I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more.
I initially read that as ‘Elon will’ and thought what’s he going to fuck around with now.
It’s odd that some of the AI chickenlickens are also in favour of preserving our thumb on the scale education system. If we (or more likely subsequent generations) are looking at long years of inactivity, presumably we’ll need cataclysmic change in our methods of educating people. I suspect they instinctively think they should reap as much advantage for their genetic line as possible while they can.
Several public schools are setting up (or have set up) overseas "branches", already, IIRC.
I wonder how Macron's attempt at disrupting The Thing is going in France.
I'm in Suella's constituency and I've seen her talk about 'cultural marxism' in a public meeting. I suspect that most people there didn't have a clue what she meant. Now she's talking about 'lifestyle choices'. Am I the only one to have noticed that the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives also likes talking about 'lifestyle choices'. He thinks that homosexuality is one of those choices. I wonder if Suella agrees. See the link below for Pete Buttigieg's response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22VWUf2NA-M
Most Southern Baptists and hard-line evangelicals, like the new Speaker, strict Roman Catholics and strict Muslims would think homosexuality a lifestyle choice. Braverman is none of those
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more.
That actually removes the main benefit of eton - the friends you make there are what makes Eton, Eton...
As in the outside world, people in the branch offices don't get the opportunities those in head office get..
Yes they do, heads of state, heads of government and captains of industry from all over the world have been to Eton
It's raining pretty heavily. The current weather forecast is for light cloud. Hmm.
As ever, which forecast. If you are referring to an app, that’s auto generated from raw model data. If it’s a forecast from a meteorologist then check when it was made (bbc local forecasts on Breakfast are from the evening before).
Northern England is in a NW-ly airflow which is bringing showers. By their nature it is hard to predict exactly where a shower will land. One of the defects of weather apps is that most of them obscure this uncertainty and present a deterministic forecast as though the location and timing of each individual shower can be forecast (even if they show percentage rainfall probabilities, they will still show a symbol for the most likely weather).
Criticising a weather forecast for a positional error on a rain shower of perhaps as little as a few km is a bit harsh.
If you want a nowcast then look at the rainfall radar or satellite pictures (or out of the window).
BBC weather forecasting is now astonishingly bad. My understanding is that they've fallen out with the Met Office - who provide pretty accurate forecasts - and draw their forecasts now from somewhere else. Their collective arses, for all the good it appears to do. However, the BBC does have the nicest looking graphic design and a forecast which, while worthless, goes two weeks into the future. So even though I know it is useless I still often find myself on their website.
But basically, if you want to know what the weather will be like, start with the Met Office.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
The thing I find interesting about the graph in the OP is that May's cabinet was only 30% private school educated, massively out of line with the other Tory cabinets both before and after. Anybody know why? Did she have a different set of people she favoured who happened to be eg younger, or was she deliberately after a more diverse range of backgrounds, or what?
There's a problem with these categorisations when someone was partly privately and partly state educated, like Theresa May herself.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
Isn't 'English breakfast tea' an Americanism though?
One thing is for sure, this poll will never feature on GB news/Daily Mail, destroys their Metropolitan Liberal Elite narrative
Does it? Metropolitan liberals can easily be educated in very good state schools in affluent areas.
Incidentally Starmer went to a grammar school that converted to an independent school whilst he was there - he was exempt from the fees until 16 and then his sixth-form fees were paid by a bursary.
There’s an awful lot of very good North London state schools, to which the elites in politics and media love to talk about sending their children. They’re totally available to absolutely everyone who can afford one of the £1m houses in the very small catchment area.
£1 million houses in desirable bits of North London? If only.
(One of the problems that has just happened and is now going to be blooming hard to fix is the hollowing out of middle London. To afford to live inside the M25, you either have to be very rich indeed to buy, or very poor indeed to get social housing.
And yes, global city, yes tax takes subsidising the rest of us, but it's not a good society.)
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
There are ‘branches’ of several British private schools in Bangkok. Don’t know how well the students turn out.
Yep, same over here. They generally have good reputations and a record of UK and US university admissions.
My wider point was that trying to legislate some of the best schools in the world out of existence, won’t simply lead to them closing and everyone going to state school. They’ll pop up somewhere else, and the global elites will send their kids there instead.
