(Don't know how they got to Mar-a-Swampo, as I have been calling it for years.)
Whether people think Trump is criminal or malevolent or not, his personal and business arrangements appear to be a completely chaotic mess. How his affairs have not collapsed years ago astonishes me.
Having the Ark of the Covenant in his bathroom maybe keeping his enemies away.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Most likely shakeout is that the cost of housing falls. After all, the current price of somewhere to live is "every penny you have got", nothing at all to do with costs or a notional reasonable profit. So if everyone has fewer pennies because the government has taken more, landlords and house sellers can charge less. Manage the transition carefully, that's probably a good thing.
We saw the same when fuel taxes were cut. Sellers kept the profits for themselves, because they could.
I dont follow your logic that the cost of housing falls here. It will only fall if all the rentals cant be filled or all the houses bought. As we have a shortage of both compared to demand it isnt going to happen
16 people who signed paperwork falsely claiming Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election in Michigan have been charged, according to an announcement from state’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, on Tuesday.
Per NBC News, these charges appear to be the first against false electors.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
The most important figure is not a number, it is that taxation/state receipts should match total current account state managed expenditure. We are £2tn in debt, with interest rates rising and much of it inflation linked. This currently increases by over £100bn a year. It is very like putting CO2 into the atmosphere, you reach the point where a catastrophe is already certain by the actions you have already taken, and you have been putting the stuff in instead of taking it out.
Rishi Sunak is expected to delay issuing transgender guidance for schools after the attorney-general and government lawyers warned that plans to strengthen it would be unlawful.
A Whitehall source said that No 10 and Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, wanted the guidance to be hardened amid pressure from Tory MPs.
The draft guidance stated that children should be allowed to socially transition with the consent of their parents, meaning that they could choose another pronoun or name and wear the uniform of the opposite sex.
But the government then commissioned legal advice from Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further.
Sunak had committed himself to publishing the guidance by the end of this week, but The Times has been told that is unlikely given the attorney-general’s advice. The prime minister is concerned about the “long-term implications” of allowing children to socially transition.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
The most important figure is not a number, it is that taxation/state receipts should match total current account state managed expenditure. We are £2tn in debt, with interest rates rising and much of it inflation linked. This currently increases by over £100bn a year. It is very like putting CO2 into the atmosphere, you reach the point where a catastrophe is already certain by the actions you have already taken, and you have been putting the stuff in instead of taking it out.
I agree, which is why I keep asking people who want just another 30 billion spent on x what they want to cut.
I prefer Musk because I think he’s a proper genius who has made incredible engineering advances that have made the world better. He’s weird. And very flawed. But he’s a force for good on the whole
Zuck, I sense, is a bright guy who got lucky with that one idea at Harvard. I see no evidence that he’s done anything else or is likely to. He steals and buys - and controls
We probably all have our favourite villains in the tech Debrett’s
Steve Jobs, a bit of an arse but he certainly changed the world.
3 Apples have changed/shaped humanity.
1) The apple that Adam & Eve ate.
2) The apple that landed on Sir Isaac Newton's head
3) The company Steve Jobs created.
1) is never called an apple in the bible. Probably a quince.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Most likely shakeout is that the cost of housing falls. After all, the current price of somewhere to live is "every penny you have got", nothing at all to do with costs or a notional reasonable profit. So if everyone has fewer pennies because the government has taken more, landlords and house sellers can charge less. Manage the transition carefully, that's probably a good thing.
We saw the same when fuel taxes were cut. Sellers kept the profits for themselves, because they could.
I dont follow your logic that the cost of housing falls here. It will only fall if all the rentals cant be filled or all the houses bought. As we have a shortage of both compared to demand it isnt going to happen
The market price for a house is the most that anyone is willing and able to pay. Reduce everyone's ability to pay by taxing them more and the price falls.
The renters have no more cash, sure, but they have no less either. And they do have a better funded state providing services and/or not borrowing as much.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Absolutely fair question. To which I answer: wealth.
The estimated private wealth in the UK is what £17-20tn, 50% of which is owned by the wealthiest 10%. Time for us to cough a bit up for the national good.
Right, so around 8k on on top of everyone's council tax every year?
Rishi Sunak is expected to delay issuing transgender guidance for schools after the attorney-general and government lawyers warned that plans to strengthen it would be unlawful.
A Whitehall source said that No 10 and Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, wanted the guidance to be hardened amid pressure from Tory MPs.
The draft guidance stated that children should be allowed to socially transition with the consent of their parents, meaning that they could choose another pronoun or name and wear the uniform of the opposite sex.
But the government then commissioned legal advice from Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further.
Sunak had committed himself to publishing the guidance by the end of this week, but The Times has been told that is unlikely given the attorney-general’s advice. The prime minister is concerned about the “long-term implications” of allowing children to socially transition.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Absolutely fair question. To which I answer: wealth.
The estimated private wealth in the UK is what £17-20tn, 50% of which is owned by the wealthiest 10%. Time for us to cough a bit up for the national good.
Not disagreeing, but IHT affects only 4% of estates and your wealthiest 10% is 2.5x that, and look what offering to cut that does. Secondly much of this is "housing wealth" and largely illusory because people need it to live in. It's like declaring that everybody's pelvis is suddenly worth £1m: it may show up on the balance sheet but it's not easily realisable.
(Don't know how they got to Mar-a-Swampo, as I have been calling it for years.)
Whether people think Trump is criminal or malevolent or not, his personal and business arrangements appear to be a completely chaotic mess. How his affairs have not collapsed years ago astonishes me.
Having the Ark of the Covenant in his bathroom maybe keeping his enemies away.
This famously doesn't work because if you touch it you die. Like if you eat the fruit that isn't an apple. Anyway, the ark as we all know is in Ethiopia, South Africa, Ireland, Rome, a hole in the ground in Judah and in heaven:
II Samuel 6.6
When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.
(FPT) There are 10mn state school pupils in the UK not 12mn. I don't want to double school funding - I was simply pointing out that if funding didn't matter it was odd that private schools spend twice as much as state schools. But I'd like to see it increase in real terms over time - not all at once because that would likely be wasteful. Let's say an extra £3k per pupil, achieved after 10 years. £30bn at today's prices. I think that would pay for itself over time because we'd have a more productive workforce. In the meantime pay for it by higher taxes on the better off - income tax and wealth taxes - and by rejoining the EU single market to boost the economy and tax revenue.
Not even as much as that. You wouldn’t have to increase either early years or sixth form funding by that amount. The figures for 5-16 as as follows:
In cash terms, the total funding allocated to schools through the grants covered in this report is £57.3 billion in 2023-24, an increase of 64% compared to the £35.0 billion allocated in 2010-11. The 2022 Autumn Statement means funding will increase further in 2024-25.
