with continued improvement in charging rates, and the practicality of truly mass market, affordable electric cars isn't far off.
Radical stuff like fully solid state batteries is probably a decade away.
One advantage of going to a school full of low achievers was that very few stayed on to take A-Levels. My A-Level Physics group consisted of me and two others. Virtually private tuition, but free.
In the year above mine there were only 4 people in Sixth Form!
Incredibly inefficient, of course.
If I were Ed Sec, every LA would have a large 6th form college - with an increase on the currently pitiful per capita funding.
Would they get the VAT exemption currently enjoyed by state schools as well?
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Never bet against human ingenuity.
People have been making ridiculous Malthusian prophecies about the scarcity of resources being an issue for centuries now. Each and every time they've been false and human ingenuity has found a way to get around whatever scarcity stood in the way, whether it be new sources of that good, or more efficiency, or alternatives.
The notion of there being a shortage of cobalt etc so batteries couldn't displace oil was always as foolish as the notion we only had 10 years left of oil, 40 years ago.
To be fair to Malthus, at the time he died famines in Europe were not yet at an end. Our experience this year with fuel and food prices should also teach us that the surpluses delivered by capitalism are a bit less secure thank we would like to think, human ingenuity or not.
Furthermore, the experience of gaming over the last few decades is that human ingenuity does not yet extend fully to the distribution of material surplus as much as it does to the production thereof.
"... the experience of famine over the last few decades ..."
One advantage of going to a school full of low achievers was that very few stayed on to take A-Levels. My A-Level Physics group consisted of me and two others. Virtually private tuition, but free.
In the year above mine there were only 4 people in Sixth Form!
Incredibly inefficient, of course.
If I were Ed Sec, every LA would have a large 6th form college - with an increase on the currently pitiful per capita funding.
Would they get the VAT exemption currently enjoyed by state schools as well?
"The striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening."
"ChatGPT was dropped on us just bit over 24 hours. It's like you wake up to the news of first nuclear explosion and you don't know yet what to think about it but you know world will never be the same again. Here some interesting snapshots of this "explosion"🧵:"
"The striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening."
"ChatGPT was dropped on us just bit over 24 hours. It's like you wake up to the news of first nuclear explosion and you don't know yet what to think about it but you know world will never be the same again. Here some interesting snapshots of this "explosion"🧵:"
At the risk of lobbing a grenade into the chat on a Friday afternoon, try asking the openai chat if a woman can have a penis.
It gives the standard, "politically correct" response (i.e. yes). Try telling it that it's wrong and that there are two sides to the argument, and it tells you that it can't be biased... but it is definitely right...
"The striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening."
"ChatGPT was dropped on us just bit over 24 hours. It's like you wake up to the news of first nuclear explosion and you don't know yet what to think about it but you know world will never be the same again. Here some interesting snapshots of this "explosion"🧵:"
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 striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening."
"ChatGPT was dropped on us just bit over 24 hours. It's like you wake up to the news of first nuclear explosion and you don't know yet what to think about it but you know world will never be the same again. Here some interesting snapshots of this "explosion"🧵:"
Yet again France doing significantly better than most of its European peers on an economic measure. France does seem to be, to coin a phrase, the form team.
At least partly because of all that nuclear investment decades ago.
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.
I thought the Tories were meant to be up to at least 31% by now, not sliding back to 21%.
You posted that, but don’t believe yourself they are on 21 do you? You picked the lowest % and expect us treat that that as serious point you are making? It’s the same week delta had them up 5 to 30. That’s exactly my point. The pollsters are all over the place for Tory share, with Labour dropping away too it proves the Tory lack of movement or back steps are clearly not switchers to Labour, it’s the pollsters methodology not being able to handle so many Tories going shy at the moment.
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.
I hate to think what I'd be like if my parents had sent me to private school, and I'd been given another layer of "cocky swagger"
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
You didn't go to a private school?
Nope. Bog standard comp
Same here. At break they used to shut the first year in the fenced play area (aka the monkey cage) to protect them from older pupils.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
My provincial west-of-England school wasn't particularly rough (tho there were a few fights), it was decidedly average educationally
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
We both went to state schools yet our experience couldn't be more different. My parents didn't have a clue. I hated school and spent most of the time with my head down trying to avoid potential conflict or embarrassment. Bullying was everywhere. It was common for fights to break out in the playground, often sprouting from a game called British Bulldog. Teachers would intervene but not immediately. I think it was entertainment for them - perhaps they placed bets?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
Comments
I think the 1970's idea of turning several top schools into autonomous state-funded selective schools would be better.
Dead at 21 probably. I made a good go of it, as is
Some people have the inner confidence to believe that if they try to make a success of something, they have a good chance of doing so. They seize on opportunities. They have a resilience where setbacks occur. That's all positive, and entirely consistent with being a pleasant, warm and generous person.