The main losers will be the kids of the UK middle classes, who can no longer afford to send their kids to those schools.
I don't care what the global elite get up to. I do care that we are ruled by people who've never been to a football match and prioritise the protection of grouse shooting when we are hit by a global pandemic. The Covid Inquiry is a devastating case study in what happens when a country is governed by a narrow elite whose life experiences are so far outside of the norm of the people they are governing.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
I was struck by the comment of the resigning councillor interviewed this morning accusing Starmer of "doing anything to win the next election", and "neglecting the grass roots".
I those are indeed the alternatives, then he's probably making the right choice.
This is a topic I often argue with friends who say to "trust that SKS will provide a better government, he's saying this to win the election and once he's in he'll govern differently". I'm with the LBJ biographer who said power doesn't corrupt, it reveals. And what SKS has revealed during his time as Labour leader is a deep cynicism and distaste towards policy solutions that are left of centre, an aversion for combating the systems that lead to inequality, and a willingness to come down extremely hard on Labour members and politicians who do not stick to his party line. The purges that were warned about happening under Corbyn never materialised, but SKS has done it on a much grander scale and nobody blushes. He is an authoritarian, using party procedure to narrow the acceptable debates in the party.
It is not surprising that he has extremely low personal favourability ratings given the polling for the Labour party - because he isn't winning the argument, Sunak and the Conservatives have just lost it and SKS is left holding the bag. If he continues like this he will be a very unpopular PM, potentially with a very large mandate, which could result in a quick flip back to Conservative rule.
The argument that under Sir K the Labour party will be so right/centrist that those disaffected with this from the left will enable the Tories to take over is odd.
In reality the Overton window for election winning is very narrow. It involves: massive state management of society, highly regulated private enterprise, an expensive welfare/health state, absolute commitment to defence of the the west and law and order. This is not where either Tory or Labour membership is, but the voters are.
In 2017 Corbyn was ~2000 votes away from winning - the Overton window is not narrow at all.
The hitch with the 2000 votes thing is that the only way to get the 2000 votes in the seats you lost narrowly is to get an increase in support across the country involving hundreds of thousands or millions of votes in seats where you didn't need them.
But I guess you knew this and decided to use the talking point anyway?
Also: cats are great. Fun and unpredictable. And I love the bracing walks of November
Agree with all of that. Where are you? Somewhere British, my the look of the sky?
Late October/Early November is absolutely my favourite time of year.
Ah, just seen: Falmouth. Nice.
On pets: I kind of get your ambivalence to them. We've basically only got cats out of some vague feeling that having pets is part of childhood - I'm not sure we would if it was just the two of us. But they're good company, and a different sort of pet to any other. They're semi-independent, so all you're really doing is providing them with bed and board. And at least one of ours is a bit special needs and absolutely would not survive in the wild.
The thing I find interesting about the graph in the OP is that May's cabinet was only 30% private school educated, massively out of line with the other Tory cabinets both before and after. Anybody know why? Did she have a different set of people she favoured who happened to be eg younger, or was she deliberately after a more diverse range of backgrounds, or what?
There's a problem with these categorisations when someone was partly privately and partly state educated, like Theresa May herself.
And Sir Keir
All together now! ...
You hate Sir Keir and you hate Sir Keir You hate Sir Keir and you hate Sir Keir You hate Sir Keir and you hate Sir Keir You are the Sir Keir ... hater
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Interesting idea! Perhaps we should give it go because the current loon-driven set up isn't working
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
Those living in hovels have little need for a gentlemen's education...???
Also: cats are great. Fun and unpredictable. And I love the bracing walks of November
Agree with all of that. Where are you? Somewhere British, my the look of the sky?
Late October/Early November is absolutely my favourite time of year.
Ah, just seen: Falmouth. Nice.
On pets: I kind of get your ambivalence to them. We've basically only got cats out of some vague feeling that having pets is part of childhood - I'm not sure we would if it was just the two of us. But they're good company, and a different sort of pet to any other. They're semi-independent, so all you're really doing is providing them with bed and board. And at least one of ours is a bit special needs and absolutely would not survive in the wild.