On a per-pupil basis the total funding allocated to schools for 5-16 year old pupils, in cash terms, in 2023-24 was £7,460, a 44% increase compared to £5,180 allocated per pupil in 2010-11...
So £23bn for a £3,000 per capita increase. And the first £1k would likely show the greatest benefit: £8bn well spent, IMO.
£1,000 per head in the sixth for would make a massive difference,
Also FPT in response to a claim that joining the EU SM couldn't fund increased schools spending if £30bn because allegedly we had grown faster than the EU since 2019:
Since Q4 2019 the EU economy has grown by 2.9% while the UK economy has shrunk by 0.5%, so you are wrong. If the UK economy had grown by an additional 3.4% it would be around £85bn larger and given that tax revenues are around 40% of GDP that implies more than £30bn in additional revenue.
I posted the figures last night in response to someones claim that we had lost out 5.5% of gdp. I posted with sources that showed compared to 2019 the eu had grown by 6% and the uk had grown by 7.4% go back and look as I cant be bothered to go find them again
Those numbers are wrong. You might be looking at nominal rather than real GDP - our nominal GDP may be higher because of higher inflation, but in terms of real growth we have fallen well short of the EU, let alone the US, Canada or Australia. Our recent economic growth performance has been shockingly bad, both by historical standards and compared to other countries. *cough* Brexit *cough*.
2 tablespoons of grape seed oil 2 ounces of butter A teaspoonful of black mustard seeds and cumin seeds A bulb of garlic 3 medium onions sliced A teaspoonful of ground cumin 5 ft of rhubarb a pound of diced lamb shoulder A pint of chicken stock A handful of mint, finely chopped A handful of parsley, finely chopped
Heat an ounce of butter and two tablespoons of grape seed oil, add a teaspoon of mustard seeds and one of cumin seeds a bulb of garlic, each clove partially crushed and peeled
Add three medium sized sliced onions, add a pound of large diced stewing lamb, add two foot of rhubarb chopped to an inch. Stir well and cook on a low 90C-ish temp for three hours
Add two more foot of rhubarb chopped to an inch and a result
"Elsewhere in Europe, crews in Switzerland are battling a wildfire close to the village of Bitsch in canton Valais which authorities said started on Monday afternoon and spread "explosively" overnight.
Another wildfire on the Spanish island of La Palma, which started on Saturday, has destroyed 20 homes."
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
(Don't know how they got to Mar-a-Swampo, as I have been calling it for years.)
Whether people think Trump is criminal or malevolent or not, his personal and business arrangements appear to be a completely chaotic mess. How his affairs have not collapsed years ago astonishes me.
Having the Ark of the Covenant in his bathroom maybe keeping his enemies away.
This famously doesn't work because if you touch it you die. Like if you eat the fruit that isn't an apple. Anyway, the ark as we all know is in Ethiopia, South Africa, Ireland, Rome, a hole in the ground in Judah and in heaven:
II Samuel 6.6
When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.
What? Not Rosslyn chapel or La Pyramide Inversée after all then? But Dan Brown said...
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
Rishi Sunak is expected to delay issuing transgender guidance for schools after the attorney-general and government lawyers warned that plans to strengthen it would be unlawful.
A Whitehall source said that No 10 and Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, wanted the guidance to be hardened amid pressure from Tory MPs.
The draft guidance stated that children should be allowed to socially transition with the consent of their parents, meaning that they could choose another pronoun or name and wear the uniform of the opposite sex.
But the government then commissioned legal advice from Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further.
Sunak had committed himself to publishing the guidance by the end of this week, but The Times has been told that is unlikely given the attorney-general’s advice. The prime minister is concerned about the “long-term implications” of allowing children to socially transition.
Until the government passes new legislation implementing it anyway
What if the parents disagree with each other? What if one is serving a sentence for sexually abusing said child. Or raping or battering the other parent? Is it biological parents or parent and step parent? What if the child refuses to comply? Where does LAC fit in? Suppose they move from a supportive foster placement to an unsupportive one? Do they change and then change back? Or numerous other situations which can't simply be wished away by legislation? Nightmare to draft.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A level tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
(Don't know how they got to Mar-a-Swampo, as I have been calling it for years.)
Whether people think Trump is criminal or malevolent or not, his personal and business arrangements appear to be a completely chaotic mess. How his affairs have not collapsed years ago astonishes me.
Having the Ark of the Covenant in his bathroom maybe keeping his enemies away.
This famously doesn't work because if you touch it you die. Like if you eat the fruit that isn't an apple. Anyway, the ark as we all know is in Ethiopia, South Africa, Ireland, Rome, a hole in the ground in Judah and in heaven:
II Samuel 6.6
When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.
What? Not Rosslyn chapel or La Pyramide Inversée after all then? But Dan Brown said...
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
At Ledbury Grammar School we had one and a half classes per year and when it went Comprehensive and joined in with Ledbury Secondary each year had 7 classes which is a bit less. The upshot is 80 percent are on the scrapheap at 11.
Anyway your elitist fellow travellers have taken over the Conservative Party, so after the next election I suspect elite state education will be put on steroids and the rest can hang. I guess that means you have won the argument and I have lost. A bit like Brexit.
I prefer Musk because I think he’s a proper genius who has made incredible engineering advances that have made the world better. He’s weird. And very flawed. But he’s a force for good on the whole
Zuck, I sense, is a bright guy who got lucky with that one idea at Harvard. I see no evidence that he’s done anything else or is likely to. He steals and buys - and controls
We probably all have our favourite villains in the tech Debrett’s
Steve Jobs, a bit of an arse but he certainly changed the world.
3 Apples have changed/shaped humanity.
1) The apple that Adam & Eve ate.
2) The apple that landed on Sir Isaac Newton's head
3) The company Steve Jobs created.
1) is never called an apple in the bible. Probably a quince.
Rishi Sunak is expected to delay issuing transgender guidance for schools after the attorney-general and government lawyers warned that plans to strengthen it would be unlawful.
A Whitehall source said that No 10 and Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, wanted the guidance to be hardened amid pressure from Tory MPs.
The draft guidance stated that children should be allowed to socially transition with the consent of their parents, meaning that they could choose another pronoun or name and wear the uniform of the opposite sex.
But the government then commissioned legal advice from Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further.
Sunak had committed himself to publishing the guidance by the end of this week, but The Times has been told that is unlikely given the attorney-general’s advice. The prime minister is concerned about the “long-term implications” of allowing children to socially transition.
Until the government passes new legislation implementing it anyway
What if the parents disagree with each other? What if one is serving a sentence for sexually abusing said child. Or raping or battering the other parent? Is it biological parents or parent and step parent? What if the child refuses to comply? Where does LAC fit in? Suppose they move from a supportive foster placement to an unsupportive one? Do they change and then change back? Or numerous other situations which can't simply be wished away by legislation? Nightmare to draft.