Of course, some people have the same confidence and are also total arseholes, but I'm not entirely sure that's a necessary part of what's being referred to.
Sadly, the same doesn't apply to secondary schools.
America Can Have Democracy or Political Violence. Not Both.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/opinion/political-violence-extremism.html?unlocked_article_code=wT6HfUi9XB9IHuXWpZIRI-NZRXHz4qtbs6iJuq5cqMNjaf-wvD3W7IHkZuRYzsPmPRN7bItpQDUvjMujvnkgV5X3NeihE0Jhc7RvyWCM2xYTKujMUUHIlM3eYymXZ9lMngktt0qKJLRnb5i_OgyyTlvl8ZBsq69__fUIIOVCDz1eKTCIWEZWRqBPtabJWQCvK3ePWD7x9ws489czzpx-n9HYCN1WgGrlTmvbn3192CsrHmnL4CbCtk5kBVv51kQmkbWjhN3TTFZJxlKBgwRj8LN8xcc1ejICO-g2HpFa9u8PuKFjITixYwBeW-QAxQ0sH08gKGN1zOP0AmdhRzar07DvCKhqIQ&smid=tw-share
...the nation is not powerless to stop a slide toward deadly chaos. If institutions and individuals do more to make it unacceptable in American public life, organized violence in the service of political objectives can still be pushed to the fringes. When a faction of one of the country’s two main political parties embraces extremism, that makes thwarting it both more difficult and more necessary. A well-functioning democracy demands it.
The legal tools to do so are already available and in many cases are written into state constitutions, in laws prohibiting private paramilitary activity. “I fear that the country is entering a phase of history with more organized domestic civil violence than we’ve seen in 100 years,” said Philip Zelikow, the former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, who pioneered legal strategies to go after violent extremists earlier in his career. “We have done it in the past and can do so again.”..
And then Labour was doomed to irrelevance and extinction in 2015, and 2017, and 2019. Until it wasn’t.
The worm turns.
Obviously 2019 was a different kettle of fish, but that manifesto was far too extreme to carry any credibility and, in any case, Brexit dominated that election.
In other words, I suppose, the school had shifted from being a primarily educational and quite academic institution for the region's professionals' children toward a commercial operation for the global market.
Moving to a progress measure across 8 subjects means that every kid's success and failure counts in the scores, which is a much better incentive for schools to do the right thing.
It's not perfect- many schools have limited the GCSE choices to 8 subjects, and some have done similar things lower down the school, to maximise the time spent on lessons that will count in the final score.
The deal in the town where my kids went to school was that the secondary schools agreed to all shut their sixth forms in exchange for guaranteed access to the 6th form college, with a fairly minimal entrance hurdle in terms of GCSEs.
As well as allowing a specialist 6th form institution, which has large advantage in breadth of curriculum and ability to recruit subject specialists, it ought also to enable more focused reform of the pre-sixth form schooling.
And it greatly mitigates the problems inherent in having selective schools.
This isn't about reopening the Brexit debate (please God no), but there was some very interesting research published recently that showed most voters have not changed their minds about Brexit, it's that there are now just less of those who supported it still drawing breath. That's why the polls look like they do on Rejoin and Mistake to Leave. The Tory vote is literally dying.
(His last senior job was three years ago)
Despite the disgraceful politics that surrounded it at the time I always had a soft spot for Marmaduke. He wasn't the villain. He was simply Thatcher's lapdog. Just a weak man chosen to do her dirty work for her.....
Anyway I now feel even more sorry the the hapless Mrs Hussey. It seems like they were both thrust into the limelight unwillingly
https://insideevs.com/news/623706/global-passenger-xev-battery-market-2022h1/
The big growth in LFP chemistry batteries means future growth is unlikely to be limited by scarcities of cobalt, manganese and nickel.
Did you go on the study English? Just interested.
They need to be represented, and they will be. But it might not be the Tories that do the representing
If Starmer gets a 100+ majority, I hope he shows some real audacity. Fix our constitution. Reform the Lords into a Federal chamber for the four nations. Get a better relationship with the EU. Bring in some form of PR that will allow voters to choose who they REALLY want - I can imagine the Tories splitting into social populists and libertarians, and the left into Corbynites and centrist Dads - this is GOOD
The last 15 years have beaten to death the idea that we are well governed. We are not. Our system is broken and British living standards are suffering. If the voters gift Starmer a huge majority he must use it for the long term
And I was once an enemy of PR; not any more
As long as the Conservatives are clearly the Opposition, they should be OK eventually. After all, someone will have to stand up to Starmer. Even if they end up with 100 MPs, maybe even 75, that will be more than the SNP, and should be more than the Lib Dems.
