Labelling Islington as the home of millionaires is extremely misleading when talking about educational attainment. It has the second worst level of child poverty in the country:
Can't say I have seen much evidence of Gove's intellectual brilliance. If he were that smart he would be learning a lot more lessons from the huge success of London's state schools over the last decade.
If anything, it seems like London is underperforming: getting similarly poor results to the rest of the country, despite being significantly higher income.
I am a fan of Gove's, but IIRC, inner-London has dramatically improved in the last seven to ten years.
The extent to which this is underlying improvement, rather than a knock-on effect of gentrification is, of course, open to debate.
Dramatically improved, meaning "gone from way behind to below (an anyway poor) average"?
Hey, don't knock it - direction of travel is very important
Not when the speed of travel is so much faster in our emerging competitors. We have a huge problem in the UK in our tolerance of mediocrity. We allow substandard performance to persist for far too long as long as there isn't a crisis, when a lot of stuff actually needs an overhaul. The fact that the target for schools is five GCSEs - in any subject - at above a C, is pure embarrassing. Think of a student with the following results:
English Language: C Double Science: F Mathematics: F Geography: F Literature: F PE: C Religious Ed: C Literature: Dropped out History: Dropped out Drama: C Food Technology: C
What would you think of someone applying for a secretarial job with those grades? Well, under the pre-Gove system, that person counts as a plus for the school.
Obviously Gove is pure voter repellent - the arrogance, the ignorance, the sneering Rightwing contempt - so a good target for "differentiating" Lib Dems.
Personally I despise Gove for more than the way he comes across. It's the way he's treating our education system as a personal ideological experiment. Pretty disgraceful really.
But the electorate as a whole will merely get a whiff of Tory cronyism from all this, which is probably "priced in" across the board.
You and Gove have something in common then,the way you come on here with your repellent pb post,your arrogance and ignorance wth any poster/party who have any concerns on immigration or the EU like ukip,the sneering far leftwing contempt.
Ukip supporters really dislike posh Dave… but they can't stand Ed Miliband either In different ways, both David Cameron, the Etonian Oxford graduate from the stockbroker belt, and Ed Miliband, the Oxford-educated policy wonk from the North London intelligentsia, alienate the struggling blue-collar voters who are defecting en masse to Ukip. Both leaders have led lives a million miles away from the life of the average Ukip voter. This makes it hard for them to credibly claim to understand or represent the struggles of these voters who feel insecure, left behind and angry....
According to this article, Conservatives would be best off asking Ukip voting ex Tories who should be next leader!
I don't think they're are right that ukip supporters dislike Cameron because of his privileged upbringing, Farage is hardly a kid from a council estate, Boris has the same background and is v popular and anyway it's a crass generalisation to assume that blue collar workers instinctively resent ex public schoolboys. It's more his decisions in government that they dislike.
Boris gets away with being a metropolitan luvvie because he only has to deal with London, which isn't anything like a representation of the rest of the country socially or economically
Also, Boris comes across as intellectually brilliant. You can get away with a lot, if you're really smart.
= why the Left is trying to take down Gove.
Can't say I have seen much evidence of Gove's intellectual brilliance. If he were that smart he would be learning a lot more lessons from the huge success of London's state schools over the last decade.
You mean the 'success' of Labour's education system that has seen us descend down the PISA rankings, and an exam system that Labour now admits suffered from grade inflation?
London may or may not be an exception to this, but if you don't trust Gove with education, you'd be mad to trust Labour. After all, Hunt himself says it was a 'great crime'.
The polling shows that the politics of envy and 'making the rich take some pain' is alive and well ...
True. The top-rate tax cut was an appalling political error, whatever the economic benefits (and to be honest, I suspect they were fairly marginal).
The government should have increased all rates of income tax in 2011 as an emergency measure, while increasing the personal allowance and reducing the rates of NI. Labour's best line of the parliament has been tax cuts for millionaires: it was foolish to give them it.
On topic, one of the main reasons that hasn't been mentioned so far why there won't be a Tory leadership this side of the election is the Boris factor.
Any leadership election that doesn't have Boris in it will lack legitimacy, and he can't realistically be in any election before 2015.
Labelling Islington as the home of millionaires is extremely misleading when talking about educational attainment. It has the second worst level of child poverty in the country:
I was talking more about the fiscal base to provide a decent educational system. But that's a nice example of how London's "success" from immigration has actually caused widespread poverty even in the nicer bits. Also, don't something like 40% of London kids get private tutoring?
Can't say I have seen much evidence of Gove's intellectual brilliance. If he were that smart he would be learning a lot more lessons from the huge success of London's state schools over the last decade.
If anything, it seems like London is underperforming: getting similarly poor results to the rest of the country, despite being significantly higher income.
I am a fan of Gove's, but IIRC, inner-London has dramatically improved in the last seven to ten years.
The extent to which this is underlying improvement, rather than a knock-on effect of gentrification is, of course, open to debate.
Dramatically improved, meaning "gone from way behind to below (an anyway poor) average"?
Hey, don't knock it - direction of travel is very important
Not when the speed of travel is so much faster in our emerging competitors. We have a huge problem in the UK in our tolerance of mediocrity. We allow substandard performance to persist for far too long as long as there isn't a crisis, when a lot of stuff actually needs an overhaul. The fact that the target for schools is five GCSEs - in any subject - at above a C, is pure embarrassing. Think of a student with the following results:
English Language: C Double Science: F Mathematics: F Geography: F Literature: F PE: C Religious Ed: C Literature: Dropped out History: Dropped out Drama: C Food Technology: C
What would you think of someone applying for a secretarial job with those grades? Well, under the pre-Gove system, that person counts as a plus for the school.
You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.
And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.
Labelling Islington as the home of millionaires is extremely misleading when talking about educational attainment. It has the second worst level of child poverty in the country:
@Socrates A couple of generations ago Islington was one of the roughest areas of London. It is the same borough, but now with quite a lot of wealthy pockets. Blaming Islington's poverty on immigration is bizarre.
Populus data looks ( more than ) a bit weird . Labour ahead of Con in South East and everywhere else in England/Wales but Con ahead of Labour in Scotland .
@Socrates A couple of generations ago Islington was one of the roughest areas of London. It is the same borough, but now with quite a lot of wealthy pockets. Blaming Islington's poverty on immigration is bizarre.
Was it really that rough? Always thought of Islington as a kind of posh area
Labelling Islington as the home of millionaires is extremely misleading when talking about educational attainment. It has the second worst level of child poverty in the country:
I was talking more about the fiscal base to provide a decent educational system. But that's a nice example of how London's "success" from immigration has actually caused widespread poverty even in the nicer bits. Also, don't something like 40% of London kids get private tutoring?