Unless both parents consent to their changing their sex then the new legislation will make clear they will be banned from changing sex. At least until adulthood
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
The JLR factory will be in Bridgwater. Bridgwater's like a foreign land to residents of Somerton & Frome.
...and in other news Dan Wootton is bellyaching that "people are trying to destroy his life".
Remind me what a total **** Dan has been to Meghan, Harry, Pip Schofield, Holly, Huw...and on and on the list goes.
(Behind the I paywall)
I hadn’t really heard of this man until today’s revelations. The name was vaguely familiar but I’d have had him down as a sports presenter if pushed.
He is a nasty shock jock on GB News whose USP is being vile to anyone he considers "woke". He has spent the last two years taking down "elite liberals". Before that he was a reporter on "Lorraine ". It transpires he is openly gay, but has taken pleasure in taking Philip Schofield down for being gay.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
The JLR factory will be in Bridgwater. Bridgwater's like a foreign land to residents of Somerton & Frome.
I have relations in Bridgwater, but God himself appearing before them and telling them to vote Tory would not make them do so, so they are not completely typical of the area to say the least.
It does feel very different to the Frome area though.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A level tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Private schools dominate the A level ranking tables for lots of reasons, only some of which are that they provide a better education. But you're not just paying for your kids' grades at 16 and 18. You're paying for them to have a more enjoyable time while they do it. One of the things which tempted me to consider a private education for my kids was that that the might avoid the identarian agenda of state schools, but a quick look at the local options suggested that the private schools around here are even more bought into it.
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
The JLR factory will be in Bridgwater. Bridgwater's like a foreign land to residents of Somerton & Frome.
I have relations in Bridgwater, but God himself appearing before them and telling them to vote Tory would not make them do so, so they are not completely typical of the area to say the least.
It does feel very different to the Frome area though.
'Normal for Bridgwater' is a widely used disparagement across the rest of Somerset tbf.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Certainly plenty of the inverted variety. Very sad.
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
The JLR factory will be in Bridgwater. Bridgwater's like a foreign land to residents of Somerton & Frome.
Isn't it to be outside, to the north? at the old ROF Bridgwater at Puriton? On the other side of the Levels whichever way one defines it.
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
At Ledbury Grammar School we had one and a half classes per year and when it went Comprehensive and joined in with Ledbury Secondary each year had 7 classes which is a bit less. The upshot is 80 percent are on the scrapheap at 11.
Anyway your elitist fellow travellers have taken over the Conservative Party, so after the next election I suspect elite state education will be put on steroids and the rest can hang. I guess that means you have won the argument and I have lost. A bit like Brexit.
This Tory government hasn't even allowed ballots to open new grammars not just close them as now. I hope if Sunak and Hunt do lose the next election we at least get some rightwing red meat like that in opposition
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
HYUFD's entire discourse is one of sequential social exclusion at all ages as part of a doctrine that the posh and powerful should continue to inherit the earth, without the bother of having to make sure their children's state schools are good enough. If you don't find that disturbing, then fair enough.
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
The JLR factory will be in Bridgwater. Bridgwater's like a foreign land to residents of Somerton & Frome.
Isn't it to be outside, to the north? at the old ROF Bridgwater at Puriton? On the other side of the Levels whichever way one defines it.
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
The sane option would be to stream by subject, in all schools. In my old school you could move from C to B to A in any year - up to, then, O levels starting.
With the JLR deal in Somerset could the Tories pull off a surprise victory in the by election? I've just had £7.83 at 27.6 on the Tories to win Somerton and Frome.
The JLR factory will be in Bridgwater. Bridgwater's like a foreign land to residents of Somerton & Frome.
Isn't it to be outside, to the north? at the old ROF Bridgwater at Puriton? On the other side of the Levels whichever way one defines it.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
I think HY and Nick Ferrari would argue that it is not so much who is directly affected but the general removal of civil liberties (namely the freedom to choke outer London babies to death from diesel particulates).
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
As I understand it, the argument against private schools is
1) They make no difference 2) They make all the difference in the world 3) State education is perfectly fine 4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
We need education We don't need no thought control Dark sarcasm in the classroom Teacher, don't leave them kids alone
...and in other news Dan Wootton is bellyaching that "people are trying to destroy his life".
Remind me what a total **** Dan has been to Meghan, Harry, Pip Schofield, Holly, Huw...and on and on the list goes.
(Behind the I paywall)
I hadn’t really heard of this man until today’s revelations. The name was vaguely familiar but I’d have had him down as a sports presenter if pushed.
He is a nasty shock jock on GB News whose USP is being vile to anyone he considers "woke". He has spent the last two years taking down "elite liberals". Before that he was a reporter on "Lorraine ". It transpires he is openly gay, but has taken pleasure in taking Philip Schofield down for being gay.
Wootton seems to have sources for his stories quite high up in the Establishment. They may well be exposed if the story grows.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
I think HY and Nick Ferrari would argue that it is not so much who is directly affected but the general removal of civil liberties (namely the freedom to choke outer London babies to death from diesel particulates).
Yes, but all the evidence from recent elections is that Britons are not very keen on freedom. They like the smack of firm government, at least until it starts smacking them.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
I think HY and Nick Ferrari would argue that it is not so much who is directly affected but the general removal of civil liberties (namely the freedom to choke outer London babies to death from diesel particulates).
Yes, but all the evidence from recent elections is that Britons are not very keen on freedom. They like the smack of firm government, at least until it starts smacking them.
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
The sane option would be to stream by subject, in all schools. In my old school you could move from C to B to A in any year - up to, then, O levels starting.
There's a not-unreasonable argument that grammar schools should take the top 80%. It strikes me that the needs of the middle 60% are more similar to the needs of the top 20% than to the needs of the bottom 20%. Note that I am certainly not arguing for letting the bottom 20% fend for themselves: more that the needs of the bottom 20% probably need more constructive thinking (and resources) than the needs of the top 20%.
On setting: I do remember in the 1980s there was quite a lot of ideological opposition to setting; some schools refused to do it because it was elitist, and at least one parent I knew of refused to send their children to a school were setting happened for the same reason. Said (very bright) children ended up at something of a sink school. Did ok, but was always going to. Don't think she enjoyed school very much though.
...and in other news Dan Wootton is bellyaching that "people are trying to destroy his life".
Remind me what a total **** Dan has been to Meghan, Harry, Pip Schofield, Holly, Huw...and on and on the list goes.
(Behind the I paywall)
I hadn’t really heard of this man until today’s revelations. The name was vaguely familiar but I’d have had him down as a sports presenter if pushed.
He is a nasty shock jock on GB News whose USP is being vile to anyone he considers "woke". He has spent the last two years taking down "elite liberals". Before that he was a reporter on "Lorraine ". It transpires he is openly gay, but has taken pleasure in taking Philip Schofield down for being gay.
