Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
Regionalising some of the administration and representation in England would only work if it came in a huge bowl of fudge, meaning there'd be some policy areas falling to regional bodies, and there'd also be an English national body, and it would be much more complicated than say the current position with the administration of London. The kind of person who can't go on a date without explaining the D'Hondt method would be in seventh heaven, but nobody else would enjoy this other than certain public sector contractors and consultants. This is what Gordon Brown has proposed. I don't envy whoever has to try to sell such a package to voters in England.
@turbotubbs - I don't think the question of size explains why most voters in England at the moment don't want an English parliament. It's more that they don't want to encourage politicians to sh*tclown it up to the max, solving what for most people is an imaginary problem.
The single biggest reason is that it's not even discussed, because the current asymmetric devolution settlement rather suits both Labour and the Tories.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
As others have said, that's a myth. It's one I used to believe as well, until a certain well-known YouTuber made a video on it earlier this year, and rebuttal videos persuaded me otherwise.
My main 'thought' had been: "Yes, the B29 was the plane designed to drop the bomb. But it was late and unreliable. If the B29 had not been used, then what was the backup?" And the Lancaster *may* have been usable against Japan, in a suicidal mission with a literal fair wind. But the US had a backup (I cannot remember the type, but it was just slightly more applicable than the Lancaster, albeit problamatic).
I do wonder if there was some truth in the Lancaster bomber, however. The use of nukes against Germany was considered, and in that the Lancaster does apparently become a viable platform. I can imagine the British government looking into that before Germany fell. But it wouldn't have managed the task against Japan.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states.
Witdh your demands for an English Parliament, you're arguing for tbhe equivalent of a US which was four states - California, Maine, Washington [edit] State and The Rest.
Exc: Rishi Sunak has asked for an audit of the progress of the war in Ukraine, sparking fears in Whitehall that he is taking an overly cautious approach. One source complained of a “Goldman Sachs dashboard” approach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64006121
The source said: "Wars aren't won [by dashboards]. Wars are won on instinct.
Really? I thought wars were won by careful planning and strategy? Weren't D-Day landing planned over the course of a year? Pretty sure Churchill didn't just wake up one morning and give the order to invade on a whim. I seemed to remember they had to be carefully timed with tides, phases of the moon, etc, kinda of like a dashboard.
Also worth remembering that UK planned out and enacted support for Ukraine began before Russia even invaded. Hence why in the early days of the war their special forces were enable to enact a very clever plan to stall the Russians.
Jeez, the source said that?
All they have to do is find someone with a war comics (Commando, GI Joe) level of understanding of warfare and they'll have found their leak.
The military can save loads of time with the Defence Academy. All these senior officers made to go through weeks and months on the combat estimate. All the work in the Command and Staff Course training. All the intelligence work to get the information they need.
And all they needed to know was to get rid of all the intelligence, all the training and estimate work and just rely on instinct. I believe there's a specific term for people who do that: "the guaranteed losers."
Quite. Staff work is like all management. When it is done right, all people see is the victorious armies. And snear at the staff work. When it is done wrong, the failure is evident.
I think Andy might be mischaracterising the debate. What is an analysis of "what we've put in and what we've got out" supposed to demonstrate at this point ?
There isn't much question about the effectiveness of particular bits of kit, or the training provided, or the requirements for ammunition, or indeed of "kill ratios".
It sounds more as though he wants to question whether it's worth fighting the war.
As sensible analysis would stack all that up, going upwards until you get to the strategic level.
Given that the report is from a hostile source, and one who made a stupid comment about planning, it is hard to say what the proposed analysis is about.
All we can say is that a series of reports, integrated into an overall report on the cost/benefits of actions so far is not a stupid thing to do. And a good idea, historically.
We will fight them on the beaches - up to a point
By land and by sea and in the air - if at all possible
We will never surrender! - resource permitting
A certain kind of Conservative views 39-45 as a terrible mistake. Obviously, they didn't/don't approve of Hitler, ghastly man. But there was an understanding to be had and the cost of the war was strengthening America and weakening the British Empire and that was an awfully high cost...
There's something similar with American isolationists.
The British Empire was moribund by 1939, and losing it was a big gain for the UK.
If Scotland had been a drain on the Empire, we would be independent by now. The fact that we are not allowed to be independent shows that the story that the rest of the UK subsidises Scotland is an utter lie, and that Scotland, in reality, subsidises the rest of the UK.
No it doesn't, only London, the South East and East are net contributors to the Treasury.
Then why not allow Scotland to be independent and save yourselves some money? (If you really believe you are right.)
Only loonies think people outside Scotland are stopping Scotland from becoming independent. The SNP could act tomorrow to trigger a Scottish general election. And if a majority voted for pro-independence parties there would have to be a referendum, and it could probably be held in the first half of next year.
The whole SNP political personality is based on a lying conflation of party with volk. It's truly vile to observe.
I'm not sure your first sentence is correct. It's pretty clear the UK government is trying to stop Scotland from becoming independent.
But I find it hard to disagree with your points on the SNP not particularly being minded to take all of the options available to it and basically stringing people along.
January 6 committee 'believes Trump should be charged with at least THREE crimes from riot'- including insurrection': Panel to vote Monday on referring him for prosecution
He'll be okay; he'll beat the court using the money from his NFTs. And if that fails, from his LASER EYES!
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
As others have said, that's a myth. It's one I used to believe as well, until a certain well-known YouTuber made a video on it earlier this year, and rebuttal videos persuaded me otherwise.
My main 'thought' had been: "Yes, the B29 was the plane designed to drop the bomb. But it was late and unreliable. If the B29 had not been used, then what was the backup?" And the Lancaster *may* have been usable against Japan, in a suicidal mission with a literal fair wind. But the US had a backup (I cannot remember the type, but it was just slightly more applicable than the Lancaster, albeit problamatic).
I do wonder if there was some truth in the Lancaster bomber, however. The use of nukes against Germany was considered, and in that the Lancaster does apparently become a viable platform. I can imagine the British government looking into that before Germany fell. But it wouldn't have managed the task against Japan.
Indeed. (And the B-32 Dominator is perhaps what you are probably thinking of, with the B-35 flying wing coming along later on.)
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
It would be like Prussia in the Weimar Republic or Russia in the USSR. Totally disproportionate.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states.
Witdh your demands for an English Parliament, you're arguing for tbhe equivalent of a US which was four states - California, Maine, Washington [edit] State and The Rest.
No, I am arguing for all 4 home nations having the same powers as all the US states do to run their own affairs
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
Because the SNP has soaked up much of the more chauvanistic vote, despite being a left leaning party. Look at our Malc (I know that he's now moved on to Alba) - do you think he's a left winger?
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law, property law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states. Even abortion law now post Dobbs is a state matter.