Leon is so literal-minded that pets are his pet hate.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Spot on. But they're an English fetish, I'm afraid, private schools. A key prop of class privilege which won't be easily kicked away. More likely to break your toes trying.
Also: cats are great. Fun and unpredictable. And I love the bracing walks of November
Agree with all of that. Where are you? Somewhere British, my the look of the sky?
Late October/Early November is absolutely my favourite time of year.
Ah, just seen: Falmouth. Nice.
On pets: I kind of get your ambivalence to them. We've basically only got cats out of some vague feeling that having pets is part of childhood - I'm not sure we would if it was just the two of us. But they're good company, and a different sort of pet to any other. They're semi-independent, so all you're really doing is providing them with bed and board. And at least one of ours is a bit special needs and absolutely would not survive in the wild.
Leon is so literal-minded that pets are his pet hate.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
Good luck with that. Are you hoping to ban Jewish schools or Islamic schools first?
The New Stupidity of the Young is evidenced by these Palestinian marches, the poster-removers &c. When quizzed, so many of them have no idea why they’re marching or what exactly they’re protesting
It’s just colonisers = evil, plus an intense desire not to stand out, to go along with the herd
Young people attaching themselves to the latest cause is hardly new. The intellectual incuriosity and attitudinal herding of the coming generation IS new
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
To complicate matters there is also Scottish Breakfast Tea.
I imagine it has added black pudding or heroin or something.
A lot of people seem confident adding VAT to private schools is going to destroy the sector or something.
Would anyone like to bet? Money to winners charity of choice.
I'd imagine that people want to charge VAT in order to destroy the sector. Others will go along with it because they believe it will not destroy private schools. Either way, it is not about raising money.
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
That's a very long preamble to answering the question, which you never quite got round to.
BTW I am one of the votes Sir K needs - he needs two or three million Tory switchers. Because the Tories are so awful it would be hard to lose me, but he would if he lost sight of the events of 7th October or the continuing war crime of the hostages, and failed to prioritise Israel's defence against a group which would repeat the holocaust if they could.
Does he not need many of the voters who almost made Corbyn PM in 2017 (a GE he lost by like 2000 votes?). Does he not need to try to win voters like me, voters who either do not vote or vote ABC and need to feel that Labour is distinct from Conservatives and right wing positions? Does he not need the votes of long term Labour voters who had voted for long term Labour councillors, and are now considering not voting at all, or giving a protest vote elsewhere?
SKS can, along with all the people who are calling for a ceasefire, condemn the events of the 7th of October and the holding of hostages by Hamas (hostages that some reports are suggesting Hamas is trying to give back and Israel is refusing to negotiate for) and condemn the mass slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians. He can accept that there are innocent victims in Israel and Palestine, and not condone the killing of thousands of children. SKS has access to all the information I have - of Israeli ministers saying that all Palestinians should be nuked, "sent to Ireland or the desert"; that they are "human animals"; of missiles hitting Gazan hospitals, schools, refugee camps. He is a human rights lawyer; he is not blind. And yet he won't call for the bare minimum - as cessation of violence to potentially discuss peace terms. Should that not be the aim?
I think you are saying that it is clear to you (and the resigning councillors?) that release of all the hostages should not be a precondition of ceasefire. I agree with your aims entirely - peace and negotiated comprehensive solution to the central dilemmas - but not your sequencing.
I also think you underestimate the significance of dealing with an organisation dedicated to actually killing a few million identifiable individuals who demonstrate their desire to put that into effect as soon as possible.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
There are ‘branches’ of several British private schools in Bangkok. Don’t know how well the students turn out.
Yep, same over here. They generally have good reputations and a record of UK and US university admissions.
My wider point was that trying to legislate some of the best schools in the world out of existence, won’t simply lead to them closing and everyone going to state school. They’ll pop up somewhere else, and the global elites will send their kids there instead.
The main losers will be the kids of the UK middle classes, who can no longer afford to send their kids to those schools.
I don't care what the global elite get up to. I do care that we are ruled by people who've never been to a football match and prioritise the protection of grouse shooting when we are hit by a global pandemic. The Covid Inquiry is a devastating case study in what happens when a country is governed by a narrow elite whose life experiences are so far outside of the norm of the people they are governing.