Wootton seems to have sources for his stories quite high up in the Establishment. They may well be exposed if the story grows.
This roundup just up on the Graun - doesn't waste time on salacious detail.
'On Tuesday night Wootton delivered a six-minute statement on his GB News show directly addressing the allegations, telling viewers he had been the “target of a smear campaign by nefarious players” and denied any illegal behaviour. He criticised the Guardian for publishing this article and claimed he had reported Truby to the police.'
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
I think HY and Nick Ferrari would argue that it is not so much who is directly affected but the general removal of civil liberties (namely the freedom to choke outer London babies to death from diesel particulates).
Yes, but all the evidence from recent elections is that Britons are not very keen on freedom. They like the smack of firm government, at least until it starts smacking them.
I think they don't like being smacked around by elitist woke liberals like Khan, well not according to Nick Ferrari anyway.
Daniel Finkelstein making a clever (probably too clever) point in tomorrow's Times;
May 2024 might also be the best moment economically to go to the polls. Inflation may start, by then, to look as though it is under control, but after May a recession could follow, which would make an election even more difficult. There may never be the perfect economic window for the Tories to fight an election, but they shouldn’t let a reasonable one go by merely hoping that things will get better. Things could get worse.
Trouble is that, even if May '24 (even October '23) are the best time from the point of view of the Eternal Conservative Party, they require a sacrifice by the current holders of the franchise. Are they up for that?
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
The sane option would be to stream by subject, in all schools. In my old school you could move from C to B to A in any year - up to, then, O levels starting.
But I've never worked in a school which wasn't setted. Even my SEN school is. There are rumours of mixed ability classes still extant but I haven't encountered one since I qualified in 2001. Streaming is different. Most are streamed for English and Maths. And potentially Science. And, of course, languages, where the easy acquisition of one leads to another. But, if you are so far behind in one of English or Maths then it's usually a SEN issue. Most notably dyscalcula or dyslexia. Both of which are testable for, but there is neither the time to do the testing, nor the funding to do owt about it anyway.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
As I understand it, the argument against private schools is
1) They make no difference 2) They make all the difference in the world 3) State education is perfectly fine 4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
You are right insofar that criticism of private schools in Britain has not unified and sorted out a powerful and consistent approach to take towards its target. In a sense it's all over the place. The same is true in respect of criticism of the monarchy. The same is true in respect of criticism of NATO membership.
The reason for that isn't that it's full of crap. The reason is that the defenders of these vile things are so strong.
Many who detest private schools for the right reasons - i.e. because they are among the principal means that the ruling elite in this country reproduces itself, and because boarding schools are a form of child abuse - are too scared to say so. Thus they get involved in silly debates about taxation (!) and about the effect that such and such a policy on private schools would have on the state sector (!), when those questions are largely irrelevant to the main points. How the defenders must be smiling. They know damned well why they defend private schools. It's not to save the state money. It's precisely because they are such an important means through which the ruling elite reproduces itself. As for a few townies and non-whites being allowed in, that's true but so what? So nothing.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
I think HY and Nick Ferrari would argue that it is not so much who is directly affected but the general removal of civil liberties (namely the freedom to choke outer London babies to death from diesel particulates).
Yes, but all the evidence from recent elections is that Britons are not very keen on freedom. They like the smack of firm government, at least until it starts smacking them.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
I doubt Sunak will mention that given its a Tory policy . Starmer though has had a poor week , Labour are in danger of being so desperate to look frugal and sensible with the finances that they start losing voters who want a real change and not just the same policies with less annoying politicians. As a normal Labour voter Starmer is beginning to grate on me , I’m desperate to see the back of the Tories and I’ll have to vote tactically in my seat to do that but I have zero enthusiasm.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
As I understand it, the argument against private schools is
1) They make no difference 2) They make all the difference in the world 3) State education is perfectly fine 4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
You are right insofar that criticism of private schools in Britain has not unified and sorted out a powerful and consistent approach to take towards its target. In a sense it's all over the place. The same is true in respect of criticism of the monarchy. The same is true in respect of criticism of NATO membership.
The reason for that isn't that it's full of crap. The reason is that the defenders of these vile things are so strong.
Many who detest private schools for the right reasons - i.e. because they are among the principal means that the ruling elite in this country reproduces itself, and because boarding schools are a form of child abuse - are too scared to say so. Thus they get involved in silly debates about taxation (!) and about the effect that such and such a policy on private schools would have on the state sector (!), when those questions are largely irrelevant to the main points. How the defenders must be smiling. They know damned well why they defend private schools. It's not to save the state money. It's precisely because they are such an important means through which the ruling elite reproduces itself. As for a few townies and non-whites being allowed in, that's true but so what? So nothing.
Private schools very definitely do not equal boarding schools, and nor, by and large, are they attended by children of the elite. And round here they are absolutely full of Asians (of all sorts), to the extent that at some of them white kids are a minority. (Asians, typically, valuing rather more highly than average.)
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
HYUFD's entire discourse is one of sequential social exclusion at all ages as part of a doctrine that the posh and powerful should continue to inherit the earth, without the bother of having to make sure their children's state schools are good enough. If you don't find that disturbing, then fair enough.
What is more disturbing is activists of HY's industry are often rewarded with hitherto safe seats lost in a rout for the next election. He could be a Junior Minister in a Braverman Government before you know it.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A level tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Actually, I'm more of a fishy socialist than a chippy socialist.
And, on raw numbers, 4 of the top 5 schools/colleges sending kids to Oxbridge are state schools or sixth form colleges:
I prefer Musk because I think he’s a proper genius who has made incredible engineering advances that have made the world better. He’s weird. And very flawed. But he’s a force for good on the whole
Zuck, I sense, is a bright guy who got lucky with that one idea at Harvard. I see no evidence that he’s done anything else or is likely to. He steals and buys - and controls
We probably all have our favourite villains in the tech Debrett’s
Steve Jobs, a bit of an arse but he certainly changed the world.
While Bill Gates steals and buys and controls… hmmm
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
I prefer Musk because I think he’s a proper genius who has made incredible engineering advances that have made the world better. He’s weird. And very flawed. But he’s a force for good on the whole
Zuck, I sense, is a bright guy who got lucky with that one idea at Harvard. I see no evidence that he’s done anything else or is likely to. He steals and buys - and controls
We probably all have our favourite villains in the tech Debrett’s
Steve Jobs, a bit of an arse but he certainly changed the world.
3 Apples have changed/shaped humanity.
1) The apple that Adam & Eve ate.
2) The apple that landed on Sir Isaac Newton's head
Jobs, Musk, Zuck, Bezos etc are not engineering or technical greats. They are brilliant, sometimes inspirational, managers and marketeers.