How can you be so certain of what powers the English Parliament would have? It doesn’t exist. Look to Scotland. Blair thought giving a bit of devolution would kill off the SNP. How wrong! I think you would see the same with English devolution.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
It would be like Prussia in the Weimar Republic or Russia in the USSR. Totally disproportionate.
Prussia worked fine in the Federal Germany until WW1.
It was rejection of Communism that led to the USSR's collapse, not Russia having its own legislature
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Hmm, fair question. It may seem like that to you, but the left of centre element is very important in the SNP vote and in SNP policies.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law, property law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states. Even abortion law now post Dobbs is a state matter.
How can you be so certain of what powers the English Parliament would have? It doesn’t exist. Look to Scotland. Blair thought giving a bit of devolution would kill off the SNP. How wrong! I think you would see the same with English devolution.
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
Because the SNP has soaked up much of the more chauvanistic vote, despite being a left leaning party. Look at our Malc (I know that he's now moved on to Alba) - do you think he's a left winger?
You're forgetting that Labour also has a lot of pro-indy [edit, sorry] voters.
And you're also forgetting that in Scotland it's the Unionists who are chauvinistic.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
And what would be devolved? Virtually everything, I’d argue. So in the end, no need for Westminster.
Perhaps, but this is still not an argument that the size of the English administrative area would bring it into an uneven conflict with the other parliaments, which is what you claimed.
I think it does though, or perhaps it is that the FM of the parliaments, one represents 56 million, the others rather less. This is unbalanced. In the US there are similar challenges in representation with small and large states.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law, property law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states. Even abortion law now post Dobbs is a state matter.
How can you be so certain of what powers the English Parliament would have? It doesn’t exist. Look to Scotland. Blair thought giving a bit of devolution would kill off the SNP. How wrong! I think you would see the same with English devolution.
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
And those powers are not enough for the Scots. Nor would they be for the English.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
Only by idiots.
Having been to, and met victims of Hiroshima, and heard the story as to why they quite possibly unnecessarily under any circumstances "tested" a second type of nuclear device on Nagasaki (and why it wasn't Kyoto) f*** the mind.
Your casual post meanders from a decent enough question as to how D day could be avoided, to a solution many times worse than the problem it replaces.
The “testing” nuke story was made up by a writer in the 1960s
The actual reason was that the industrial effort to make nukes was vast. Everyone knew this, including the Japanese - who knew all about fission, but didnt have the resources to develop it.
From the first days of the Manhattan Project, it was assumed that if it worked, 2 would have to be dropped. One to show that it existed. The second to show that it was in production.
This way why Groves built not one scientific experiment, but a production line for weapons.
Immediately after Hiroshima, Japanese scientists briefed the War Cabinet that it might be 18 months until the Americans could build another bomb.
As Niels Bohr put it (my paraphrase) - “I said that you would have to turn America into a giant science laboratory to build the Bomb. You did”
What a cop-out it was for the UN Charter to include s107:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action."
... thereby enabling a blind eye to be turned to the crime against humanity constituted by the use of nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed some still celebrate the criminal monsters responsible, whether politicians or managers or scientists, as if they were heroes.
"crime against humanity"
That would be a persuasive argument, aside from the fact we were in the middle of a world war - and one that Japan started against the USA. The Tokyo firebombings killed many tens of thousands of people - in one city alone. Japan would have suffered much more than that if the war had continued - and so would the Allies, with Russia attacking from the north, and the US/UK/etc from the sea.
There's a strong argument to be made that the nuclear bombings, hideous as they were, saved both civilian and military lives on all sides.
When talking about 'criminal monsters', you might want to also look at the Japanese leadership at the time, in the context of things like Unit 731, which killed 200k to 300k.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
As others have said, that's a myth. It's one I used to believe as well, until a certain well-known YouTuber made a video on it earlier this year, and rebuttal videos persuaded me otherwise.
My main 'thought' had been: "Yes, the B29 was the plane designed to drop the bomb. But it was late and unreliable. If the B29 had not been used, then what was the backup?" And the Lancaster *may* have been usable against Japan, in a suicidal mission with a literal fair wind. But the US had a backup (I cannot remember the type, but it was just slightly more applicable than the Lancaster, albeit problamatic).
I do wonder if there was some truth in the Lancaster bomber, however. The use of nukes against Germany was considered, and in that the Lancaster does apparently become a viable platform. I can imagine the British government looking into that before Germany fell. But it wouldn't have managed the task against Japan.
The original plan was the first bomb to be dropped on Berlin. Wigner effect, Pu240 and isotopic separation problems delayed the bomb till after Germany surrendered
The B32 was the backup to the B29 - not planned as an atom bomber either, but as the back up super heavy bomber. While considered much less capable than the B29 it had the range to hit Japan with a serious payload. And did, on a number of raids.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
And what would be devolved? Virtually everything, I’d argue. So in the end, no need for Westminster.
Perhaps, but this is still not an argument that the size of the English administrative area would bring it into an uneven conflict with the other parliaments, which is what you claimed.
I think it does though, or perhaps it is that the FM of the parliaments, one represents 56 million, the others rather less. This is unbalanced. In the US there are similar challenges in representation with small and large states.
But you have failed to outline any challenges.
I think I have. Fairness is one. If the FM meet and take a vote, who’s vote is worth more? All US states get two senators no matter how big or small the population. It’s an extreme version of having different sized constituencies in the U.K. It means some MPs are elected by fewer people than others.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. And that's only a difference in accent. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
Got to agree, it's hard to see how Scotland is closer culturally to Germany than it is to England. In what ways? I would also say there's a bigger cultural difference between the former East Germany and the former West Germany than there is between England and Scotland.
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
As others have said, that's a myth. It's one I used to believe as well, until a certain well-known YouTuber made a video on it earlier this year, and rebuttal videos persuaded me otherwise.
My main 'thought' had been: "Yes, the B29 was the plane designed to drop the bomb. But it was late and unreliable. If the B29 had not been used, then what was the backup?" And the Lancaster *may* have been usable against Japan, in a suicidal mission with a literal fair wind. But the US had a backup (I cannot remember the type, but it was just slightly more applicable than the Lancaster, albeit problamatic).
I do wonder if there was some truth in the Lancaster bomber, however. The use of nukes against Germany was considered, and in that the Lancaster does apparently become a viable platform. I can imagine the British government looking into that before Germany fell. But it wouldn't have managed the task against Japan.
The original plan was the first bomb to be dropped on Berlin. Wigner effect, Pu240 and isotopic separation problems delayed the bomb till after Germany surrendered
The B32 was the backup to the B29 - not planned as an atom bomber either, but as the back up super heavy bomber. While considered much less capable than the B29 it had the range to hit Japan with a serious payload. And did, on a number of raids.
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
IF we had an English Parliament, how do you see its relationship with existing local authorities such as County and Unitary authorities and Mayors such as in London and Manchester?