The idea that Islington has ever been a well-off borough is absurd. There are nice bits - areas that have been gentrified over the last 20 to 30 years - but in general it has always been a working class, low income part of London. Ditto Camden, Ditto Hackney. Ditto Tower Hamlets. Yet according to OFSTED, the state schools in these boroughs have undergone remarkable improvements over the last decade. Why does it hurt you so much to concede this? These may be Labour boroughs, but similar things have happened in Tory ones too. If we cannot learn the lessons of this, then we are clearly putting ideology and dogma above all else.
@Socrates A couple of generations ago Islington was one of the roughest areas of London. It is the same borough, but now with quite a lot of wealthy pockets. Blaming Islington's poverty on immigration is bizarre.
Was it really that rough? Always thought of Islington as a kind of posh area
Yes, it was bandit country. Many parts of it still are.
You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.
And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.
Ok, so give them a C in Maths and an F in RE. It's still a shocking poor measure. I'm happy to admit that Inner London schools have improved to above the nation's poor average, but still, going from the Conference South to League 2 doesn't hold a whole lot of lessons for Premiership quality football.
On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.
You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.
And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.
Ok, so give them a C in Maths and an F in RE. It's still a shocking poor measure. I'm happy to admit that Inner London schools have improved to above the nation's poor average, but still, going from the Conference South to League 2 doesn't hold a whole lot of lessons for Premiership quality football.
On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.
OFSTED rates 100% of Islington's state schools as either good or outstanding. Compare and contrast WITH 1999:
You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.
And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.
Ok, so give them a C in Maths and an F in RE. It's still a shocking poor measure. I'm happy to admit that Inner London schools have improved to above the nation's poor average, but still, going from the Conference South to League 2 doesn't hold a whole lot of lessons for Premiership quality football.
On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.
OFSTED rates 100% of Islington's state schools as either good or outstanding. Compare and contrast WITH 1999:
Getting good OFSTED ratings largely depend on showing OFSTED that you're abiding by their latest fad. Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs? I've seen schools with "good" ratings I wouldn't consider sending my kids to. A friend of mine worked at one school where she expressed concern to the head teacher that they weren't doing enough for the bright kids. The head teacher said this was nonsense, as pushing the kids stopped them enjoying their childhoods, and, besides, they get advantage from being "leaders" around so many strugglers. That place got a good rating, despite being a dump.
You make an excellent point, which is that most grade inflation has happened in non-core subjects. There was a study at Bristol University a few years ago, where they took historic History and Maths A Level subjects, and got current students to sit old papers, and then mixed them up and sent them to examiners to mark. The standard required to get As in both those subjects was significantly higher today than it was in the 1960s.
However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.
And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.
Ok, so give them a C in Maths and an F in RE. It's still a shocking poor measure. I'm happy to admit that Inner London schools have improved to above the nation's poor average, but still, going from the Conference South to League 2 doesn't hold a whole lot of lessons for Premiership quality football.
On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.
OFSTED rates 100% of Islington's state schools as either good or outstanding. Compare and contrast WITH 1999:
Getting good OFSTED ratings largely depend on showing OFSTED that you're abiding by their latest fad. Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs? I've seen schools with "good" ratings I wouldn't consider sending my kids to. A friend of mine worked at one school where she expressed concern to the head teacher that they weren't doing enough for the bright kids. The head teacher said this was nonsense, as pushing the kids stopped them enjoying their childhoods, and, besides, they get advantage from being "leaders" around so many strugglers. That place got a good rating, despite being a dump.
If GCCEs were true to their original basis, then it would be an exceptionally good school (given an average intake) that managed a 60% pass rate. One of the problems with the system is treating a C as an expectation, if not an entitlement.
By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..
Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.
And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.
Eh ? Whit ?
Is this the same Glasgow that - with total SNP support - is commemorating the Queen's commonwealth with a series of competitive sporting games, with her majesty the Queen attending the opening ceremony in the East end of Glasgow - with security provided by the British army ?
Rather deflates your argument against Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?
Oh, absolutely (except last sentiment, BTW, but we'll agree to differ). The connection is that Mr C is using the presence of the Commonwealth heads of state to launch his commemoration of the Great War. But Glasgow is one of the places in the UK where memory of the GW is most fraught - deaths, maimed, economic exploitation and landlordism on the home front, and then the crash after the war ended - Red Clydeside and all that, tanks on the streets to put down insurrection even before the main peace treaty. History of course is more nuanced but that picture is near enough to reality and very much the popular perception. Add that Keir Hardie was a conscientious objector, and the political undercurrents, which affect Labour also here in one of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.
I happened to talk about this yesterday to a friend who is politically agnostic but who does know his Scottish history and military history, in view of the Lords debate, and he was genuinely startled to learn that Mr C should have made such a decision. Of course, it is very right and proper that the Empire and Commonwealth are included (they are all too often forgotten in discussions of how the UK did in the GW and WW2 - and the Americans too, who were once part of the empire ...). So perhaps he did not have a choice in practice. But doing it at Glasgow rather than at the Cenotaph has a potential political cost if mishandled. I will be fascinated to see how it works out.
By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..
Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.
And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.
Eh ? Whit ?
Is this the same Glasgow that - with total SNP support - is commemorating the Queen's commonwealth with a series of competitive sporting games, with her majesty the Queen attending the opening ceremony in the East end of Glasgow - with security provided by the British army ?
Rather deflates your argument against Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?
ne of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.
I happened to talk about this yesterday to a friend who is politically agnostic but who does know his Scottish history and military history, in view of the Lords debate, and he was genuinely startled to learn that Mr C should have made such a decision. Of course, it is very right and proper that the Empire and Commonwealth are included (they are all too often forgotten in discussions of how the UK did in the GW and WW2 - and the Americans too, who were once part of the empire ...). So perhaps he did not have a choice in practice. But doing it at Glasgow rather than at the Cenotaph has a potential political cost if mishandled. I will be fascinated to see how it works out.
I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.
True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.
This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.
Markit's UK Manufacturing PMI comes in a 56.7, a touch down on December's 57.2, but still well above series average of 51.3.
Factory outputs up, strong inflow of orders, improved domestic demand and rising export orders all reported. Near record rates of new employment, across all enterprise sizes and sectors. Input and output prices rising but at a declining rate.
Who needs a new leader when we have an economy performing like this?
Unfortunately Mr Pole you didn't think to do some reforms in 2011, such as freeing up commercial finance, getting training programmes on a roll, encouraging capital investment. I suppose it's only a matter of time until we start to hit the capacity buffers in our shrunken manufacturing sector. If you had done some reforms the indices could keep rolling for some time yet.
In other good news LBG takes a £ 1.8bn charge for PPI. So with RBS I make that nearly £5 billion of misconduct charges for the tax payer to bail out in the last week. Why are we protecting these behemoths ? Much better to break them up and have a functioning banking sector.
Alan, Don't worry , the Tories on here yesterday were telling us they would all move to England and that we nasty Scots would no longer be allowed to benefit (bail them out ) if we are stupid enough to vote YES. Must say it made me think.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..
Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.
And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.
Eh ? Whit ?
Is this the same Glasgow that - with total SNP support - is commemorating the Queen's commonwealth with a series of competitive sporting games, with her majesty the Queen attending the opening ceremony in the East end of Glasgow - with security provided by the British army ?
Rather deflates your argument against Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?
ne of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.
I happened to talk about this yesterday to a friend who is politically agnostic but who does know his Scottish history and military history, in view of the Lords debate, and he was genuinely startled to learn that Mr C should have made such a decision. Of course, it is very right and proper that the Empire and Commonwealth are included (they are all too often forgotten in discussions of how the UK did in the GW and WW2 - and the Americans too, who were once part of the empire ...). So perhaps he did not have a choice in practice. But doing it at Glasgow rather than at the Cenotaph has a potential political cost if mishandled. I will be fascinated to see how it works out.
I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.
True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.
This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.
Populus data looks ( more than ) a bit weird . Labour ahead of Con in South East and everywhere else in England/Wales but Con ahead of Labour in Scotland .
Chortle ....
I wonder, with the need to churn out a daily poll, do Populus ever get to send one back to the kitchen, saying "this one is half-baked..."?
@sOCRATES - "Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs?"
It depends on the intake of kids. In areas of deprivation 60% of pupils getting A-C might be considered an outstanding result. Rather less so in affluent areas.
Anthony Wells on WATO on Lib Dems and who they have lost - concluding their best chances are Lib-Con marginals, Lab-Lib seats being lost. Gove also on playing a very straight bat...
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
The implications of the Strasbourg jurisprudence on article 3 protocol 1 to the ECHR which reads into the commitment of the parties to hold free elections at reasonable intervals the right of the Strasbourg court to dictate the terms of the franchise, have not yet been appreciated by British politicians. They foolishly assume that the ambit of the decisions extend to prisoner voting alone. More interestingly still, A3P1 commits the UK to hold elections 'under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people'. There is no reason why the Strasbourg court would not entertain a challenge to the voting system under which Parliamentary general elections are held.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Why would British courts change it if it is the will of parliament ?
Lets just say,lib dems do well in area's of the country where large numbers of eastern Europeans are living in the Euro/local elections.
And at the next GE we have a coalition between labour and lib dems,one of the lib dems red lines for coalition could be the change who can vote in national elections.
Anthony Wells on WATO on Lib Dems and who they have lost - concluding their best chances are Lib-Con marginals, Lab-Lib seats being lost. Gove also on playing a very straight bat...
Anthony Wells is pretty much spot on I'd have thought.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Parliament can set the rules as it sees fit. (Until the ECHR has its say, anyway).
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Why would British courts change it if it is the will of parliament ?
Lets just say,lib dems do well in area's of the country where large numbers of eastern Europeans are living in the Euro/local elections.
And at the next GE we have a coalition between labour and lib dems,one of the lib dems red lines for coalition could be the change who can vote in national elections.
Couldn't this not happen ?
As I said, I might be unduly optimistic. However, I would have thought it would be electoral suicide, at the very least.
It is also, to my knowledge, in neither party's manifestos. And if you look where the Libs have their seats, it would seem most unlikely to help them, while inflicting enormous electoral damage elsewhere.
@sOCRATES - "Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs?"
It depends on the intake of kids. In areas of deprivation 60% of pupils getting A-C might be considered an outstanding result. Rather less so in affluent areas.
I'm sorry, but I think this is where Michael Gove is exactly right in criticising "the bigotry of soft expectations". I've seen scientific studies where they find that when teachers are told the kids in their class have done worse in the previous round, the kids do worse on the next test. It's because the teachers don't push them so hard. This effect is accentuated hugely by the class system in this country and the cultural mentality it encourages. In Finland, there is very little difference between performance of rich kids and poor kids, while the UK is one of the worst in terms of discrepancy. And it's because parents, teachers and society at large think a kid with a working class accent from a council estate is doing well if they get to be manager of the local supermarket. I've known a lot of this stuff happen at the Ofsted-"good" schools we're talking about. Excellent teachers wanting to do exciting projects in art or history being told "well, that might work in the home counties, but these inner city kids can't cope with this stuff." It's frankly, bullshit. GCSEs really aren't very hard. There is absolutely no reason why any kid without learning difficulties shouldn't be able to get 8 or 9 Bs at GCSE.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..
Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.
And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.
Eh ? Whit ?
Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?
ne of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.
I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.
True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.
This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.
It is politics of the lowest order, trying to hijack the war dead re referendum. Pathetic Tory policy.
However, the overall Nats' horror at Lang's words is as phoney as it is cynical, in that it's little more than a move to change the subject from the car crash that has occurred over their economic policy thanks to Mark Carney's verdict on their plan to keep the pound. This is, after all, a party that tries desperately to keep onside with Scottish servicemen serving with the UK's Armed Forces whilst evincing a genuine and deep-seated animosity for Britishness and the flag under which those soldiers, sailors and airmen serve. Many of them regard the Union Jack as "a flag of oppression" and call it The Butcher's Apron.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
I didn't know that, thanks for that.
And EU Citizens can vote in the European Elections (which makes more sense). Hence, I believe that a Maltese citizen is entirely equivalent to a British national when it comes to voting eligibility.
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
There's an argument to be had about whether you should go by nationality or residence (I'd say that wherever your main country is for tax should be where you can vote) but the current thing is just a way to disfranchise mobile people. Ultimately I'd imagine at least a core of EU countries will come up with some consistent principles, probably splitting the difference, eg you only vote in one country, but that can transfer from country of nationality to country of residence after X years out of the country you're a national of.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
I didn't know that, thanks for that.
It's absolutely bizarre that it still exists when the reciprocal right has long been abolished in India, Pakistan etc. I have no idea why the Tories don't do something about it: it seems like one of those things where they don't go near it under fear someone will scream racism, but if they actually did it they'd find it was quite popular. Like requiring English for claiming benefits.
Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?
Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.
And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?
As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?
After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
I didn't know that, thanks for that.
It's absolutely bizarre that it still exists when the reciprocal right has long been abolished in India, Pakistan etc. I have no idea why the Tories don't do something about it: it seems like one of those things where they don't go near it under fear someone will scream racism, but if they actually did it they'd find it was quite popular. Like requiring English for claiming benefits.
It would also be incredibly simple to pass a 'non-reciporical rights bill', which simply struck of commonwealth countries that did not give British citizens equivalent rights. In this way it wouldn't be about people from x, but about countries that did not give rights to British citizens.
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
I didn't know that, thanks for that.
It's absolutely bizarre that it still exists when the reciprocal right has long been abolished in India, Pakistan etc. I have no idea why the Tories don't do something about it: it seems like one of those things where they don't go near it under fear someone will scream racism, but if they actually did it they'd find it was quite popular. Like requiring English for claiming benefits.