The technical geniuses are the people who sit behind them. In the case of Jobs, it was Woz and a load of others. To his credit (and Bezos), they don't / didn't generally claim to be technical bods.
This article disagrees
“And while Musk was an investor in both SpaceX and Tesla Motors, he was also heavily steeped in design, playing a lead role in both products' engineering. While he might not have a degree in engineering, he oversaw the development of the all-electric Tesla Roadster and Model S sedan.”
Musk is a famous workaholic who, in a 2021 interview, said that the majority of his working time was spent developing the technology. "Almost all my time, like 80 percent of it, is spent on engineering and design […] developing next-generation product," he said to Y Combinator founder Sam Altman.
At SpaceX, he was responsible for overseeing the design of SpaceX Falcon 1, the first privately developed rocket to reach orbit. Since then, SpaceX has also debuted Falcon 9, Dragon Spacecraft and Falcon Heavy, one of the most powerful operating rockets in the world.“
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A level tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Actually, I'm more of a fishy socialist than a chippy socialist.
And, on raw numbers, 4 of the top 5 schools/colleges sending kids to Oxbridge are state schools or sixth form colleges:
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
As I understand it, the argument against private schools is
1) They make no difference 2) They make all the difference in the world 3) State education is perfectly fine 4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
We need education We don't need no thought control Dark sarcasm in the classroom Teacher, don't leave them kids alone
The argument 'as you understand it' is indeed less than convincing.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A level tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Actually, I'm more of a fishy socialist than a chippy socialist.
And, on raw numbers, 4 of the top 5 schools/colleges sending kids to Oxbridge are state schools or sixth form colleges:
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Most likely shakeout is that the cost of housing falls. After all, the current price of somewhere to live is "every penny you have got", nothing at all to do with costs or a notional reasonable profit. So if everyone has fewer pennies because the government has taken more, landlords and house sellers can charge less. Manage the transition carefully, that's probably a good thing.
We saw the same when fuel taxes were cut. Sellers kept the profits for themselves, because they could.
I dont follow your logic that the cost of housing falls here. It will only fall if all the rentals cant be filled or all the houses bought. As we have a shortage of both compared to demand it isnt going to happen
I'm not sure that's accurate: house prices in Hong Kong fell something like 60% about 15 years ago, and there was still obviously massively more demand than supply.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
As I understand it, the argument against private schools is
1) They make no difference 2) They make all the difference in the world 3) State education is perfectly fine 4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
We need education We don't need no thought control Dark sarcasm in the classroom Teacher, don't leave them kids alone
The argument 'as you understand it' is indeed less than convincing.
The actual argument on the other hand ...
If the education system had been different when you were young, perhaps you would have gone down the path of studying the humanities instead, and ended up as a right-wing reactionary.
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Most likely shakeout is that the cost of housing falls. After all, the current price of somewhere to live is "every penny you have got", nothing at all to do with costs or a notional reasonable profit. So if everyone has fewer pennies because the government has taken more, landlords and house sellers can charge less. Manage the transition carefully, that's probably a good thing.
We saw the same when fuel taxes were cut. Sellers kept the profits for themselves, because they could.
I dont follow your logic that the cost of housing falls here. It will only fall if all the rentals cant be filled or all the houses bought. As we have a shortage of both compared to demand it isnt going to happen
I'm not sure that's accurate: house prices in Hong Kong fell something like 60% about 15 years ago, and there was still obviously massively more demand than supply.
A large component of demand to buy is based on the expectation of future capital gains, and that can easily go into reverse if people expect capital losses.
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
The sane option would be to stream by subject, in all schools. In my old school you could move from C to B to A in any year - up to, then, O levels starting.
With the exception of very small schools, isn't that true if basically all secondary education today?
On the subject of tax, spending, and government borrowing, I can't see any good reason why we shouldn't increase taxes from the current 36% GDP to say 43%* GDP.
That would raise an additional £130bn or thereabouts which could transform public services and get the economy growing again.
Seems obvious to me.
(* 43% would put us in line with that well known failed state France, which last time I checked still seems be surviving just fine, with, for example, great infrastructure, health care, food, wine, and countryside and weather. Or Norway, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, every man jack of them gone to the dogs.)
So where does that extra tax fall? 7% is a lot clue you are going to have to tax basic rate tax payers a lot of whom already cant stretch the pay till the end of the month.....no doubt you will then be complaining they cant afford to eat/heat/pay rent
Most likely shakeout is that the cost of housing falls. After all, the current price of somewhere to live is "every penny you have got", nothing at all to do with costs or a notional reasonable profit. So if everyone has fewer pennies because the government has taken more, landlords and house sellers can charge less. Manage the transition carefully, that's probably a good thing.
We saw the same when fuel taxes were cut. Sellers kept the profits for themselves, because they could.
I dont follow your logic that the cost of housing falls here. It will only fall if all the rentals cant be filled or all the houses bought. As we have a shortage of both compared to demand it isnt going to happen
I'm not sure that's accurate: house prices in Hong Kong fell something like 60% about 15 years ago, and there was still obviously massively more demand than supply.
A large component of demand to buy is based on the expectation of future capital gains, and that can easily go into reverse if people expect capital losses.
I think that's absolutely right: and that causes people to bid up far more than they should.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A levels tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Certainly no snobbery on display here anyway.
Nor any understanding of the wider costs, near and far, of slavishly held beliefs about the need for cringing deference to supposed betters.
Lol. Or your cringing deference to your own slavishly held beliefs perhaps? Hatred of private schools by many on the left is just pure petty envy and nothing else. Why does it vex you so? If they really aren't better then why do you have a problem? There is nothing wrong with wanting to choose to spend one's own money on what is by most objective measures a better option than most bog-standard-mediocre-is-ok-state-schools.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
As I understand it, the argument against private schools is
1) They make no difference 2) They make all the difference in the world 3) State education is perfectly fine 4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
We need education We don't need no thought control Dark sarcasm in the classroom Teacher, don't leave them kids alone
The argument 'as you understand it' is indeed less than convincing.
The actual argument on the other hand ...
Careful now Kinabulu you're in danger of becoming an anecdote.
FPT - I feel so strongly about this that I've taken the liberty to re-post it here from the end of the last thread. Apologies for repetition.
I've followed today's education debate with interest, and can't help but observe that the amount of actual evidence used to point to the superiority of a private education has been absolutely minimal. The data is actually quite complex, but there's a strong argument to suggest that for most kids, especially the middle classes, the advantages of a private education are, by the age of 18, either minimal or non-existent. The snobbery on here is manifest, though - particularly the not infrequent, and manifestly absurd, references to 'stabbings' in comprehensives - an extremely rare event in any schools. Indeed, criminal activity, whether it be drug use or sexual abuse, is probably more widespread in the private school sector.