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The English FM would have no more power than Sturgeon or Drakeford do, the UK PM and Westminster would have the same power over England as they do over Scotland, Wales and NI now
Depends on the rules of engagement when it’s set up. A parliament representing 50 million people? That’s a large country.
So what? California has 39 million people and is still just a state within the US despite its own governor and legislature
39 million in 331 million is rather different to 56 million in 67 million.
It isn't, given the English Parliament would have no more power over English domestic policy than the Californa legislature does over Californian domestic policy, indeed arguably less so.
In the US the Federal government only really has full control of foreign policy and defence and some tax, most education policy, criminal law, property law and the police, health and education is devolved to the states. Even abortion law now post Dobbs is a state matter.
How can you be so certain of what powers the English Parliament would have? It doesn’t exist. Look to Scotland. Blair thought giving a bit of devolution would kill off the SNP. How wrong! I think you would see the same with English devolution.
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
And those powers are not enough for the Scots. Nor would they be for the English.
And if Scotland gets more powers, so should England as one Union.
Or scrap Holyrood and the Senedd and restore one full Union again under full Westminster authority
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
IF we had an English Parliament, how do you see its relationship with existing local authorities such as County and Unitary authorities and Mayors such as in London and Manchester?
No different, given it would just be a transfer of powers over English domestic policy held by Westminster to the English Parliament
It’s just occurred to me we could have avoided all the pain of D Day by dropping a few nukes in early 1945
Berlin, Munich, Vienna: bang. War over and total German surrender
Was this considered?
I personally blame God.
Since he invented the universe, he made the rules.
In turn physics delayed U235 separation and the Wigner effect and PU240 delayed the plutonium bomb.
Otherwise we’d have been nuking stuff in 1944.
It was only after the Trinity Test it was known that it was a war winning weapon, as opposed to a really big block buster.
What amazes me is the fact we go on about the 'Manhattan Project' as being a really expensive, high-tech thing. Yet the B-29 bomber project that dropped the bomb cost $3 billion. The Manhattan Project itself was 'just' under $2 billion. So the delivery system cost more than the development of the bomb itself.
And the really crazy thing is that the US government had more confidence in the bomb itself than the bomber. When Enola Gay took off, it passed the remains of several other crashed B29's.
Delivery systems matter. Which is why people look at NK's rockets with such alarm.
That B29s were used to drop the atom bombs on Japan owed much to American protectionism. There already was a plane that could have carried the bombs, but unfortunately, it was British, the Avro Lancaster.
As others have said, that's a myth. It's one I used to believe as well, until a certain well-known YouTuber made a video on it earlier this year, and rebuttal videos persuaded me otherwise.
My main 'thought' had been: "Yes, the B29 was the plane designed to drop the bomb. But it was late and unreliable. If the B29 had not been used, then what was the backup?" And the Lancaster *may* have been usable against Japan, in a suicidal mission with a literal fair wind. But the US had a backup (I cannot remember the type, but it was just slightly more applicable than the Lancaster, albeit problamatic).
I do wonder if there was some truth in the Lancaster bomber, however. The use of nukes against Germany was considered, and in that the Lancaster does apparently become a viable platform. I can imagine the British government looking into that before Germany fell. But it wouldn't have managed the task against Japan.
The original plan was the first bomb to be dropped on Berlin. Wigner effect, Pu240 and isotopic separation problems delayed the bomb till after Germany surrendered
The B32 was the backup to the B29 - not planned as an atom bomber either, but as the back up super heavy bomber. While considered much less capable than the B29 it had the range to hit Japan with a serious payload. And did, on a number of raids.
Thanks to you and Carnyx for the B32 info. I couldn't remember the backup type.
The backup to the B29, in the end was the B29D. A B29 with revised structure and the engines of a B36. They nearly cancelled regular B29 production to bring that forward, but the engine requirement would have reduced deliveries, initially.
The backup to that backup plan was what became the B54 - a B50 with some mad turbo-compound engines.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. And that's only a difference in accent. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
Got to agree, it's hard to see how Scotland is closer culturally to Germany than it is to England. In what ways? I would also say there's a bigger cultural difference between the former East Germany and the former West Germany than there is between England and Scotland.
I'd agree, though my assessment of that is only anecdotal - having had a few friends from both sides. Actually only one good friend on the Eastern side.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
It’s a problem of size. Too big to be on equal footing with the Scots and Welsh parliaments. So the obvious solution is either regional parliaments, or just scrap the Scottish and Welsh ones…
In what scenario would the 'bigness' of the English parliament cause an issue with the Scottish and Welsh ones?
Well for a start what would be the status of the Westminster parliament? And would the leader of the English parliament almost rank the same as the PM?
The Westminster Parliament would legislate on reserved matters I suppose, and the English PM would run devolved English matters. Is that it?
And what would be devolved? Virtually everything, I’d argue. So in the end, no need for Westminster.
Perhaps, but this is still not an argument that the size of the English administrative area would bring it into an uneven conflict with the other parliaments, which is what you claimed.
I think it does though, or perhaps it is that the FM of the parliaments, one represents 56 million, the others rather less. This is unbalanced. In the US there are similar challenges in representation with small and large states.
But you have failed to outline any challenges.
I think I have. Fairness is one. If the FM meet and take a vote, who’s vote is worth more? All US states get two senators no matter how big or small the population. It’s an extreme version of having different sized constituencies in the U.K. It means some MPs are elected by fewer people than others.
But there is no mechanism within the devolution settlement where they would meet to have a vote.
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
IF we had an English Parliament, how do you see its relationship with existing local authorities such as County and Unitary authorities and Mayors such as in London and Manchester?
No different, given it would just be a transfer of powers over English domestic policy held by Westminster to the English Parliament
Just so I'm clear - you would not advocate the transfer of any powers from local authorities to the English Parliament.
Why? It would just be given the same powers as Holyrood and the Senedd and Stormont.
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
IF we had an English Parliament, how do you see its relationship with existing local authorities such as County and Unitary authorities and Mayors such as in London and Manchester?
No different, given it would just be a transfer of powers over English domestic policy held by Westminster to the English Parliament
Just so I'm clear - you would not advocate the transfer of any powers from local authorities to the English Parliament.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. And that's only a difference in accent. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
Got to agree, it's hard to see how Scotland is closer culturally to Germany than it is to England. In what ways? I would also say there's a bigger cultural difference between the former East Germany and the former West Germany than there is between England and Scotland.