On the benefits thing, wouldn't it be simplest just to use my old maxim of "no benefits may be claimed until a person has made three years National Insurance contributions".
Anyone who's had a legal, NI paying, job for three years presumably would be able to speak English (or Welsh). It would discourage people from dropping out of school with zero qualifications. And it would also act as a major discouragement for anyone whose goal was to come to this country to benefit from our benefits (so to speak).
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
I'm pretty sure you can become a UK national after a lot less than 15 years if you're at all bothered to adopt your new home.
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
There's an argument to be had about whether you should go by nationality or residence (I'd say that wherever your main country is for tax should be where you can vote) but the current thing is just a way to disfranchise mobile people. Ultimately I'd imagine at least a core of EU countries will come up with some consistent principles, probably splitting the difference, eg you only vote in one country, but that can transfer from country of nationality to country of residence after X years out of the country you're a national of.
Edmund, in general I'd agree with you, but you aren't reckoning with the way most people think about this sort of issue. Forget about the West Lothian question, what about the South Gdansk question?
Under your entirely reasonable proposal, the vote of a plumber from South Gdansk in the East Midlands could make the difference between a party that wants to take Britain out of the EU forming the government and a party that wants to stay in the EU doing so instead.
Your proposal only works if you relegate the elections to National Parliaments to the status of elections to, say, County Councils, with most people adopting a European identity above their national identity, and a European state having primacy over the constituent nation states.
Much as I might prefer that outcome, I doubt that the people of Europe are ready for it, so the minority of mobile Europeans will continue to be disenfranchised - unless they're Irish and living in the UK, or British and living in Ireland.
It would also be incredibly simple to pass a 'non-reciporical rights bill', which simply struck of commonwealth countries that did not give British citizens equivalent rights. In this way it wouldn't be about people from x, but about countries that did not give rights to British citizens.
That should be the bare minimum. When the immigration is overwhelmingly one way (like Jamaica --> UK) I think there should be an agreement to strip it away on both sides.
By Nat logic, Salmond should debate Barroso before the European or Holyrood elections..
Give it up - it's not happening - still its a good excuse for defeat.
And remember Mr C is coming to Scotland very publicly this summer to launch his commemoration of going to war in 1914 - and in Glasgow, in one of the worst single places in the UK, perhaps, to do such a thing. If he's brave enough to do that, with its obvious political aims* , then he's brave enough to debate indy in public.
Eh ? Whit ?
Cameron commemorating WWI war dead no ?
ne of its historical heartlands, get very interesting.
I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.
True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.
This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.
It is politics of the lowest order, trying to hijack the war dead re referendum. Pathetic Tory policy.
However, the overall Nats' horror at Lang's words is as phoney as it is cynical, in that it's little more than a move to change the subject from the car crash that has occurred over their economic policy thanks to Mark Carney's verdict on their plan to keep the pound. This is, after all, a party that tries desperately to keep onside with Scottish servicemen serving with the UK's Armed Forces whilst evincing a genuine and deep-seated animosity for Britishness and the flag under which those soldiers, sailors and airmen serve. Many of them regard the Union Jack as "a flag of oppression" and call it The Butcher's Apron.
Carlotta , you get ever more desperate , to try and put forward the demented self opinion of Cockers as being the truth beggars belief. Next you will be telling me he told you Alex Salmond eats babies.
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
I'm pretty sure you can become a UK national after a lot less than 15 years if you're at all bothered to adopt your new home.
One of the interesting things about the freedom of labour across the EU is that there are a lot of people - management consultants, lawyers, programmers, bankers, etc. - who have been in this country more than five years, but have never taken British citizenship.
In the event that it looked likely that the UK would leave the EU, these people would all qualify for British citizenship.
Poor dears in HOL are upset about their conditions, can you imagine
“House of Lords is no longer a place for fine dining, peers gripe
Members of the House of Lords have lodged a series of extravagant complaints about their taxpayer-subsidised restaurants, expressing their anger about the size of menus, ‘chaotic’ table layouts and ‘inferior cappuccinos’.
Peers can enjoy seared scallops, foie gras and champagne risotto at the Barry Room private restaurant, part of a group of facilities catering to them and their guests which are subsidised by the taxpayer at a cost of £1.3m a year. A full roast dinner costs £9.50. Peers also receive a £300-a-day expenses allowance for attending the House of Lords.
But this has not stopped a steady stream of complaints being sent to Lord John Sewel, the Chairman of Committees. One impassioned Lord complained of a 15-minute wait to be seated, which they said lost ‘some of the finesse of the afternoon’ and left their guests unable to ‘eat the beautiful cake selection’ in time. Another member decried the ‘chaotic litter of small tables’ in the Lords’ tea room after its rearrangement over Easter.
Another said he had been left ‘scarred’ after his dinner booking was cancelled suddenly. He complained that his wife was ‘unable to lunch elsewhere’ because she was wearing a tiara.”
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
I'm pretty sure you can become a UK national after a lot less than 15 years if you're at all bothered to adopt your new home.
One of the interesting things about the freedom of labour across the EU is that there are a lot of people - management consultants, lawyers, programmers, bankers, etc. - who have been in this country more than five years, but have never taken British citizenship.
In the event that it looked likely that the UK would leave the EU, these people would all qualify for British citizenship.
Knowing a lot of them, I'm usually disappointed by how many don't feel any allegiance to their new home. I'm of the belief that whether you're a German lawyer in London or a British retiree in the Costa del Sol, you emotionally owe something to the society that has provided you with a new life. I accept that I seem to be a small minority in this.
“‘Poll tax mark II’ pushes Britain’s poorest into debt
Up to 70,000 low earners, single parents, and disabled people are being pursued by bailiffs over their failure to pay the ‘new poll tax’, according to figures revealed for the first time.
The country’s poorest people, who qualify for means-tested council tax benefit, have seen their annual bills rise after the Government imposed a 10 per cent reduction in funding for the handout last April.
New figures revealed by Freedom of Information requests show that 400,000 people have had liability orders imposed by the courts, while 70,000 of these have had letters from bailiffs.
In Conservative-controlled Basildon council alone, 123 disabled people have received bailiff notices, some complaining of threatening letters that warn that firms will seize goods if they fail to pay. As a result, local disability groups report that those affected are handing televisions and jewellery to pawnbrokers, to pay bills.”
I don't see any harm in disfranchising the mobile. They won't have to live with the consequences of their decisions.
If they're sufficiently sedentary, they can have the vote. There's a handy way of establishing if they're sufficiently sedentary: it's called taking the citizenship of the country they've settled in.
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
There's an argument to be had about whether you should go by nationality or residence (I'd say that wherever your main country is for tax should be where you can vote) but the current thing is just a way to disfranchise mobile people. Ultimately I'd imagine at least a core of EU countries will come up with some consistent principles, probably splitting the difference, eg you only vote in one country, but that can transfer from country of nationality to country of residence after X years out of the country you're a national of.