I'm pretty confident that British politicians will have attended football matches at a higher rate than the general population.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
There is something odd about the Labour councillors who are leaving Labour over Sir K's stance on the ceasefire and it is this. It is all being fairly fully reported and (like on R4Today this morning) they are being interviewed.
If this is more than mere internal verbalising, the key question is about sequencing. Many people want a ceasefire. I do. But it is obvious to many that the unconditional release of the hostages is a precondition of a ceasefire. The councillors (SFAICS) are not saying, and are not being asked, where they stand on the critical issue of sequencing. Why? And does anyone know where they actually stand on this?
I think for many of them it is the last straw, no? Seeing SKS stand as Corbynism in a suit in the leadership election, and run the party to the centre / right (in many cases to the right of, say, Cameron's conservatives) is a big issue that lost a lot of members and councillors. The constant flip flopping on policy, and watering down of policies that were themselves watered down versions of existing left wing proposals, lost another lot. Wes Streeting on the NHS, Reeves on austerity, etc etc. I think this issue is a bit more obvious because, in many ways, it hits at a core Labour demographic in local and national elections (Muslim voters) and it also hits at a reason why so many people joined Labour during the Corbyn years - the unorthodox position on international relations.
A lot of the politicians lost in the first few waves were less resignation and more not rerunning for seats when local elections came around. Whereas I think these politicians are still interested in political work, and want to make it clear they're a significant block that Labour need to win (and in certain councils that seems to be the case). I saw the headline at the weekend "How Labour can afford to lose (some) of their Muslim voters". I think some people want to show that that is not as easy as it sounds.
That's a very long preamble to answering the question, which you never quite got round to.
BTW I am one of the votes Sir K needs - he needs two or three million Tory switchers. Because the Tories are so awful it would be hard to lose me, but he would if he lost sight of the events of 7th October or the continuing war crime of the hostages, and failed to prioritise Israel's defence against a group which would repeat the holocaust if they could.
Does he not need many of the voters who almost made Corbyn PM in 2017 (a GE he lost by like 2000 votes?). Does he not need to try to win voters like me, voters who either do not vote or vote ABC and need to feel that Labour is distinct from Conservatives and right wing positions? Does he not need the votes of long term Labour voters who had voted for long term Labour councillors, and are now considering not voting at all, or giving a protest vote elsewhere?
SKS can, along with all the people who are calling for a ceasefire, condemn the events of the 7th of October and the holding of hostages by Hamas (hostages that some reports are suggesting Hamas is trying to give back and Israel is refusing to negotiate for) and condemn the mass slaughter of thousands of innocent Palestinians. He can accept that there are innocent victims in Israel and Palestine, and not condone the killing of thousands of children. SKS has access to all the information I have - of Israeli ministers saying that all Palestinians should be nuked, "sent to Ireland or the desert"; that they are "human animals"; of missiles hitting Gazan hospitals, schools, refugee camps. He is a human rights lawyer; he is not blind. And yet he won't call for the bare minimum - as cessation of violence to potentially discuss peace terms. Should that not be the aim?
I think you are saying that it is clear to you (and the resigning councillors?) that release of all the hostages should not be a precondition of ceasefire. I agree with your aims entirely - peace and negotiated comprehensive solution to the central dilemmas - but not your sequencing.
I also think you underestimate the significance of dealing with an organisation dedicated to actually killing a few million identifiable individuals who demonstrate their desire to put that into effect as soon as possible.
You ignore that each side wants to eliminate the other. You make peace between enemies, not friends.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
Yet secular schools subsidised by religious parents are left untouched?Even Starmer has said he will protect religious schools as he knows on a free society religious parents are entitled to send their children to good religious schools as much as secular parents are entitled to send their children to secular schools
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
It's raining pretty heavily. The current weather forecast is for light cloud. Hmm.
As ever, which forecast. If you are referring to an app, that’s auto generated from raw model data. If it’s a forecast from a meteorologist then check when it was made (bbc local forecasts on Breakfast are from the evening before).
Northern England is in a NW-ly airflow which is bringing showers. By their nature it is hard to predict exactly where a shower will land. One of the defects of weather apps is that most of them obscure this uncertainty and present a deterministic forecast as though the location and timing of each individual shower can be forecast (even if they show percentage rainfall probabilities, they will still show a symbol for the most likely weather).