Nevertheless, I fully understand the desire of those who use private schools to assert that they are much better. They'd feel pretty stupid if they were wasting their money, after all.
Private schools dominate the top of the A level tables rankings, get high entry to top universities here and in the US, provide excellent extra curricular sports and cultural activity and attract pupils from all over the world.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
Actually, I'm more of a fishy socialist than a chippy socialist.
And, on raw numbers, 4 of the top 5 schools/colleges sending kids to Oxbridge are state schools or sixth form colleges:
Of the top 10 for Oxbridge entry there only one is not a private school, grammar school or sixth form college. Brampton Manor, a free school
But that is hardly surprising if you starve the state sector of resources.
I find your elitism rather depressing, particularly as Government seem to agree with you.
F****** over the great unwashed will not lead to a good outcome for mainstream political parties. I know you think because he is of the right he can't be a bad guy, but would you really want Tommy Robinson as your Prime Minister?
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The Donald has ALWAYS believed HE is above the law. And always will.
I reckon a bet on the Tories on all three is value at those odds. (Singles, not a treble!). I'd be surprised if they lost all three.
I have done this, very modestly, except for Somerton - which I think is impossible. Uxbridge and Selby are in the realm of arguable. Though I expect probably to lose.
I think there’s a better-than-the-odds chance they’ll hold Selby.
The BBC and LBC have been bigging up the ULEZ issue today. If they and HY are right it is a game changer. Starmer has also had a shocking week whereas Rishi has had a good run out with his university pitch, he and Suella have had great media coverage for the boats and tomorrow he will get some great inflation results.
Harold Wilson was right. A week is a long time in politics. A week where Rishi has knocked it out of the park.
WIth no disrespect meant, I genuinely don't know how far into your cheek your tongue is with these posts.
By Friday morning we shall see.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
Of course, for the 90% with a ULEZ compliant.pliant vehicle, they are voting for 10% less traffic...
I think HY and Nick Ferrari would argue that it is not so much who is directly affected but the general removal of civil liberties (namely the freedom to choke outer London babies to death from diesel particulates).
Yes, but all the evidence from recent elections is that Britons are not very keen on freedom. They like the smack of firm government, at least until it starts smacking them.
The greatest freedom prized by the British is the freedom to attack others. If they are granted that, then there is no hovel so mean, no food so tasteless, that they will not adore, provided it is better than their neighbours'
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
The sane option would be to stream by subject, in all schools. In my old school you could move from C to B to A in any year - up to, then, O levels starting.
With the exception of very small schools, isn't that true if basically all secondary education today?
Most but not all. There are a lot of advocates for mixed ability teaching in secondary schools - high profile studies by research teams seem to indicate it can be better for attainment but I don't understand that personally.
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The Donald has ALWAYS believed HE is above the law. And always will.
Just like Bojo and Mad Vlad to name but two.
It's partly "positive thinking" informed by Norman Vincent Peale.
Donald Trump doesn't seem strong at all when the heat's on. He should have realised after the church walk when he held up the bible that if El Presidente can't rely on the army following his security orders in the vicinity of the presidential palace, then El Presidente is finished. He was nuts to incite the 6 January violence after that. Successfully murdering Mike Pence was extremely unlikely for obvious reasons, but even if he'd achieved an armed standoff in or around the building he wouldn't have won it. Standing for the Republican nomination again is crazy. He should be looking for an off-ramp. He can still go a lot crazier and that seems to be the way he's headed. Not pleasant to watch at all.
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The Donald has ALWAYS believed HE is above the law. And always will.
Just like Bojo and Mad Vlad to name but two.
There is a difference between thinking you are above the law and thinking that you are the law.
If human beings were rational and logical, it would have been private schools that were almost abolished, not grammar schools.
Not if you believe selection at aged 11 to be morally questionable. Although selection at 11 based on parental wealth is even less optimal. The view might be that it is acceptable for parents to pay for their own child's elite education but not for taxpayers to pay for someone else's child's elite education and not that of their own child.
How about we fund secondary education so we have Grammar School quality for all students?
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The Donald has ALWAYS believed HE is above the law. And always will.
Just like Bojo and Mad Vlad to name but two.
There is a difference between thinking you are above the law and thinking that you are the law.
Re. Education. A disproportionate amount of the debate is around kids who could go to University. They'll do OK whatever. SENMH sector is in a dire state of crisis. And there it can often be the difference between someone being able to hold down paid employment or not.
The biggest failings of our education system are at the lower end. Not just in lost economic opportunity and unfulfilled lives, but the costs of crime, mental health, addiction and social problems. We can never eliminate these things completely, but we could do a hell of a lot better.
From January:
As I said yesterday this country - including Scotland - has always had world class education at the top end. There’s a reason why British boarding schools are so popular with international parents. Grammar schools were a mid-twentieth century manifestation of that. And on their own terms they actually did some decent work although they were not without serious shortcomings.
But it’s always been pretty rubbish at doing the basics right for everyone else. My distinct impression is that’s due to a lack of understanding of what’s needed or effective at the centre of power (although comprehensive schools as grammar schools for all and the national curriculum were strongly supported by Callaghan, who hardly counted as elite in background or schooling). I could be completely wrong of course, but it fits with the facts as I have observed them.
We would really benefit as a country from sorting that out. But whatever solutions are proposed won’t be easy and certainly won’t be cheap. Moreover they won’t deal with the many legacy issues of the current system without a substantial commitment to lifelong learning as well. I see no sign of that from any party.
HY's notion of elite education for the few seems to have some traction in Government. I have no doubt that the ultimate goal for the current iteration of Conservatism is to make education for the few not the many. There is a desperate enthusiasm for extending Grammar schools. I believe Sunak let the cat out of the bag over University Courses yesterday (another pitch from the HY manifesto) and the aim in the next or next but one Parliament is to reduce university entry back to the top 10%. This is probably not as offensive policy as I would make it out to be, but I do feel that within the 10% we will have Sunak, Braverman, Dowden, Hunt and Jenrick's children, but not mine! Mine can get apprenticeships to stack shelves at Aldi!
My father (who finished his career as a Deputy Headmaster) used to crack a smile with all the Conservative and Ratepayer councillors on Wythall Parish Council who were advocates of the 11 plus until their children failed. Before you knew it they were great enthusiasts for comprehensive education.
Plenty of grammar schools took the top 25 per cent, not just the top 10 per cent
I wouldn't be against grammar schools if they took the top 100%.
The sane option would be to stream by subject, in all schools. In my old school you could move from C to B to A in any year - up to, then, O levels starting.
With the exception of very small schools, isn't that true if basically all secondary education today?
Most but not all. There are a lot of advocates for mixed ability teaching in secondary schools - high profile studies by research teams seem to indicate it can be better for attainment but I don't understand that personally.