Edmund, in general I'd agree with you, but you aren't reckoning with the way most people think about this sort of issue. Forget about the West Lothian question, what about the South Gdansk question?
Under your entirely reasonable proposal, the vote of a plumber from South Gdansk in the East Midlands could make the difference between a party that wants to take Britain out of the EU forming the government and a party that wants to stay in the EU doing so instead.
Your proposal only works if you relegate the elections to National Parliaments to the status of elections to, say, County Councils, with most people adopting a European identity above their national identity, and a European state having primacy over the constituent nation states.
Much as I might prefer that outcome, I doubt that the people of Europe are ready for it, so the minority of mobile Europeans will continue to be disenfranchised - unless they're Irish and living in the UK, or British and living in Ireland.
Nothing involving rights for foreigners is going to be popular for the forseeable future, but I doubt it would be a big issue. The West Lothian Question is a good parallel: Most people don't give a shit either way, and the ones who do are mostly people with strong partisan alignment whose party is getting screwed by the arrangement.
Much as I might prefer that outcome, I doubt that the people of Europe are ready for it, so the minority of mobile Europeans will continue to be disenfranchised - unless they're Irish and living in the UK, or British and living in Ireland.
They're not disenfranchised. I have Swedish friends who have been in the UK years and still vote in Swedish elections. France even allows French Londoners to have their own constituency, I believe.
It would also be incredibly simple to pass a 'non-reciporical rights bill', which simply struck of commonwealth countries that did not give British citizens equivalent rights. In this way it wouldn't be about people from x, but about countries that did not give rights to British citizens.
That should be the bare minimum. When the immigration is overwhelmingly one way (like Jamaica --> UK) I think there should be an agreement to strip it away on both sides.
I was thinking just in simple terms of numbers. Combined, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nigeria account for more than 80% of the citizens of the commonwealth (combined more than 1.5bn people). Jamaica, by contrast, has - what - two and a half million people?
Rather than getting into a fight where we appear to be going back on long-held agreements with generally friendly countries, where the effect is negligible, let's simply go for one which it is genuinely next to impossible to argue against.
I'm sure there will be a few people who weren't alive at the time who can't wait jump on the offended bus about this but many many more who will want to participate in a positive way.
True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.
This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.
I do hope it goes well for both without anyone wrecking them by political exploitation. I'm fascinated by the discussions going on about the Great War (here on PB included) - centenaries do have their uses.
What a fascinating little cutting you dug out, but, if I may, your (presumed) interpretation instantly feels wrong. Celtic were (and still are) a football team with strong Irish roots, which in that place and time strongly implies that its supporters espoused Labour rather than Unionist* politics, never mind those of Sir Oswald Mosley (I know they had Blueshirts in the Free State, but even so ...). So that instantly suggests an ironic parody of the Nuremberg rallies rather than anything political. A little checking does indeed show that Mr Delaney was a player of some repute, and in this case he scored the only two goals in the Scotland-Germany 2-0 match on 14 October 1936, a few days before the event reported in the cutting. Which gives the cutting a radically divergent meaning.
[*'Unionist' in the Scottish sense - ie what the Tory party in Scotland used to be called before its 1955 merger with the London Conservatives]
Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?
Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.
And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?
As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?
After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.
Well you have your views and I have mine. And if you do not believe that there has been a remarkable transformation in London's schools so be it. We are never going to agree, so there's not much point in debating it.
Another really big high tide here today,right up the road outside the house. Another car submerged lower down the road,second lost car this week. People regularly park near the sea,right next to the warning sign about flooding at high tides,and return in horror to see their vehicle roof just showing. Arnside has been quite spectacular a few times recently with a ferocious looking bore,the warning sirens sound a few minutes in advance to get everyone off the beach. Coastguard has just arrived,but the owner is safe,but not happy.
On the non-citizen voting thing it's hard to see the UK leading. But the current situation isn't defensible, and this will become increasingly obvious as people move around more. You lose the right to vote after 15 years out even if you're a national, but you don't get it after any number of years in.
I'm pretty sure you can become a UK national after a lot less than 15 years if you're at all bothered to adopt your new home.
What do you think should happen when you move from country to country without going back to the country they're a national of? Should these people nationalize everywhere they go? If not, what's the argument for disfranchising them?
＊ Hopes for an argument that will somehow get us out of paying taxes＊
Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.
But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.
Poor dears in HOL are upset about their conditions, can you imagine
“House of Lords is no longer a place for fine dining, peers gripe A full roast dinner costs £9.50. Peers also receive a £300-a-day expenses allowance for attending the House of Lords.
£9.50 sounds fair for a roast. Is the point of the piece to make it sound too expensive, too cheap or about right ?
Perhaps it's my distance from London but I honestly can't tell...
Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?
Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.
And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?
As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?
After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.
Josias: nobody has accused me (ever) of being an apologist for Labour. (Usually I am portrayed as an evil bankster member of the global elite.) However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.
However, the overall Nats' horror at Lang's words is as phoney as it is cynical, in that it's little more than a move to change the subject from the car crash that has occurred over their economic policy thanks to Mark Carney's verdict on their plan to keep the pound. This is, after all, a party that tries desperately to keep onside with Scottish servicemen serving with the UK's Armed Forces whilst evincing a genuine and deep-seated animosity for Britishness and the flag under which those soldiers, sailors and airmen serve. Many of them regard the Union Jack as "a flag of oppression" and call it The Butcher's Apron.
Carlotta , you get ever more desperate , to try and put forward the demented self opinion of Cockers as being the truth beggars belief. Next you will be telling me he told you Alex Salmond eats babies.
Oh, that's an old one. It's when they start suggesting that Mr Salmond eats puppies and kittens we really need to start worrying [irony meter registering about 86%].
Ms Vance, if I may, if you could please vary your selection of newspapers, that would be genuinely interesting - we don't have time to keep an eye on all the news and comment from south of the border. But the DT and Mr Cochrane are just a little wee bittockie, let's say, sameish, day in day out. It is no doubt very important to Mr Cochrane that he has an unrequited crush on Mr Salmond, but I think the rest of us are well aware of it by now!
Now we know why they support immigration: who cares about the native British, it's more votes for them.
Although this tactic would only work at the Euros and at local elections, as European immigrants don't get to vote in national elections
If lab/lib have they way,national elections will be next.
Labour was in power for 13 years and did nothing to change it. Citizenship is a retirement for Westminster voting, and I suspect the British courts would overturn it if any government was stupid enough to try and change it.
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
Commonwealth citizens can vote at Westminster, which is why Labour was so keen on importing so many.
Commonwealth citizens in many cases also pay tax to Westminster - what was the old adage? No taxation without representation?
However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.
Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?
Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.
And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?
As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?
After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.
Well you have your views and I have mine. And if you do not believe that there has been a remarkable transformation in London's schools so be it. We are never going to agree, so there's not much point in debating it.