Yes, I'm struggling to think of any major cultural differences between England and Scotland where Scotland is morer similar to another country. What cultural distinctions does Scotland have from England? How are the Scots different? The accent is the most obvious, but that's slightly spurious: there are big differences in accent just within England. So I don't think it's accent. Banknotes and laws - these are not unimportant: I would argue that along with religion, language and constitution they are the basis of a national identity. Thoughwhile these are different to England's, they are more like England's than any other. I think religion is probably important. Scotland's presbyterianism is significantly different to England's episcopalianism. This doesn't feel like it should be a major issue in a secular age, but I would argue that quite a lot of small butterfly effects hang off it. For example, the two biggest reasons a given small town feels Scottish and not English are its housing mix and its pubs. I would argue that this stems from Scotland's enthusiasm for council housing and it's greater wariness of alcohol; both of which, I think, stem indirecttly from Presbyterianism. In this respect, I can see the kernel of a point that Scotland is more akin to Scandinavia. There is also a population density angle which might merit some teasing out. But I think the cultural similarities with England are much, much greater.
Such is the extent of my thrills, in late middle age. Fish fucking stew
Getting crabbit in your old age, I see.
I do make unbeLIEVable cioppino, tho
Two secrets: forget the white wine, add fine dry sherry. Also some black mustard seeds and birds eye chili at the start, then add dashi halfway through
Accompany with the best toasted sourdough rubbed with perfect olive oil and cloves of garlic
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
A remarkably cold string of nights this month. -11C again already in parts of the West Country and midlands. I can’t remember the last time snow stayed on the ground so long in London - not during the beast in 2018 nor in the very cold December of 2010.
Meanwhile Albania had its warmest ever December day and Southern Ukraine is basking in the teens.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
Only middle class kids (or rather middle class kids' parents) apply for private school scholarships.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
Only middle class kids (or rather middle class kids' parents) apply for private school scholarships.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
Thereby giving one person a bottle of water, instead of digging the village a well
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
Such is the extent of my thrills, in late middle age. Fish fucking stew
Getting crabbit in your old age, I see.
I do make unbeLIEVable cioppino, tho
Two secrets: forget the white wine, add fine dry sherry. Also some black mustard seeds and birds eye chili at the start, then add dashi halfway through
Accompany with the best toasted sourdough rubbed with perfect olive oil and cloves of garlic
OMFG
This sounds very nice indeed. I like a fish stew. Tonight was fish curry night for us. A marvellous dish, because a) it takes half an hour at most, and b) all three kids will eat it. I suspect my fish curry is a lot less sophisticated though. I shall experiment with your approach to cioppino, next time I just have adults to feed.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
I seem to recall the act of union, many years ago forming one country.
“One country”. Ho ho. Bye bye “BetterTogether”.
Apologies if you've answered this before, but have you always been a convinced nationalist or did your views develop over time?
“A convinced nationalist”?
Hmm. I am a convinced opponent of British nationalism. Does that answer your question?
So your real opponents are fellow Scots who disagree with you? Your main credo is "Scotland is a nation" and therefore you see support for being part of the UK as anathema.
The enemy within, as always.
Trying to remember the last UK pol who literally used the term ‘enemy within’ about British people. I’m sure it’ll come to me..
Hmm... not Arthur Donaldson?
Is that the Arthur Donaldson who was a Scottish politician at the same time (90 years ago) that Oswald Mosley was an English politician?
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
Thereby giving one person a bottle of water, instead of digging the village a well
Which would require building more grammar schools again
Such is the extent of my thrills, in late middle age. Fish fucking stew
Getting crabbit in your old age, I see.
I do make unbeLIEVable cioppino, tho
Two secrets: forget the white wine, add fine dry sherry. Also some black mustard seeds and birds eye chili at the start, then add dashi halfway through
Accompany with the best toasted sourdough rubbed with perfect olive oil and cloves of garlic
OMFG
This sounds very nice indeed. I like a fish stew. Tonight was fish curry night for us. A marvellous dish, because a) it takes half an hour at most, and b) all three kids will eat it. I suspect my fish curry is a lot less sophisticated though. I shall experiment with your approach to cioppino, next time I just have adults to feed.
It's wholly delicious. It looks like yer classic rustic fish stew (which is a good thing, no promise of fancy food) but the depth of flavour is quite something: like you'd get from a brilliant gastropub absolutely on point
I use this Rick Stein recipe as a basis, then add the sherry (for wine), dashi, chili (heat is really important) I also use sliced fennel in the base for extra flavour, it's better than celery
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
A remarkably cold string of nights this month. -11C again already in parts of the West Country and midlands. I can’t remember the last time snow stayed on the ground so long in London - not during the beast in 2018 nor in the very cold December of 2010.
Meanwhile Albania had its warmest ever December day and Southern Ukraine is basking in the teens.
The latter just as well given the damage Russia is doing to their power grid.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Hmm, fair question. It may seem like that to you, but the left of centre element is very important in the SNP vote and in SNP policies.
There was a significant change in the SNP’s place on the political spectrum in 2014, probably because of the socialists that left Labour and joined the SNP during and after the referendum campaign. Alex Salmond’s SNP worked because it accepted accommodations with the Conservatives. Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP would be horrified at the thought of agreeing with the Conservatives.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Hmm, fair question. It may seem like that to you, but the left of centre element is very important in the SNP vote and in SNP policies.
There was a significant change in the SNP’s place on the political spectrum in 2014, probably because of the socialists that left Labour and joined the SNP during and after the referendum campaign. Alex Salmond’s SNP worked because it accepted accommodations with the Conservatives. Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP would be horrified at the thought of agreeing with the Conservatives.
Which is richly ironic given the eerie similarity of their policy platform.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. No reply to my query of this. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
I would have thought labour would be a relatively small part of the cost of a Roller, at least the labour in the RR factory.
I think its the opposite. Most Rolls-Royce vehicles take six months to build as hand made and each is unique, so labour is going to be significant part of the cost.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I suspect so. I do know they have a limit of three per school. How they enforce that will be part of a contract we never see. So it may also be that they are seeing who makes the podium?
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
Yes, when we try to employ an Agency locum in a regular contract we have to pay the agency commission too. Quite a lot of money as I remember.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I suspect so. I do know they have a limit of three per school. How they enforce that will be part of a contract we never see. So it may also be that they are seeing who makes the podium?
Whole system is just crass, isn't it?
I'm glad I'm out. Good luck with it all, I hope it comes right for you.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I suspect so. I do know they have a limit of three per school. How they enforce that will be part of a contract we never see. So it may also be that they are seeing who makes the podium?
Whole system is just crass, isn't it?
I'm glad I'm out. Good luck with it all, I hope it comes right for you.
It is. Glad you're happy to be out. In a strange way I'm quite enjoying it in a perverse manner. I've come back with eyes wide open and an understanding of where the power now actually lies. It is with long-term supply, not the Senior Leadership Team. We're practically irreplaceable. They aren't. I do my job. No BS on top.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
Yes, when we try to employ an Agency locum in a regular contract we have to pay the agency commission too. Quite a lot of money as I remember.
Equivalent to the finder's fee you would pay an agency if they were explicitly tasked with finding you a staff bod.