Criticising a weather forecast for a positional error on a rain shower of perhaps as little as a few km is a bit harsh.
If you want a nowcast then look at the rainfall radar or satellite pictures (or out of the window).
BBC weather forecasting is now astonishingly bad. My understanding is that they've fallen out with the Met Office - who provide pretty accurate forecasts - and draw their forecasts now from somewhere else. Their collective arses, for all the good it appears to do. However, the BBC does have the nicest looking graphic design and a forecast which, while worthless, goes two weeks into the future. So even though I know it is useless I still often find myself on their website.
But basically, if you want to know what the weather will be like, start with the Met Office.
As I understand it, Meteogroup just use the output from the many global models on offer, including the Met Office's own, but I believe primarily GFS & ECMWF, plus some of their own surface temperature modelling for council gritting etc etc.
I don't think forecast wise they will be any better or worse as they don't have a large supercomputer of their own.
On the other hand, the BBC website presentation is very poor, which may not be down to the forecast provider.
It is relatively easy to take the output of the freely available GFS and convert it into a symbol for specific locations - many websites do this - but it really doesn't give you much in the way of useful information.
Check the radar if you want to know if you can walk to the shops without an umbrella.
The Met Office's website has summarised UKV model output (this is their local forecast for the UK, developed from their Global model output) here:
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Spot on. But they're an English fetish, I'm afraid, private schools. A key prop of class privilege which won't be easily kicked away. More likely to break your toes trying.
The odd thing is that, in terms of actually educating young people, private schools are largely irrelevant. A small number of children from the very very richest echelons of society. Most middle class families stopped using them ages ago.
A lot of people seem confident adding VAT to private schools is going to destroy the sector or something.
Would anyone like to bet? Money to winners charity of choice.
I'd imagine that people want to charge VAT in order to destroy the sector. Others will go along with it because they believe it will not destroy private schools. Either way, it is not about raising money.
It's a political policy certainly.
The plan is when people say to Labour... where is the money coming from, they can point to a popular money raising scheme. And it's clear to most people they won't be paying.
Anyway - any takers?
I think there's something like 550k people in private schools in 2023. I'm happy to be it's more than 500k in 2026. Conditional on a Lab victory and the policy coming in.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
We're going to have five to ten years of foreign leaders falling over themselves to say or not to say "sir". Cringing will ensue.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
SKS is just a snappy acronym. "Sir Keir" is a passive aggressive expression of contempt/disapproval from people who dislike him with a passion.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
Good luck with that. Are you hoping to ban Jewish schools or Islamic schools first?
It's the public subsidy element that needs to be eliminated. NO reason for any sect to have its own schools on the council tax.
They can do their own religious instruction separately.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
There are ‘branches’ of several British private schools in Bangkok. Don’t know how well the students turn out.
Yep, same over here. They generally have good reputations and a record of UK and US university admissions.
My wider point was that trying to legislate some of the best schools in the world out of existence, won’t simply lead to them closing and everyone going to state school. They’ll pop up somewhere else, and the global elites will send their kids there instead.
The main losers will be the kids of the UK middle classes, who can no longer afford to send their kids to those schools.
I don't care what the global elite get up to. I do care that we are ruled by people who've never been to a football match and prioritise the protection of grouse shooting when we are hit by a global pandemic. The Covid Inquiry is a devastating case study in what happens when a country is governed by a narrow elite whose life experiences are so far outside of the norm of the people they are governing.
I'm pretty confident that British politicians will have attended football matches at a higher rate than the general population.
Rugby for Boris. Cricket for Major and May. Starmer and Corbyn are both Arsenal fans. Cameron and Blair both claimed to be football supporters but probably weren't. Did Brown, Wilson or Heath say much on the subject? Ah, I've left out Liz Truss. Alec Douglas-Home was another cricket man.
But you are right. It is a fair bet that every MP will have attended at least one of their local club's home games as a guest of the directors.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
Who asks specifically for English Breakfast Tea, which is just generic basic tea that you will be given if you ask for a cup of tea? It's like asking for a hen's egg.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Spot on. But they're an English fetish, I'm afraid, private schools. A key prop of class privilege which won't be easily kicked away. More likely to break your toes trying.