What I find remarkable is how you are clinging to London, whilst ignoring that grade inflation (yes, the thing that so many Labour supporters on here told us wasn't happening) did actually occur, as admitted by Hunt. Or ignoring the PISA results.
It's a bit like Labour supporters talking about the NHS, yet remarkably ignoring the experience of NHS Wales.
Remarkable.
As I said above, I'd call London's improvement welcome and interesting.
@sOCRATES - "Do good and outstanding schools really churn out 40% of kids unable to scrape through half their GCSEs?"
It depends on the intake of kids. In areas of deprivation 60% of pupils getting A-C might be considered an outstanding result. Rather less so in affluent areas.
I'm sorry, but I think this is where Michael Gove is exactly right in criticising "the bigotry of soft expectations". I've seen scientific studies where they find that when teachers are told the kids in their class have done worse in the previous round, the kids do worse on the next test. It's because the teachers don't push them so hard. This effect is accentuated hugely by the class system in this country and the cultural mentality it encourages. In Finland, there is very little difference between performance of rich kids and poor kids, while the UK is one of the worst in terms of discrepancy. And it's because parents, teachers and society at large think a kid with a working class accent from a council estate is doing well if they get to be manager of the local supermarket. I've known a lot of this stuff happen at the Ofsted-"good" schools we're talking about. Excellent teachers wanting to do exciting projects in art or history being told "well, that might work in the home counties, but these inner city kids can't cope with this stuff." It's frankly, bullshit. GCSEs really aren't very hard. There is absolutely no reason why any kid without learning difficulties shouldn't be able to get 8 or 9 Bs at GCSE.
I disagree. A "B" mark is an above average mark. If most kids were getting Bs it would be an indication of major grade inflation.
I am all for learning lessons from Finland - even though it slipped down the last PISA rankings it does much better than Sweden, which has seen spectacular declines but which for some reason we are seeking to emulate. However, it strikes me as pretty bizarre not also to learn lessons from places closer to home that have seen remarkable improvements over the last decade.
Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.
But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.
It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.
Who said anything about Labour? Something stunning has happened in London. Why not learn the lessons and apply them?
Well, it's almost as though you're desperately clinging to London with your fingertips in your last-ditch effort to 'prove' Labour didn't let kids down."Look at London!" you cry, whilst ignoring the experience for the rest of the country.
And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?
As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?
After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.
Well you have your views and I have mine. And if you do not believe that there has been a remarkable transformation in London's schools so be it. We are never going to agree, so there's not much point in debating it.
What I find remarkable is how you are clinging to London, whilst ignoring that grade inflation (yes, the thing that so many Labour supporters on here told us wasn't happening) did actually occur, as admitted by Hunt. Or ignoring the PISA results.
It's a bit like Labour supporters talking about the NHS, yet remarkably ignoring the experience of NHS Wales.
Remarkable.
As I said above, I'd call London's improvement welcome and interesting.
The fact that I am saying we should learn the lessons from London does rather imply that I believe there are lessons to be learned. But you wish to believe that I am complacent, clinging on, in denial and all the rest of it. And if that makes you feel good, so be it. I will make myself feel good by believing that you are incapable of recognising that anything that may have happened or been instigated before 2010 was in any way beneficial. Thus, there is no point in debating - you have decided what I think and I have decided what you think. We are not going to agree.
However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.
That's a contradictory statement.
That'll be because I made a typo! I meant "it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have not shown a dramatic relative improvement"
However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.
That's a contradictory statement.
That'll be because I made a typo! I meant "it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have not shown a dramatic relative improvement"
And given that they have, it seems to make sense to find out why and then to see if there are lessons that can be applied elsewhere. It's not just hat exam result have improved, the schools have too. Is there a connection? Tower Hamlets is among the most deprived parts of Britain, yet look at the achievements of its schools:
If one in every nine schools have a majority of children for whom English is not their first language, does anyone know how to work out how long it will be until 25% of the population has English as their second language?
Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.
But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.
It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.
I mean really ?
From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?
However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.
That's a contradictory statement.
That'll be because I made a typo! I meant "it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have not shown a dramatic relative improvement"
And given that they have, it seems to make sense to find out why and then to see if there are lessons that can be applied elsewhere. It's not just hat exam result have improved, the schools have too. Is there a connection? Tower Hamlets is among the most deprived parts of Britain, yet look at the achievements of its schools:
The fact that I am saying we should learn the lessons from London does rather imply that I believe there are lessons to be learned. But you wish to believe that I am complacent, clinging on, in denial and all the rest of it. And if that makes you feel good, so be it. I will make myself feel good by believing that you are incapable of recognising that anything that may have happened or been instigated before 2010 was in any way beneficial. Thus, there is no point in debating - you have decided what I think and I have decided what you think. We are not going to agree.
"And if that makes you feel good, so be it. I will make myself feel good by believing that you are incapable of recognising that anything that may have happened or been instigated before 2010 was in any way beneficial."
If it makes you feel happy, good. But you obviously didn't read what I wrote above. So for a third time I'll repeat it: I'd call London's improvement welcome and interesting.
I've welcomed a fair few things the 1997-2010 government did. But because of them are no longer in any way controversial, they don't get discussed much on here.
If one in every nine schools have a majority of children for whom English is not their first language, does anyone know how to work out how long it will be until 25% of the population has English as their second language?
I went to a school in Bedford where 60% of the kids did not have English as a first language. But by-and-large, those people's kids speak Urdu or Gujerati very badly, if at all. And I suspect, by the time they get to be third generation immigrants, they'll probably only know English, plus a few words for the relations.
Like my colleague Ali, who's a second generation immigrant. His Persian (his dad's from Iran) is - by his own admission - rubbish. His kid's is totally non-existent.
However, it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have shown a dramatic relative improvement in the last eight years. What has driven that - gentrification, structural changes, immigration, the London Challenge etc. - is open for debate. But the improvement itself is not.
That's a contradictory statement.
That'll be because I made a typo! I meant "it is simply not credible to claim that Inner London schools have not shown a dramatic relative improvement"
And given that they have, it seems to make sense to find out why and then to see if there are lessons that can be applied elsewhere. It's not just hat exam result have improved, the schools have too. Is there a connection? Tower Hamlets is among the most deprived parts of Britain, yet look at the achievements of its schools:
And if they can do it there, there is absolutely no excuse anywhere else.
Do you think it is because it is one of the highest rates of non English as first language?
I don't like that its true, but being multi lingual at an early age must help
I don't know. It may explain some of it. But Tower Hamlets has always had a high immigrant population - the Bangladeshis began to arrive in big numbers in the 80s - but the improvements in the schools are recent.
Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.
But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.
It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.
I mean really ?
From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?
Mm, yes, that is pretty much the analysis (bearing in mind that a lot of Unionist criticism however carefully fails to make the point that if their analysis is correct, that the Scottish economy is in the sharn, then the UK economy is if anything in deeper doo).