This is why companies operate "recruit a friend" bonus schemes for their staff - so much cheaper. I complain about this, on the basis that it does not promote diversity, since employees' friendsare likely to come from similar backgrounds to themselves. (The fact that I do not have any friends to recruit may also be a factor.)
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
Why then are there so few private schools in Grimsby and so many in Surrey?
As people in Surrey are more likely to be rich and generally middle class, both the state and private schools are normally good and more can afford private schools.
Average house price in Surrey £653,389, average house price in Grimsby £143,353
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I suspect so. I do know they have a limit of three per school. How they enforce that will be part of a contract we never see. So it may also be that they are seeing who makes the podium?
Whole system is just crass, isn't it?
I'm glad I'm out. Good luck with it all, I hope it comes right for you.
It is. Glad you're happy to be out. In a strange way I'm quite enjoying it in a perverse manner. I've come back with eyes wide open and an understanding of where the power now actually lies. It is with long-term supply, not the Senior Leadership Team. We're practically irreplaceable. They aren't. I do my job. No BS on top.
Yes, I have pretty much called it a day in medical management, and really enjoying being back in the front line.
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
Why then are there so few private schools in Grimsby and so many in Surrey?
As people in Surrey are more likely to be rich and generally middle class, both the state and private schools are normally good and more can afford private schools.
Average house price in Surrey £653,389, average house price in Grimsby £143,353
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
Why then are there so few private schools in Grimsby and so many in Surrey?
As people in Surrey are more likely to be rich and generally middle class, both the state and private schools are normally good and more can afford private schools.
Average house price in Surrey £653,389, average house price in Grimsby £143,353
So both State and Private schools are good in places with rich parents? I wonder why.
Yes, we have selection by house price and parental wallet size on the whole now, with a bit by church attendance or brains still in areas with faith schools or the few remaining grammars
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I suspect so. I do know they have a limit of three per school. How they enforce that will be part of a contract we never see. So it may also be that they are seeing who makes the podium?
Whole system is just crass, isn't it?
I'm glad I'm out. Good luck with it all, I hope it comes right for you.
It is. Glad you're happy to be out. In a strange way I'm quite enjoying it in a perverse manner. I've come back with eyes wide open and an understanding of where the power now actually lies. It is with long-term supply, not the Senior Leadership Team. We're practically irreplaceable. They aren't. I do my job. No BS on top.
Yes, I have pretty much called it a day in medical management, and really enjoying being back in the front line.
Yes. It is delicious fun to receive personal education plans for kids drawn up by people who barely recognise them. Six lessons attended a day and twice outside for play. And just say "OK. But it can't be done. My aims are safe, regulated and happy. Anything else is a bonus. Can you find anyone to do better? Because you're welcome to try."
Quite a few now with Green and LD on roughly 5% and 8% respectively, despite the volatility in others like REF. LLG 61% vs REFCON 32%.
There has to be an element of the Libdem vote that will never ever vote Labour - I vote Libdem becuase I don’t recognise Conservatives as conservatism these days, and I would never vote Labour.
Not even now they've made it clear they'll remove the private school subsidy?
“Labour would end tax breaks for private schools and invest in thousands more teachers, more mental health support in every school and professional careers advice to ensure young people are ready for work and ready for life”
Is this it, is gimmicks like this all they got?
I hate this gimmicky politics, and Labour leading the field in shit like this now Boris is out the game - this policy stinks like any magic money tree promise, because even at Labours best estimate it nets treasury £1.7bn, the current education budget is £100bn. And what about the obvious inherent vice of it not getting in near 1.7bn but creates new government costs instead, as children switch to state schooling? At the moment is the scenario of the wealthy subsidising education with their own money, rather than dumping those further costs on the state.
Economically illiterate Labour think we are stupid. Where’s the real growth making, education and health funding policies from them?
That sounds like a no.
Labour can stop me voting Conservative to keep them out - and I’m not alone in that based on last election. But they can’t do anything to get me to vote for them. That doesn’t mean if they came up with sensible economic policies I would dislike them or be unfair about it - but the tax break axe in private schools, and banning non Dom status don’t remotely add up financially - they are silly gimmicks economically, so what are they playing at. Just wasting their own time to tie voters down with some sensible policies.
Labour are the party of the greedy union barons. On strike yesterday was a union on 37K average wage demanding 19% more. No wonder Labour going down in the polls, their paymasters causing such discontent and division in our country. He who pays the piper plays the tune. These strikes are bad news for Labour because we all know if they were in power they would squirm and surrender to these greedy pay demands.
Given that, as you say, nothing Labour could propose could possibly get you to vote for them, I don't think they should be wasting their time trying to win you over.
That's true of quite a few other posters on here; those who are dismayed at any proposal from Labour, but wouldn't countenance voting for them whatever they proposed.
The private school policy is either ineffectual gesture politics or outright class war - nice choice for 'never labours' there.
"class war" and "ineffectual" aren't mutually exclusive, I wouldn't have thought.
But you have to be a real wuss to worry about ineffectual class war.
True, but you can dislike something without worrying about it. And you can worry about the signal a policy sends for what other policies might be being hidden without worrying about the policy that's actually being mooted.
The symbolism, you mean? A clue to the direction of travel? Yep. You make a good point here. You clearly have your thi ... no, enough of that like I promised.
But yes. If someone's instinct is to defend privilege rather than attack it they'll recoil from this, regardless of its expected practical impact in isolation. The policy is a litmus test in this regard.
"Privilege" doesn't have to have anything to do with it, though. Either you have a world where the State has full control of the education system or it doesn't, and in the latter case you get private schools, private tutoring and "education otherwise" (amongst others).
The "attempt to tax them out of existence" plan only exists because even the most red-blooded Socialist isn't going to attack homeschooling, I would suggest.
You're over the hills and far way. Private schools strengthen the link between educational outcomes - therefore life prospects - and family wealth. About 15% can afford it. About half of these do it. This is privilege by any reasonable definition of the word. Fine, there will always be privilege on offer to those with enough money but at the moment it's subsidized via favourable tax treatment. That's perverse and the policy is merely to correct this. It's a slam dunk reform that's impossible to argue against rationally without admitting that equal opportunities aren't a priority. Hence why nobody does. They go over the hills and far away.
You are admitting that private schools are better than state schools, which is interesting.
And leads to the inescapable conclusion that this policy is aimed at levelling down not levelling up. Preferring everyone being worse off as long as those best off lose most to everyone being better off even if the best off gain most.
And this is precisely why it is a very bad sign of a policy.
High spend per pupil plus advantaged intake spells good facilities and high grades. Plus the 'gated community' effect. Contacts. Networks. All that. Does not mean better schools in the sense you infer, that of being better than state schools at what they do. Some are, some aren't.