If they slip into third place, that's going to be much harder to recover from. Less exposure, and the eternal victims of tactical squeezes by the new Big Two. And FPTP is brutal to third parties.
(Example: when I first lived in Cambridge in the early 1990's, the Conservatives got about a third of the vote and had a decent block of seats. They were squeezed to almost nothing by the fight betwen Labour and the Lib Dems. Now, partly because of the way the city has changed, they come fourth in most wards. Their only second place is hopelessly distant.)
However there was an excellent VI Form College across the playing fields, to which I fled eagerly (and had a great time with the new freedom - we used to go the pub at lunchtime, imagine). I then went on to do Philosophy at UCL (a total blast)
I had the benefit of an intellectual atmos at home. Lots of books. Also I was fiercely competitive, and desperate to escape my boring hometown and get to London. Uni was the best way
The saving grace for the Tories at present is that the Lib Dems are not currently looking capable of supplanting them as the main opposition, and neither is the latest Farage Grift Vehicle. This means the Tories are likely to end up not just with more MPs than those two parties put together, but more second places too - and that means they will remain well-placed to return. Eventually.
In some respects this is an argument for an early election. The longer the Tories delay the election, the more time there is for the Lib Dems to regain their strength and pose a challenge for second place.
There's hope for you yet!
'Portrait of a Lady on Fire'
I really liked it. I'd be wary of recommending it because of it's pace and slightly obscure subject matter but very much my type of film
As I say below, my mediocre education 11-16 was rescued by an excellent and free-thinking VI Form College. They were two of the best years of my life (albeit thoroughly misbehaved). I am not cut out for regimented life and being-bossed-about, I hate it with a passion
The VI Form recognised that some kids are more rebellious or free spirted and need to find their own way. They let me do that (they only suspended me once for a week, despite my persistent miscreancy). In the end I got rather good A Levels and went to one of the best universities in Europe. So there, doubters from my school!
Did George Canning achieve half as much in twice the time?
It was a great sigh of relief when I left at 16. The year group comprised about 240 boys (a boys comprehensive school). I'd say fewer than 20 stayed on to Sixth Form. Perhaps 8-10 went on to university.
My studying came long after leaving school. Now have three degrees/degree equivalent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Bulldog_(game)
Lab on 459, Con on 101 before tactical voting.
Lab Maj looks like value, and Lab most seats surely nailed on.
Feeble crap, in other words. And he won't pursue PR because, why should he? He'll have a big majority
However I hold a candle of hope. Maybe Starmer can - like Liz Truss - surprise on the upside. I really don't give a fuck if the Tories now go into non-existence. Enough
Now I have to do some actual WORK
Later
In the year above mine there were only 4 people in Sixth Form!
The problem is that these children weren’t getting 100% on everything - there was plenty of learning for them to do.
The contrast with the free school, where my youngest went, (run private style) was very interesting.
Go to a successful state comprehensive or grammar - often radically in favour of state education. Go to a failing comprehensive school - often in favour of, or at least more open to, private education.
The same applies to those who enjoyed and had terrible private educations. I went to an average but not awful local school - some bullying, some good teachers - followed by a progressive-minded private school, full of interesting teachers and a generally intellectual and creative atmosphere that I did enjoy. I do still notice , from time to time , that in my view people with no experience of state education at all sometimes seem to find it harder to relate to people across classes.
If an election was held today...
LAB: 459 (+257)
CON: 101 (-264)
LDEM: 23 (+12)
SNP: 42 (-6)
PC: 4 (-)
GRN: 1 (-)
Tactical voting not [yet] accounted for.
Drilldown:
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2022/11/britainpredicts https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1598675028966531074/photo/1
it's not the services that segregated private schools supply to your children that are supposed to be the public good, the charitable work. It's their letting prole children into their swimming pools to swim a few lengths when your children are otherwise engaged.
Similarly, it's not Oxfam selling good stuff in their shops that's charitable. That's just a way they raise money. What they do that's charitable is e.g. give relief to famine victims in Africa.
How much has changed in school segregation since "7 Up" was made in 1964? Essentially nothing. Watch the documentary and see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxBOQl7-U4Q
Those who attended only down-the-road dump schools don't have a clue what it's like at private boarding schools, and the converse is also true. Nothing has changed on that score since 1964. It's true that most private schools nowadays don't have many boarders, but the top schools are still the top schools, and they do have boarders, and they are also the richest schools and the central training grounds for the ruling class.