No they aren't, more Australian pupils attend private schools than British pupils do. Plenty of private schools in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, Ireland, the USA, Singapore, the Middle East and Far East too (including now satellites of British public schools in the latter).
Plenty of private religious schools and international schools on the continent too. Plus free schools were a Swedish idea originally
A pretty incredible find, if true. A pyramid in Indonesia which is at least 16,000 years old (5000 years OLDER than Gobekli Tepe). Maybe 27,000 years old
Wtaf? There are a lot of ifs and could be’s here, and I’ve seen archaeologists being sniffy on Twitter. Nonetheless reliable people claim this is likely true
It's raining pretty heavily. The current weather forecast is for light cloud. Hmm.
As ever, which forecast. If you are referring to an app, that’s auto generated from raw model data. If it’s a forecast from a meteorologist then check when it was made (bbc local forecasts on Breakfast are from the evening before).
Northern England is in a NW-ly airflow which is bringing showers. By their nature it is hard to predict exactly where a shower will land. One of the defects of weather apps is that most of them obscure this uncertainty and present a deterministic forecast as though the location and timing of each individual shower can be forecast (even if they show percentage rainfall probabilities, they will still show a symbol for the most likely weather).
Criticising a weather forecast for a positional error on a rain shower of perhaps as little as a few km is a bit harsh.
If you want a nowcast then look at the rainfall radar or satellite pictures (or out of the window).
BBC weather forecasting is now astonishingly bad. My understanding is that they've fallen out with the Met Office - who provide pretty accurate forecasts - and draw their forecasts now from somewhere else. Their collective arses, for all the good it appears to do. However, the BBC does have the nicest looking graphic design and a forecast which, while worthless, goes two weeks into the future. So even though I know it is useless I still often find myself on their website.
But basically, if you want to know what the weather will be like, start with the Met Office.
As I understand it, Meteogroup just use the output from the many global models on offer, including the Met Office's own, but I believe primarily GFS & ECMWF, plus some of their own surface temperature modelling for council gritting etc etc.
I don't think forecast wise they will be any better or worse as they don't have a large supercomputer of their own.
On the other hand, the BBC website presentation is very poor, which may not be down to the forecast provider.
It is relatively easy to take the output of the freely available GFS and convert it into a symbol for specific locations - many websites do this - but it really doesn't give you much in the way useful information.
Check the radar if you want to know if you can walk to the shops without an umbrella.
The Met Office's website has summarised UKV model output (this is their local forecast for the UK, developed from their Global model output) here:
My understanding is that they only use GFS output, because it is provided free for commercial use, but they don't pay to use ECMWF or Met Office data.
I know the Americans were putting a lot of money into their model, but I think GFS are still third in forecast accuracy, and it's a global model, while the Met Office run a higher resolution model over Europe and the UK.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
Who asks specifically for English Breakfast Tea, which is just generic basic tea that you will be given if you ask for a cup of tea? It's like asking for a hen's egg.
Bingo. Now, sometimes "tea, please" will be inanely followed by "is english breakfast ok?" but you just say yes and move on.
Does the cat have a dodgy eye? You need to know whether to buy your daughter a trip to the vet or a photography course this Christmas, which, incidentally, falls in precisely seven weeks from today.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
In his Twitter/X bio, there's no mention of the S in SKS - just plain old KS. So he's obviously not insisting on it.
To be fair to MeteoGroup I understand that their statistical downscaling from global model output to a site-specific forecast was pretty good compared to the Met Office, and because they don't have to pay for the raw model data they can provide a cheaper service to cash-strapped organisations like local councils and the BBC.
The Met Office put out their own forecasts on YouTube, but I don't think their viewing numbers are that impressive.
To be fair to MeteoGroup I understand that their statistical downscaling from global model output to a site-specific forecast was pretty good compared to the Met Office, and because they don't have to pay for the raw model data they can provide a cheaper service to cash-strapped organisations like local councils and the BBC.
The Met Office put out their own forecasts on YouTube, but I don't think their viewing numbers are that impressive.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
Who asks specifically for English Breakfast Tea, which is just generic basic tea that you will be given if you ask for a cup of tea? It's like asking for a hen's egg.