Whatever, the question is should the sector be subsidised? Is private education for the small sufficiently wedged up minority a societal good that should be given a helping hand via tax breaks? That's a no and a no. Literally - it's a no no.
There is a good argument for subsidy in that by sending your children to private school, you are saving the government a lot of money on state education. I think the subsidies should remain, private schools are unaffordable as it is.
Most of the parents I know want to have the choice of sending their children to private school, even though most of them are 'left leaning' voters. The actual decision is going to depend on things like what is right for the child and the quality of the alternative state schools which is very variable. I don't think this politicking is particularly smart.
But you're subsidising an engine of inequality.
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
No it isn't, there is also a huge difference between a failing state school in Grimsby for example and an outstanding state school in Surrey.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
For avoidance of doubt, @HYUFD, I assume you would also accept there would be the same difference between a failing state school in Surrey and an outstanding state school in Grimsby, in which case you would be better in a state school in Grimsby.
Why then are there so few private schools in Grimsby and so many in Surrey?
As people in Surrey are more likely to be rich and generally middle class, both the state and private schools are normally good and more can afford private schools.
Average house price in Surrey £653,389, average house price in Grimsby £143,353
So both State and Private schools are good in places with rich parents? I wonder why.
Yes, we have selection by house price and parental wallet size on the whole now, with a bit by church attendance or brains still in areas with faith schools or the few remaining grammars
One of the reasons I am content not to have become a parent. Having to attend mass for years on end just to secure a place at the Catholic school in Bish would have been a tough ask.
God night - and sorry I was a bit off with you this time yesterday.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
I think there’s a bigger difference between inner London and any other part of the UK - culturally, politically, economically, architecturally - than between any of the regions and nations of the union.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
@The_TUC NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
Is this greedy and inflationary? Have the government condemned it as such?
Well, it turns out they haven't exactly. Part of it is a one-off fuel payment for the winter. I'm sure the government are appalled though as these kind of headlines put more pressure on them to raise pay in line with inflation.
Have you broken up yet?
No Sir. December 22 for kids. Teacher Training day December 23.
What stupid tosser thought that was a good idea?
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Shrugs wryly. This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery). I'm expected at this Training Day. Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
Good for you. Sounds a pointless exercise to me, and that's based on bitter experience.
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I suspect so. I do know they have a limit of three per school. How they enforce that will be part of a contract we never see. So it may also be that they are seeing who makes the podium?
Whole system is just crass, isn't it?
I'm glad I'm out. Good luck with it all, I hope it comes right for you.
It is. Glad you're happy to be out. In a strange way I'm quite enjoying it in a perverse manner. I've come back with eyes wide open and an understanding of where the power now actually lies. It is with long-term supply, not the Senior Leadership Team. We're practically irreplaceable. They aren't. I do my job. No BS on top.
Yes, I have pretty much called it a day in medical management, and really enjoying being back in the front line.
Yes. It is delicious fun to receive personal education plans for kids drawn up by people who barely recognise them. Six lessons attended a day and twice outside for play. And just say "OK. But it can't be done. My aims are safe, regulated and happy. Anything else is a bonus. Can you find anyone to do better? Because you're welcome to try."
The nice thing about working for yourself is that you can call your boss a wanker and nobody worries.*
You also get to decide when to work and when not to.
It almost makes up for the long pay, low income and job insecurity.
*except psychiatrists, who wonder about schizophrenia.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
I think there’s a bigger difference between inner London and any other part of the UK - culturally, politically, economically, architecturally - than between any of the regions and nations of the union.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
Same across most of the world arguably.
Inner city areas have more in common with inner city areas and rural areas more in common with rural areas etc regardless of nation economically and culturally than rural areas do with inner city areas in the same nation. The suburbs and provincial towns in between
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
I think there’s a bigger difference between inner London and any other part of the UK - culturally, politically, economically, architecturally - than between any of the regions and nations of the union.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
Inner London is just about the only bit of the UK that hasn't been entirely shat on by lefties, right down to the lovely preserved architecture
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
I think there’s a bigger difference between inner London and any other part of the UK - culturally, politically, economically, architecturally - than between any of the regions and nations of the union.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
Inner London is just about the only bit of the UK that hasn't been entirely shat on by lefties, right down to the lovely preserved architecture
Inner London is also the only region of the UK that voted against Brexit and for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019.
It is leftie globalists central (with a few libertarian rightwingers still left in West London)
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
I think there’s a bigger difference between inner London and any other part of the UK - culturally, politically, economically, architecturally - than between any of the regions and nations of the union.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
Inner London is just about the only bit of the UK that hasn't been entirely shat on by lefties, right down to the lovely preserved architecture
Inner London is also the only region of the UK that voted against Brexit and for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019.
It is leftie globalists central
I never said lefties are clever. They are not. They are moronic hypocrites, generally
I would have thought labour would be a relatively small part of the cost of a Roller, at least the labour in the RR factory.
Quite the opposite. The cars are expensive mostly because they are quite literally hand-made.
I suppose it isn't a very price sensitive market.
One of my colleagues once got bored with his private practice, so decided to quieten it down by doubling his charges across the board. His PP clinics became busier than ever "he must be good, he charges twice as much as the others". True story.
Bill Gates uses charitable causes to cover up his own personal malfeasance. It's not an unknown way of hiding in plain sight as a dick head or worse. Jimmy Savile did it too.
If anyone is interested in that stuff, Gate’s ex-wife have some interesting reasons for the divorce.
His friendship with Epstein was chief among the reasons. He's as bad as Prince Andrew but because he gives to the right causes people have decided to ignore it. It's another Jimmy Savile scandal waiting to be blown open.
It fascinating how uninterested large portions of the fourth estate are in regards to just who were buddy buddy with Epstein and just what was the true backstory. He seemed to manage to transform from a minor conman pretending to be a teacher, to secondary figure in a wallstreet ponzi in the late 1980s, to this guy who was all these famous people's bestie.
That's quite a leap of upward mobility.
Epstein was friends with and did some work with Robert Maxwell. It was Maxwell pere who introduced his daughter to Epstein. I'd love to know the full story behind what Epstein was doing with and for Maxwell.
I would have thought labour would be a relatively small part of the cost of a Roller, at least the labour in the RR factory.
Quite the opposite. The cars are expensive mostly because they are quite literally hand-made.
I suppose it isn't a very price sensitive market.
One of my colleagues once got bored with his private practice, so decided to quieten it down by doubling his charges across the board. His PP clinics became busier than ever "he must be good, he charges twice as much as the others". True story.
Easy to believe. Pricing policy sends an extremely strong message. If it’s bloody expensive it must be bloody good. A fallacy of course. Look at membership of the United Kingdom.
Just to reinforce this point the Savanta MRP published earlier this week which had a Labour majority of 314 and the Tories on 69 seats showed Stretford as:
That MRP came in for a heck of a lot of criticism here on PB. I think your post shows that is should be taken seriously. I’m sure that in the privacy of their own forums, Conservative strategists are indeed extremely worried.