The unnamed MP was taken into custody earlier this year and has since been bailed pending further enquiries.
https://twitter.com/ionewells/status/1598690794348728321
18-34s Con 16% Lab 62%
35-54s Con 23% Lab 50%
55+ Con 35% Lab 37%
(FW 25-27 Nov)
https://twitter.com/PigsAndPolling/status/1598691635348611072
“There is a need for a new party to campaign to lower immigration"
Agree 33%
Neither 13%
Disagree 32%
Leavers
Agree 51%
Neither 14%
Disagree 18%
Peoplepolling Nov 30
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1598647225575407616
PeoplePolling is founded and run by Matt Goodwin, who probably should make that clear when reporting results of polls conducted by them.
https://www.cityam.com/britains-factories-already-in-recession-on-lethal-cocktail-of-constraints/
People have been making ridiculous Malthusian prophecies about the scarcity of resources being an issue for centuries now. Each and every time they've been false and human ingenuity has found a way to get around whatever scarcity stood in the way, whether it be new sources of that good, or more efficiency, or alternatives.
The notion of there being a shortage of cobalt etc so batteries couldn't displace oil was always as foolish as the notion we only had 10 years left of oil, 40 years ago.
Never trust anything political with the name people in it.
These are generally not headline stuff.
Other chemistries are advancing in a similar way.
I very much doubt that someone will sell a battery with double the capacity of the previous one. More a few percent of improvement each year…
A Lab maj of that size would be similar to 1997, but Starmer is not a Camelot figure as Blair then was. He won't become one either.
It would be good if some of the Labour leaders could follow Angela Rayner and Nye Bevan and f***ing give it to the Tories. Bevan called them "lower than vermin", Rayner called them "scum". More, please! Enthuse people. Don't bore the electorate's t*ts off. Don't just say you're more competent managers, more careful budgeters, etc.
200-1 on France to win and Rashford golden boot isn't that crazy. It's pretty unlikely given France winning would involve England not getting beyond quarter finals. But maybe not 200-1 unlikely... Rodrigez won it in 2014 despite Colombia going out at that stage. Six goals would give Rashford a good shout of the golden boot, and he has three so three more in two games is possible. The problem then, though, is Mbappe also has three so far and looking pretty good with it.
If I were Ed Sec, every LA would have a large 6th form college - with an increase on the currently pitiful per capita funding.
The Charity Commission has launched a statutory inquiry into the transgender charity Mermaids after identifying concerns about its management.
The regulator said the inquiry — its most serious form of investigation — was triggered by “newly identified issues” around the youth charity’s “governance and management”. It had already announced a compliance case into Mermaids after safeguarding concerns but a statutory inquiry marks a significant ramping up of its examination of the charity. It will try to establish if there was any mismanagement or misconduct by trustees.
The commission said today that Mermaids’ response to the initial compliance case “has not provided the necessary reassurance or satisfied the commission at this stage”. It added: “The regulator will seek to determine whether the charity’s governance is appropriate
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/formal-inquiry-launched-into-transgender-charity-mermaids-kxgj2w9zl
May be behind why Susie Green stepped down a week ago with no replacement in place.
Furthermore, the experience of gaming over the last few decades is that human ingenuity does not yet extend fully to the distribution of material surplus as much as it does to the production thereof.
Couple that with continued improvement in charging rates, and the practicality of truly mass market, affordable electric cars isn't far off.
Radical stuff like fully solid state batteries is probably a decade away.
"The striking thing about the reaction to ChatGPT is not just the number of people who are blown away by it, but who they are. These are not people who get excited by every shiny new thing. Clearly something big is happening."
https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1598698665337561088?s=20&t=P_PSeuqT9YKPYXTZPr0FGg
"ChatGPT was dropped on us just bit over 24 hours. It's like you wake up to the news of first nuclear explosion and you don't know yet what to think about it but you know world will never be the same again. Here some interesting snapshots of this "explosion"🧵:"
https://twitter.com/sytelus/status/1598523136177508356?s=20&t=P_PSeuqT9YKPYXTZPr0FGg
It gives the standard, "politically correct" response (i.e. yes). Try telling it that it's wrong and that there are two sides to the argument, and it tells you that it can't be biased... but it is definitely right...
A thread of some of the things it may consider.
https://twitter.com/MForstater/status/1598693540816723969
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-63838213
I think the writing was on the wall when Sunak didn't bring Javid back into the cabinet.
We shall not forget the Saj, he was the first to resign which triggered Boris Interruptus.
We are on the cusp of AGI
Bambang Wuryanto, a politician involved in the draft, said the code could be passed as early as next week.
Bambang is a great name for a politician who makes fornication illegal.
Is there something still in his wardrobe they both fear will come out?
At least partly because of all that nuclear investment decades ago.
The law, if passed, would apply to Indonesian citizens and foreigners alike.
Punishment for adultery can only take effect if there are parties who lodge complaints to the authorities.
For those who are married, the party entitled to lodge a complaint is the perpetrator's husband or wife.
The law also allows the parents of unmarried people to report them for having sex.
This crops up every couple of years then quietly gets shelved - usually after one of the promotors is exposed for infidelity.....
(hats off those Three Degrees)