When I went to Compressive School in the 1970s. One that worked well. Students were streamed by subject, so someone in the top set for maths might be in the third set for French. It is the only way to operate a secondary school, but I would guess a nightmare to timetable.
When I moved to Grammar School we had an A and a B. stream across the board. A clever kids class and a dunces class (even though the dunces had passed an 11 plus). Go figure.
BlancheLivermore -Thanks much for your occasional on-the-ground updates on postal service in Britain.
In return, here are a couple of tidbits from the US: Abraham Lincoln was a part time post master for a while, earning all of 60 dollars a year. Even then that wasn't much, but there was a perq: Postmasters were allowed to read all the newspapers and magazines that came through the office -- which he did.
Currently, first class postage in the US costs 66 cents for a one ounce letter, which is cheaper -- allowing for very rough estimates of inflation -- than it was, back in Lincoln's day. (By the way, as many of you already know, there are USB drives that weigh less than an ounce, so it is easy to send very large amounts of data in a single letter.)
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The Donald has ALWAYS believed HE is above the law. And always will.
Just like Bojo and Mad Vlad to name but two.
There is a difference between thinking you are above the law and thinking that you are the law.
You know anything about Trump's "business" dealings pre-2016?
He certainly wasn't nuts enough back then to think he WAS the law. And equally certainly believed he was ABOVE the law, that it was just some kind of petty annoyance that he could buy his way out of.
Just like his scumbag daddy and granddaddy Trumps before him.
Is Donald Trump planning to refuse to testify to the grand jury investigating him for the 6 January violence? Or is he whingeing that when he goes along to testify he'll be arrested? I couldn't work it out from his enraged messages which it is.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
The general tenor of his rants do appear to be more fearful than they used to be. They come across as stunned that being an announced candidate, and the leading GOP candidate to boot, did not put a stop to the various indictment processes.
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The Donald has ALWAYS believed HE is above the law. And always will.
Just like Bojo and Mad Vlad to name but two.
There is a difference between thinking you are above the law and thinking that you are the law.
You know anything about Trump's "business" dealings pre-2016?
He certainly wasn't nuts enough back then to think he WAS the law. And equally certainly believed he was ABOVE the law, that it was just some kind of petty annoyance that he could buy his way out of.
Just like his scumbag daddy and granddaddy Trumps before him.
I'm just trying to find a conceptual framework that will allow you to differentiate between BoJo on the one hand and Putin on the other. For the sake of argument we can say that the jury is out on which category Trump belongs in but I would lean towards the former.
Comments
If Trump wins again, they sadly will be correct.
Rishi Sunak is expected to delay issuing transgender guidance for schools after the attorney-general and government lawyers warned that plans to strengthen it would be unlawful.
A Whitehall source said that No 10 and Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, wanted the guidance to be hardened amid pressure from Tory MPs.
The draft guidance stated that children should be allowed to socially transition with the consent of their parents, meaning that they could choose another pronoun or name and wear the uniform of the opposite sex.
But the government then commissioned legal advice from Victoria Prentis, the attorney-general, about whether a ban on social transitioning in schools was possible. Last week she concluded that such a move would be unlawful and said that the government would need to pass new legislation if it wanted to go further.
Sunak had committed himself to publishing the guidance by the end of this week, but The Times has been told that is unlikely given the attorney-general’s advice. The prime minister is concerned about the “long-term implications” of allowing children to socially transition.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-gender-guidance-schools-uk-pupils-pronouns-transition-2023-3w6qdskpc
The renters have no more cash, sure, but they have no less either. And they do have a better funded state providing services and/or not borrowing as much.
You can't deny that the Conservatives have had some excellent copy this week whilst Starmer-Labour have tied themselves in knots. Kuennsberg set a trap and he fell into it. Sir Kid Starver is a fantastic slur that Rishi is going to beat him around the head with tomorrow at PMQs. It doesn't matter that the two child policy is Osborne's invention, Starmer now owns it and the nation hates him for it. ULEZ according to HY and the BBC is a real vote loser for Uxbridge. FWIW I don't believe it will feature in the GE.
II Samuel 6.6
When they came to the threshing floor of Nakon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down, and he died there beside the ark of God.
It was delicious
I went my own way with the recipe
2 tablespoons of grape seed oil
2 ounces of butter
A teaspoonful of black mustard seeds and cumin seeds
A bulb of garlic
3 medium onions sliced
A teaspoonful of ground cumin
5 ft of rhubarb
a pound of diced lamb shoulder
A pint of chicken stock
A handful of mint, finely chopped
A handful of parsley, finely chopped
Heat an ounce of butter and two tablespoons of grape seed oil, add a teaspoon of mustard seeds and one of cumin seeds a bulb of garlic, each clove partially crushed and peeled
Add three medium sized sliced onions, add a pound of large diced stewing lamb, add two foot of rhubarb chopped to an inch. Stir well and cook on a low 90C-ish temp for three hours
Add two more foot of rhubarb chopped to an inch and a result
Remind me what a total **** Dan has been to Meghan, Harry, Pip Schofield, Holly, Huw...and on and on the list goes.
(Behind the I paywall)
"Elsewhere in Europe, crews in Switzerland are battling a wildfire close to the village of Bitsch in canton Valais which authorities said started on Monday afternoon and spread "explosively" overnight.
Another wildfire on the Spanish island of La Palma, which started on Saturday, has destroyed 20 homes."
BBC
What if one is serving a sentence for sexually abusing said child.
Or raping or battering the other parent?
Is it biological parents or parent and step parent?
What if the child refuses to comply?
Where does LAC fit in?
Suppose they move from a supportive foster placement to an unsupportive one? Do they change and then change back?
Or numerous other situations which can't simply be wished away by legislation?
Nightmare to draft.
Of course chippy socialists like you hate them but so what
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sign_and_the_Seal
I have been to Axum. Sadly if you try to verify any aspect of the story the only answer you ever get is "there is a book by Graham Hancock..."
Anyway your elitist fellow travellers have taken over the Conservative Party, so after the next election I suspect elite state education will be put on steroids and the rest can hang. I guess that means you have won the argument and I have lost. A bit like Brexit.
There is also nothing wrong in taking a holiday to the Maldives if that is your thing, or eating in a Michelin star restaurant, but perhaps you believe that because some folks can't afford that luxury, then all should be denied?
It does feel very different to the Frome area though.
But you're not just paying for your kids' grades at 16 and 18. You're paying for them to have a more enjoyable time while they do it.
One of the things which tempted me to consider a private education for my kids was that that the might avoid the identarian agenda of state schools, but a quick look at the local options suggested that the private schools around here are even more bought into it.
1) They make no difference
2) They make all the difference in the world
3) State education is perfectly fine
4) But private schools destroy everything.