Well, I mean, if you think the next general election will be exactly like 650 mid-term by-elections, yes.
Your criticism is valid for normal VI polling, however MRP is not a poll.
(1) It's still based on how people say now how they'll vote, right? (2) The result was entirely consistent with a mid-term by-election.
Consequently we can conclude that this is evidence to support the proposition that "how people say in mid term they'll vote in a general election tomorrow" coincides with "how they would vote in a mid-term by-election tomorrow", which we know doesn't correlate well with "how they will end up voting in a general election in a couple of years time".
Bill Gates uses charitable causes to cover up his own personal malfeasance. It's not an unknown way of hiding in plain sight as a dick head or worse. Jimmy Savile did it too.
If anyone is interested in that stuff, Gate’s ex-wife have some interesting reasons for the divorce.
His friendship with Epstein was chief among the reasons. He's as bad as Prince Andrew but because he gives to the right causes people have decided to ignore it. It's another Jimmy Savile scandal waiting to be blown open.
It fascinating how uninterested large portions of the fourth estate are in regards to just who were buddy buddy with Epstein and just what was the true backstory. He seemed to manage to transform from a minor conman pretending to be a teacher, to secondary figure in a wallstreet ponzi in the late 1980s, to this guy who was all these famous people's bestie.
That's quite a leap of upward mobility.
Epstein was friends with and did some work with Robert Maxwell. It was Maxwell pere who introduced his daughter to Epstein. I'd love to know the full story behind what Epstein was doing with and for Maxwell.
Someone knows. It’s not that long ago. Many of the people involved are still fit and well.
But unfortunately, investigative journalism is pretty much deceased.
Why should Scotland be treated as a geographical fragment of England? Scotland is not a geographical fragment, but a nation.
Scotland has its own parliament, unlike England AND elects MPs to Westminster
I don’t understand why English folk don’t want an English Parliament. You are a fine, proud and independent nation. You should have your own parliament.
I don't disagree, our own parliament on the same basis as the other 3 nations within the UK
I would be happy with four separate parliaments for the four British nations, with a separate, joint parliament for intranational decisions for areas of commonality, such as defence and trade. It would probably require a compromise on our relations with other European nations, probably us all agreeing to join EFTA. We would all be independent nations, as France, Germany, Italy, Poland, etc, are within the EU. We’re different, but close. Some of my posts are tongue in cheek, but intended to make non Scots realise we are different to the other countries of the UK, and, in many ways, closer to Scandinavia, Germany and even France than we are to England. I would like England to be more inclusive and I am sad that, since brexit, you are more isolationist.
I respect your willingness to find a peaceful coexistence, and I agree that Scotland's unique history, culture and nationhood should be respected and cherished. However, having grown up in England, and now lived in Scotland for a long time (and lived in France for 3 months), I have to say that I think your idea that Scotland is closer culturally to Sweden, Germany, France or any of the above than it is to England, is a thorough-going delusion. Visit provincial towns North and South of the border. Same buildings, same shops, same views, same mores, same housing, same people in the streets. You have to speak to people to hear a difference. Sorry if that offends or upsets, but we are you.
In which case - why do they persistently vote for different parties along the L/R spectrum?
From here it looks like the SNP vote is driven to a large extent by those in favour of nationalism for Scotland. Is the overall vote split that different to England? It’s not that long ago that Labour held power in England (majority of English seats).
Just back from taking the dogs for their evening walkie. I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion. After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence. The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
I think there’s a bigger difference between inner London and any other part of the UK - culturally, politically, economically, architecturally - than between any of the regions and nations of the union.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
Inner London is just about the only bit of the UK that hasn't been entirely shat on by lefties, right down to the lovely preserved architecture
Inner London is also the only region of the UK that voted against Brexit and for Corbyn in 2017 and 2019.
It is leftie globalists central
I never said lefties are clever. They are not. They are moronic hypocrites, generally
Most studies indicate that the smartest people tend to be centrists, typically voting Green or Lib Dem (or the equivalent in other countries). People of average intelligence tend to vote for the main right or left wing parties, e.g. Conservative or Labour in the UK, while those of lower cognitive ability are more likely to favour nationalist or extremist parties.
I would have thought labour would be a relatively small part of the cost of a Roller, at least the labour in the RR factory.
Quite the opposite. The cars are expensive mostly because they are quite literally hand-made.
I suppose it isn't a very price sensitive market.
One of my colleagues once got bored with his private practice, so decided to quieten it down by doubling his charges across the board. His PP clinics became busier than ever "he must be good, he charges twice as much as the others". True story.
University admission is the same. We had a deoartment getting too many applicants, so they increased the required grades. Applicants assumed the department better than others with (now) lower grades and applications increased. It also works in reverse. Departments that are struggling should never lower grades, as fewer still will apply.
Comments
My main 'thought' had been: "Yes, the B29 was the plane designed to drop the bomb. But it was late and unreliable. If the B29 had not been used, then what was the backup?" And the Lancaster *may* have been usable against Japan, in a suicidal mission with a literal fair wind. But the US had a backup (I cannot remember the type, but it was just slightly more applicable than the Lancaster, albeit problamatic).
I do wonder if there was some truth in the Lancaster bomber, however. The use of nukes against Germany was considered, and in that the Lancaster does apparently become a viable platform. I can imagine the British government looking into that before Germany fell. But it wouldn't have managed the task against Japan.
NEW 🚨🚗 | Rolls Royce workers in Chichester have won a record 17.6% pay increase - the best pay deal in the site's history.
But I find it hard to disagree with your points on the SNP not particularly being minded to take all of the options available to it and basically stringing people along.
It was rejection of Communism that led to the USSR's collapse, not Russia having its own legislature
https://www.politicalcompass.org/scotland2021
It is England being denied its own Parliament on the same terms that will most likely feed English nationalism, especially if England voted Tory but got a Labour led UK government.
England not having its own Parliament also enables the SNP to portray Westminster as the English Parliament by default
And you're also forgetting that in Scotland it's the Unionists who are chauvinistic.
That would be a persuasive argument, aside from the fact we were in the middle of a world war - and one that Japan started against the USA. The Tokyo firebombings killed many tens of thousands of people - in one city alone. Japan would have suffered much more than that if the war had continued - and so would the Allies, with Russia attacking from the north, and the US/UK/etc from the sea.
There's a strong argument to be made that the nuclear bombings, hideous as they were, saved both civilian and military lives on all sides.
When talking about 'criminal monsters', you might want to also look at the Japanese leadership at the time, in the context of things like Unit 731, which killed 200k to 300k.
The B32 was the backup to the B29 - not planned as an atom bomber either, but as the back up super heavy bomber. While considered much less capable than the B29 it had the range to hit Japan with a serious payload. And did, on a number of raids.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_B-32_Dominator
I would also say there's a bigger cultural difference between the former East Germany and the former West Germany than there is between England and Scotland.