However, there is a major report coming out in the FT tonight/tomorrow so it may be as well to wait to see what that says - from the taster on wingsoverscotland it looks as if it will be very relevant (owed to @Mick_Pork for spotting it - http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/)
If one in every nine schools have a majority of children for whom English is not their first language, does anyone know how to work out how long it will be until 25% of the population has English as their second language?
I went to a school in Bedford where 60% of the kids did not have English as a first language. But by-and-large, those people's kids speak Urdu or Gujerati very badly, if at all. And I suspect, by the time they get to be third generation immigrants, they'll probably only know English, plus a few words for the relations.
Like my colleague Ali, who's a second generation immigrant. His Persian (his dad's from Iran) is - by his own admission - rubbish. His kid's is totally non-existent.
This is what has always happened. The key thing is to ensure that all lessons are in English. That, plus the wider world in which the kids live, will ensure they become fluent and that when they have kids they will talk to them in English.
Have any PB'ers realised there is a direct link between the politics of Iran/Iraq and of Scotland? If the Iranians are as busy trying to re-enter the world as they seem and they are indeed reforming a Shia Muslim partnership with Iraq that aims to knock the Saudis off their pedestal by producing a load of oil and damn the consequences - well the consequences will indeed be a flood of oil and an the Sunnis succeeding in driving down the proce of oil. That'll screw the Saudis and a bunch of other petrostates they don't like.
But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.
It did occur to me too - though wth the caveat that I don't know how far the Sunni element in Iraq affects that analysis. But the Scottish economy is broader than that - and in the SNP analysis if anything better off than the UK on average, with the oil as a bonus. Returning to the ME, is there any particular source article for that analysis, please? I'd be interested to read it.
I mean really ?
From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?
Scotland won't have a successful banking sector though. If they go for Sterling then it will be regulated by the BoE and there would be huge pressure to relocate as ultimately the English could not tolerate a foreign power creaing money and derivative positions which English taxpayers were liable for. We see from the Euro that currency union requires transfer union and an England that had just been told to F off would not do that. Edinburgh's current success comes from its position as a branch office of the City.
Comments
'Bloody hell. Pass me the Gove spray repellant. Just watched him on the news.Enough to make me, and many others I guess, puke.'
Labour,education, Wales,no wonder your puking anyone would.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16483257
English Language: C
Double Science: F
Mathematics: F
Geography: F
Literature: F
PE: C
Religious Ed: C
Literature: Dropped out
History: Dropped out
Drama: C
Food Technology: C
What would you think of someone applying for a secretarial job with those grades? Well, under the pre-Gove system, that person counts as a plus for the school.
So, for that matter, would 83%, or 40%, at the extremes. True. The top-rate tax cut was an appalling political error, whatever the economic benefits (and to be honest, I suspect they were fairly marginal).
The government should have increased all rates of income tax in 2011 as an emergency measure, while increasing the personal allowance and reducing the rates of NI. Labour's best line of the parliament has been tax cuts for millionaires: it was foolish to give them it.
Any leadership election that doesn't have Boris in it will lack legitimacy, and he can't realistically be in any election before 2015.
However, I'd also point out that the numbers I was using were 5 A-Cs, including Maths and English, so your person would have failed the 'pass' criteria mentioned.
And you have to admit, Inner London schools have dramatically improved relative to the rest of the country in the last 8 or 9 years, from being among the worst in the country, to being meaningfully above average.
That's rich coming from Britain's ignoramus central, labour-run Wales.
On Islington, less than half the borough is white British. You really think the poverty is concentrated in that segment, or in the new arrivals? It's the areas that have had large numbers from poor countries that have failed to progress, despite decades to do so.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/islington-schools-attacked-by-ofsted-1094290.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550914/Lib-Dems-urged-woo-eastern-European-voters-avoid-wipeout-Brussels-elections-May.html
A survey last year for the Imperial War Museum showed that Glaswegians were notably suspicious of political agendas in commemorating the Great War - the basic summary report is here
http://www.britishfuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BRF_Declaration-of-war-report_P2_Web-1.pdf
and here is one press report (by a newspaper which is anti-indy on the whole)
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/why-glasgow-men-do-not-want-to-celebrate-wwi.21772579
I happened to talk about this yesterday to a friend who is politically agnostic but who does know his Scottish history and military history, in view of the Lords debate, and he was genuinely startled to learn that Mr C should have made such a decision. Of course, it is very right and proper that the Empire and Commonwealth are included (they are all too often forgotten in discussions of how the UK did in the GW and WW2 - and the Americans too, who were once part of the empire ...). So perhaps he did not have a choice in practice. But doing it at Glasgow rather than at the Cenotaph has a potential political cost if mishandled. I will be fascinated to see how it works out.
True for both the WWI memorial and the Commonwealth games.
This is not new - there was a noisy minority on the wrong side in WW2.
http://s10.postimg.org/wm7m8ch9l/Evening_Telegraph_Monday_19_October_1936_nazi.jpg
Of course, I could be unduly optimistic
It depends on the intake of kids. In areas of deprivation 60% of pupils getting A-C might be considered an outstanding result. Rather less so in affluent areas.
Lets just say,lib dems do well in area's of the country where large numbers of eastern Europeans are living in the Euro/local elections.
And at the next GE we have a coalition between labour and lib dems,one of the lib dems red lines for coalition could be the change who can vote in national elections.
Couldn't this not happen ?
http://tinyurl.com/z5s9e
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/02/the-mystery-of-michael-gove.html
It is also, to my knowledge, in neither party's manifestos. And if you look where the Libs have their seats, it would seem most unlikely to help them, while inflicting enormous electoral damage elsewhere.
This is, after all, a party that tries desperately to keep onside with Scottish servicemen serving with the UK's Armed Forces whilst evincing a genuine and deep-seated animosity for Britishness and the flag under which those soldiers, sailors and airmen serve.
Many of them regard the Union Jack as "a flag of oppression" and call it The Butcher's Apron.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10611166/Nats-phoney-war-keeps-currency-woes-out-of-sight.html
Hence, I believe that a Maltese citizen is entirely equivalent to a British national when it comes to voting eligibility.
There's an argument to be had about whether you should go by nationality or residence (I'd say that wherever your main country is for tax should be where you can vote) but the current thing is just a way to disfranchise mobile people. Ultimately I'd imagine at least a core of EU countries will come up with some consistent principles, probably splitting the difference, eg you only vote in one country, but that can transfer from country of nationality to country of residence after X years out of the country you're a national of.
And I wouldn't call it 'stunning'. Welcome, yes. An improvement, yes. Interesting, certainly. But stunning?
As for your main point: who is to say the lessons have not been learnt, or that similar (or better) results cannot be obtained in other ways?
After all, there are several ways of breaking the link between deprivation and attainment - and giving schools more power to apply local solutions (as opposed to those imposed from above) might be one.