It rather reminds me of the contortions that people go through about not wanting to build more houses (EVUL DEVELOPMENT) and the necessity of building more houses (Poor people living in shoeboxes. If they can get them).
We need education
We don't need no thought control
Dark sarcasm in the classroom
Teacher, don't leave them kids alone
Sir Kid Starver and Less Eating
Oh well
Note that I am certainly not arguing for letting the bottom 20% fend for themselves: more that the needs of the bottom 20% probably need more constructive thinking (and resources) than the needs of the top 20%.
On setting: I do remember in the 1980s there was quite a lot of ideological opposition to setting; some schools refused to do it because it was elitist, and at least one parent I knew of refused to send their children to a school were setting happened for the same reason. Said (very bright) children ended up at something of a sink school. Did ok, but was always going to. Don't think she enjoyed school very much though.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/jul/18/sun-and-mail-publishers-examine-claims-against-journalist-dan-wootton
'On Tuesday night Wootton delivered a six-minute statement on his GB News show directly addressing the allegations, telling viewers he had been the “target of a smear campaign by nefarious players” and denied any illegal behaviour. He criticised the Guardian for publishing this article and claimed he had reported Truby to the police.'
May 2024 might also be the best moment economically to go to the polls. Inflation may start, by then, to look as though it is under control, but after May a recession could follow, which would make an election even more difficult. There may never be the perfect economic window for the Tories to fight an election, but they shouldn’t let a reasonable one go by merely hoping that things will get better. Things could get worse.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9dd4b110-257f-11ee-8c1b-d5d52b458fbd?shareToken=52670f20cd7f05decc38da683efcd614
Trouble is that, even if May '24 (even October '23) are the best time from the point of view of the Eternal Conservative Party, they require a sacrifice by the current holders of the franchise. Are they up for that?
There are rumours of mixed ability classes still extant but I haven't encountered one since I qualified in 2001.
Streaming is different. Most are streamed for English and Maths. And potentially Science. And, of course, languages, where the easy acquisition of one leads to another. But, if you are so far behind in one of English or Maths then it's usually a SEN issue. Most notably dyscalcula or dyslexia. Both of which are testable for, but there is neither the time to do the testing, nor the funding to do owt about it anyway.
The reason for that isn't that it's full of crap. The reason is that the defenders of these vile things are so strong.
Many who detest private schools for the right reasons - i.e. because they are among the principal means that the ruling elite in this country reproduces itself, and because boarding schools are a form of child abuse - are too scared to say so. Thus they get involved in silly debates about taxation (!) and about the effect that such and such a policy on private schools would have on the state sector (!), when those questions are largely irrelevant to the main points. How the defenders must be smiling. They know damned well why they defend private schools. It's not to save the state money. It's precisely because they are such an important means through which the ruling elite reproduces itself. As for a few townies and non-whites being allowed in, that's true but so what? So nothing.
Please sir, can I have some more?
https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-scott-morton-appointment-not-coherent-with-eu-sovereignty-ambitions/
Macron slams EU Commission for hiring American economist
And, on raw numbers, 4 of the top 5 schools/colleges sending kids to Oxbridge are state schools or sixth form colleges:
https://whichschooladvisor.com/uk/school-news/revealed-uks-top-20-schools-for-oxbridge#:~:text=The top school in the,places at Oxford and Cambridge.
I see his niece Mary Trump is keeping up her good work. Prediction: when he begins his plummet, she'll be there. In respect of the indictments and possible indictments, she has called him a "frightened little boy" who is terrified of being humiliated. Ouch. She's like an anti him - highly committed to telling the truth and being sane.
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/videos/the-nation-decides-election-special-1979?assettype=film&phrase=the nation decides election special 1979
This is a lot less complimentary
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blind-Corner-Tesla-Model-Dangerous/dp/0753554372/ref=asc_df_0753554372/?tag=googshopuk-21&linkCode=df0&hvadid=535923983729&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=14346262282388457247&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=1006886&hvtargid=pla-1392983155919&psc=1&th=1&psc=1
I cannot imagine he actually thought they would just stop, but it is interesting that his second biggest narrative from all this is an open admission that he and the party think people in his situation, ie running for office, should be above the law (his first narrative is naturally that it is all nonsense and that its to punish his supporters etc, which makes more sense).
Feels like it all needed to kick off about 6 months earlier than it did, but that's justice for you, painfully slow too much of the time.
The actual argument on the other hand ...
I find your elitism rather depressing, particularly as Government seem to agree with you.
F****** over the great unwashed will not lead to a good outcome for mainstream political parties. I know you think because he is of the right he can't be a bad guy, but would you really want Tommy Robinson as your Prime Minister?
Just like Bojo and Mad Vlad to name but two.
Donald Trump doesn't seem strong at all when the heat's on. He should have realised after the church walk when he held up the bible that if El Presidente can't rely on the army following his security orders in the vicinity of the presidential palace, then El Presidente is finished. He was nuts to incite the 6 January violence after that. Successfully murdering Mike Pence was extremely unlikely for obvious reasons, but even if he'd achieved an armed standoff in or around the building he wouldn't have won it. Standing for the Republican nomination again is crazy. He should be looking for an off-ramp. He can still go a lot crazier and that seems to be the way he's headed. Not pleasant to watch at all.
North Atlantic sea surface temperature anomalies are going vertical again. And yes, I needed to extend the y-axis.
Yesterday's temperature of 24.49°C (76.08°F) was 4.2σ above the 1991-2020 mean. The previous high for July 17 was 23.71°C (74.68°F) in 2020...
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1681321023306874880
How about we fund secondary education so we have Grammar School quality for all students?
When I moved to Grammar School we had an A and a B. stream across the board. A clever kids class and a dunces class (even though the dunces had passed an 11 plus). Go figure.
In return, here are a couple of tidbits from the US: Abraham Lincoln was a part time post master for a while, earning all of 60 dollars a year. Even then that wasn't much, but there was a perq: Postmasters were allowed to read all the newspapers and magazines that came through the office -- which he did.
Currently, first class postage in the US costs 66 cents for a one ounce letter, which is cheaper -- allowing for very rough estimates of inflation -- than it was, back in Lincoln's day. (By the way, as many of you already know, there are USB drives that weigh less than an ounce, so it is easy to send very large amounts of data in a single letter.)
He certainly wasn't nuts enough back then to think he WAS the law. And equally certainly believed he was ABOVE the law, that it was just some kind of petty annoyance that he could buy his way out of.
Just like his scumbag daddy and granddaddy Trumps before him.
On the subject of ridiculous outliers, I've just watched the Tour de France highlights.
If that had been a 10,000m athletics race, Vingegaard would have lapped 3rd place 3 times, and Pogacar once.
Never go full alien.