Or scrap Holyrood and the Senedd and restore one full Union again under full Westminster authority
The backup to that backup plan was what became the B54 - a B50 with some mad turbo-compound engines.
Have the government condemned it as such?
Have you broken up yet?
I think religion is probably important. Scotland's presbyterianism is significantly different to England's episcopalianism. This doesn't feel like it should be a major issue in a secular age, but I would argue that quite a lot of small butterfly effects hang off it. For example, the two biggest reasons a given small town feels Scottish and not English are its housing mix and its pubs. I would argue that this stems from Scotland's enthusiasm for council housing and it's greater wariness of alcohol; both of which, I think, stem indirecttly from Presbyterianism. In this respect, I can see the kernel of a point that Scotland is more akin to Scandinavia.
There is also a population density angle which might merit some teasing out.
But I think the cultural similarities with England are much, much greater.
Two secrets: forget the white wine, add fine dry sherry. Also some black mustard seeds and birds eye chili at the start, then add dashi halfway through
Accompany with the best toasted sourdough rubbed with perfect olive oil and cloves of garlic
OMFG
Imagine we have 100% state schools and then someone comes along and says, "Hey, idea. Let's have a parallel system that only the wealthiest 10% or so can afford that will give their kids an even bigger advantage than they already have from being in the wealthiest 10%".
And before you have a chance to respond ...
"And let's subsidise it too. Give tax breaks. Call it a charity or something. Offer a few free places, that sort of thing."
It's absurd.
A scholarship to a private school gives a working class pupil more chance of getting an education to match the latter if they come from Grimsby than going to the local state school would
December 22 for kids.
Teacher Training day December 23.
Meanwhile Albania had its warmest ever December day and Southern Ukraine is basking in the teens.
I spent the first 20 years of my life in the south of England, and have found fundamental differences between there and here. Of course we currently have the same shops, houses, etc., as currently we are the same country. That doesn’t mean our worldview is the same. I also accept that Scottish unionists like @DavidL don’t think the same as me, and that’s fine, and I hope Scotland, and Britain continues to be accepting of all shades of opinion.
After Independence, the Scots vote would revert to left/right in various forms. Scotland has for many years been more centre left than England. I see no reason why that would change. There may well be new parties, as well as the current parties. The SNP would need to find a place on that spectrum if they were to survive. This, incidentally, is the reason that the time servers in the SNP don’t really want independence.
The difference between Scotland and England politically would probably be that Scotland would continue with a form of proportional representation, with a spectrum of parties, c.f. Denmark, Sweden, Germany, rather than FPTP. Although I believe that England would benefit from replacing FPTP, that’s not my right to decide.
Tonight was fish curry night for us. A marvellous dish, because a) it takes half an hour at most, and b) all three kids will eat it. I suspect my fish curry is a lot less sophisticated though.
I shall experiment with your approach to cioppino, next time I just have adults to feed.
https://news.sky.com/story/rolls-royce-motor-cars-gives-factory-workers-pay-award-of-up-to-17-6-to-avert-strikes-12768934
I would have thought labour would be a relatively small part of the cost of a Roller, at least the labour in the RR factory.
I use this Rick Stein recipe as a basis, then add the sherry (for wine), dashi, chili (heat is really important) I also use sliced fennel in the base for extra flavour, it's better than celery
https://thehappyfoodie.co.uk/recipes/monkfish-mussel-and-prawn-stew-with-char-grilled-sourdough-cioppino/
I mean - I can understand a late breakup given the nature of your school, even though it will be even tougher than normal next week for you, for which you have my deepest sympathy and admiration.
But what moron would keep you in longer than needed? What do they think you will achieve?
I did leave a school whose new head decided to behave like that. So did everyone else...
Who edited my wikipedia entry? I never dated Arthur Lowe of Dad's army. It was Arthur LOEW, Jr. of the famous cinematic dynasty-Gedditright!
https://twitter.com/joancollinsdbe/status/112473160372334592?lang=en
This will amuse you. I am technically supply. Yet booked in for the rest of the year (quite why they don't put me on the staff to save oodles of money is a mystery).
I'm expected at this Training Day. No reply to my query of this.
Spoiler alert. I'm not going. I'm not staff.
"Assess the relative merits of Spandau Ballet and Duran Duran."
As for the other question, my guess (which could obviously be completely wrong) would be that your agency demands an additional fee if the school offers you a permanent contract, which when NI and pension is added in means it isn't worth it.
I'm glad I'm out. Good luck with it all, I hope it comes right for you.
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/two-surrey-secondary-schools-inadequate-24942345
https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/schools-grimsby-cleethorpes-ofsted-results-2696653
17 Surrey secondary schools are rated Outstanding by contrast
https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/best-secondary-schools-ofsted-outstanding-23277905
Glad you're happy to be out.
In a strange way I'm quite enjoying it in a perverse manner. I've come back with eyes wide open and an understanding of where the power now
actually lies.
It is with long-term supply, not the Senior Leadership Team.
We're practically irreplaceable. They aren't.
I do my job. No BS on top.
This is why companies operate "recruit a friend" bonus schemes for their staff - so much cheaper. I complain about this, on the basis that it does not promote diversity, since employees' friendsare likely to come from similar backgrounds to themselves. (The fact that I do not have any friends to recruit may also be a factor.)
Average house price in Surrey £653,389, average house price in Grimsby £143,353
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices-in-Surrey.html
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices/grimsby.html
It is delicious fun to receive personal education plans for kids drawn up by people who barely recognise them.
Six lessons attended a day and twice outside for play.
And just say "OK. But it can't be done.
My aims are safe, regulated and happy. Anything else is a bonus. Can you find anyone to do better?
Because you're welcome to try."
God night - and sorry I was a bit off with you this time yesterday.
It makes for fascinating contrasts, but it’s also one of the things that makes national unity difficult.
You also get to decide when to work and when not to.
It almost makes up for the long pay, low income and job insecurity.
*except psychiatrists, who wonder about schizophrenia.
Inner city areas have more in common with inner city areas and rural areas more in common with rural areas etc regardless of nation economically and culturally than rural areas do with inner city areas in the same nation. The suburbs and provincial towns in between
It is leftie globalists central (with a few libertarian rightwingers still left in West London)
One of my colleagues once got bored with his private practice, so decided to quieten it down by doubling his charges across the board. His PP clinics became busier than ever "he must be good, he charges twice as much as the others". True story.
https://benjaminlauderdale.net/files/blog/2019_YouGov_MRP_Initial_Assessment.pdf
But unfortunately, investigative journalism is pretty much deceased.
See, for example, this paper and its references:
Patterns and sources of the association between intelligence, party identification, and political orientations