Anyone who's had a legal, NI paying, job for three years presumably would be able to speak English (or Welsh). It would discourage people from dropping out of school with zero qualifications. And it would also act as a major discouragement for anyone whose goal was to come to this country to benefit from our benefits (so to speak).
Under your entirely reasonable proposal, the vote of a plumber from South Gdansk in the East Midlands could make the difference between a party that wants to take Britain out of the EU forming the government and a party that wants to stay in the EU doing so instead.
Your proposal only works if you relegate the elections to National Parliaments to the status of elections to, say, County Councils, with most people adopting a European identity above their national identity, and a European state having primacy over the constituent nation states.
Much as I might prefer that outcome, I doubt that the people of Europe are ready for it, so the minority of mobile Europeans will continue to be disenfranchised - unless they're Irish and living in the UK, or British and living in Ireland.
In the event that it looked likely that the UK would leave the EU, these people would all qualify for British citizenship.
“House of Lords is no longer a place for fine dining, peers gripe
Members of the House of Lords have lodged a series of extravagant complaints about their taxpayer-subsidised restaurants, expressing their anger about the size of menus, ‘chaotic’ table layouts and ‘inferior cappuccinos’.
Peers can enjoy seared scallops, foie gras and champagne risotto at the Barry Room private restaurant, part of a group of facilities catering to them and their guests which are subsidised by the taxpayer at a cost of £1.3m a year. A full roast dinner costs £9.50. Peers also receive a £300-a-day expenses allowance for attending the House of Lords.
But this has not stopped a steady stream of complaints being sent to Lord John Sewel, the Chairman of Committees. One impassioned Lord complained of a 15-minute wait to be seated, which they said lost ‘some of the finesse of the afternoon’ and left their guests unable to ‘eat the beautiful cake selection’ in time. Another member decried the ‘chaotic litter of small tables’ in the Lords’ tea room after its rearrangement over Easter.
Another said he had been left ‘scarred’ after his dinner booking was cancelled suddenly. He complained that his wife was ‘unable to lunch elsewhere’ because she was wearing a tiara.”
“‘Poll tax mark II’ pushes Britain’s poorest into debt
Up to 70,000 low earners, single parents, and disabled people are being pursued by bailiffs over their failure to pay the ‘new poll tax’, according to figures revealed for the first time.
The country’s poorest people, who qualify for means-tested council tax benefit, have seen their annual bills rise after the Government imposed a 10 per cent reduction in funding for the handout last April.
New figures revealed by Freedom of Information requests show that 400,000 people have had liability orders imposed by the courts, while 70,000 of these have had letters from bailiffs.
In Conservative-controlled Basildon council alone, 123 disabled people have received bailiff notices, some complaining of threatening letters that warn that firms will seize goods if they fail to pay. As a result, local disability groups report that those affected are handing televisions and jewellery to pawnbrokers, to pay bills.”
If they're sufficiently sedentary, they can have the vote. There's a handy way of establishing if they're sufficiently sedentary: it's called taking the citizenship of the country they've settled in.
Rather than getting into a fight where we appear to be going back on long-held agreements with generally friendly countries, where the effect is negligible, let's simply go for one which it is genuinely next to impossible to argue against.
What a fascinating little cutting you dug out, but, if I may, your (presumed) interpretation instantly feels wrong. Celtic were (and still are) a football team with strong Irish roots, which in that place and time strongly implies that its supporters espoused Labour rather than Unionist* politics, never mind those of Sir Oswald Mosley (I know they had Blueshirts in the Free State, but even so ...). So that instantly suggests an ironic parody of the Nuremberg rallies rather than anything political. A little checking does indeed show that Mr Delaney was a player of some repute, and in this case he scored the only two goals in the Scotland-Germany 2-0 match on 14 October 1936, a few days before the event reported in the cutting. Which gives the cutting a radically divergent meaning.
[*'Unionist' in the Scottish sense - ie what the Tory party in Scotland used to be called before its 1955 merger with the London Conservatives]
People regularly park near the sea,right next to the warning sign about flooding at high tides,and return in horror to see their vehicle roof just showing.
Arnside has been quite spectacular a few times recently with a ferocious looking bore,the warning sirens sound a few minutes in advance to get everyone off the beach.
Coastguard has just arrived,but the owner is safe,but not happy.
＊ Hopes for an argument that will somehow get us out of paying taxes＊
But it would also have massive implications for the finanical viability of an independent Scotland. MAybe the SNP should be sharing intelligence with Mossad.
Perhaps it's my distance from London but I honestly can't tell...
Full page article on the latest way to get benefits if you are an Eastern European.... Bogus Gay marriage
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5416766/bulgarian-immigrant-gay-marriage-con.html
Don't shoot the messenger, but this is what millions of people will be reading
Ms Vance, if I may, if you could please vary your selection of newspapers, that would be genuinely interesting - we don't have time to keep an eye on all the news and comment from south of the border. But the DT and Mr Cochrane are just a little wee bittockie, let's say, sameish, day in day out. It is no doubt very important to Mr Cochrane that he has an unrequited crush on Mr Salmond, but I think the rest of us are well aware of it by now!
It's a bit like Labour supporters talking about the NHS, yet remarkably ignoring the experience of NHS Wales.
Remarkable.
As I said above, I'd call London's improvement welcome and interesting.
I am all for learning lessons from Finland - even though it slipped down the last PISA rankings it does much better than Sweden, which has seen spectacular declines but which for some reason we are seeking to emulate. However, it strikes me as pretty bizarre not also to learn lessons from places closer to home that have seen remarkable improvements over the last decade.
Bl88dy cheap. Footballers have been known to outlay massive multiples of that for roasts.
Now, where did I leave that coat?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26020022
http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2013/dec/11/tower-hamlets-transforming-failing-schools-ofsted
And if they can do it there, there is absolutely no excuse anywhere else.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10611050/Revealed-The-one-in-nine-schools-where-English-is-not-first-language.html
From memory oil is over 10% of the scottish economy, it's not a bonus it's fundamental. What else are you going to fall back on the successful banking sector ?
I don't like that its true, but being multi lingual at an early age must help
To quote tim, maybe it really is because "the thick white racists" have moved out
If it makes you feel happy, good. But you obviously didn't read what I wrote above. So for a third time I'll repeat it:
I'd call London's improvement welcome and interesting.
I've welcomed a fair few things the 1997-2010 government did. But because of them are no longer in any way controversial, they don't get discussed much on here.
Like my colleague Ali, who's a second generation immigrant. His Persian (his dad's from Iran) is - by his own admission - rubbish. His kid's is totally non-existent.
However, there is a major report coming out in the FT tonight/tomorrow so it may be as well to wait to see what that says - from the taster on wingsoverscotland it looks as if it will be very relevant (owed to @Mick_Pork for spotting it - http://wingsoverscotland.com/unleashing-a-firestorm/)
And if they go Euro or New Groat - enough said.