Good English Breakfast tea is a strong tea from Assam/Sri Lanka with a distinct profile. Lots of caffeine, robust flavour, goes well with a proper brekky, it is called English breakfast for a reason. It ain’t jasmine tea
A more interesting stat would be, percentage of the cabinet who send/sent their own kids (if they had kids) to private school.
Tony Blair went to private school. He and Cherie sent their kids to the London Oratory, a grant maintained Roman Catholic comprehensive rated Outstanding and one of the top 10 comprehensives or academies in the country.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
Good luck with that. Are you hoping to ban Jewish schools or Islamic schools first?
Why should they get priority? They can go at the same time as the rest of the god-bothering indoctrination centres.
Religion is for churches / temples / mosques / etc, not for schools.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Spot on. But they're an English fetish, I'm afraid, private schools. A key prop of class privilege which won't be easily kicked away. More likely to break your toes trying.
The odd thing is that, in terms of actually educating young people, private schools are largely irrelevant. A small number of children from the very very richest echelons of society. Most middle class families stopped using them ages ago.
Still very influential though. About half of those who can afford them use them. That's a small minority of the population as a whole but this minority are vastly overrepresented in high status occupations. It's good to see these stats on Labour's shad-cab going against the grain on this.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
SKS is just a snappy acronym. "Sir Keir" is a passive aggressive expression of contempt/disapproval from people who dislike him with a passion.
Think 'Sir Keir' is bad?
Wait for the explosions that occur when I call him Sir Kier ...
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
Who asks specifically for English Breakfast Tea, which is just generic basic tea that you will be given if you ask for a cup of tea? It's like asking for a hen's egg.
Just back from a trip to Budapest and Vienna. Asking for "tea" produced any number of weird concoctions, but "black tea" (aka English Breakfast tea) was difficult to find, and if it arrived it was in a glass made with luke-warm water. The idea that it might be accompanied by a few drops of milk was baffling to the locals.
A more interesting stat would be, percentage of the cabinet who send/sent their own kids (if they had kids) to private school.
Good call. We should have a law that any MP of a governing party should have to send their kids to the worst performing school in their constituency. See how they like that fecker!
'The fact so many of Starmer’s cabinet went to state school is likely to explain their war on brilliant parents who contribute their taxes to state education but send their children to private schools as not to take away resources from the less fortunate’
Now that Mike is taking more of a back seat I really hope we can keep provocation off this site. The internet is full of trolling and this site can be above it.
There’s a debate to be had but not by deliberately winding-up @TSE
Peace to all
xx
Are you new here?
I have, inter alia, wound up Nats, Brexiteers, Corbynites, the DUP, and nuttier Tories, it is one of the perks of the job.
Please desist. It’s better, you are better, when you don’t.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
Good luck with that. Are you hoping to ban Jewish schools or Islamic schools first?
It's the public subsidy element that needs to be eliminated. NO reason for any sect to have its own schools on the council tax.
They can do their own religious instruction separately.
Why should religious parents pay tax to fund secular state schools then? If they are banned from letting their children attend religious state schools many of them will homeschool instead if they can't afford private religious schools
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Spot on. But they're an English fetish, I'm afraid, private schools. A key prop of class privilege which won't be easily kicked away. More likely to break your toes trying.
The odd thing is that, in terms of actually educating young people, private schools are largely irrelevant. A small number of children from the very very richest echelons of society. Most middle class families stopped using them ages ago.
The government provides details on number of pupils.
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
Why is it particularly telling? He's never pretended to be against the honours system on principle as far as I know, and every single former DPP going back to 1880 has been knighted (other than Max Hill, who has only been ex-DPP for a week, and will doubtless get his gong in the New Years Honours).
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
Vote, vote, vote for Starmer not going well?
I'm just not remotely worried he's going to vote Labour.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Spot on. But they're an English fetish, I'm afraid, private schools. A key prop of class privilege which won't be easily kicked away. More likely to break your toes trying.
The odd thing is that, in terms of actually educating young people, private schools are largely irrelevant. A small number of children from the very very richest echelons of society. Most middle class families stopped using them ages ago.
Still very influential though. About half of those who can afford them use them. That's a small minority of the population as a whole but this minority are vastly overrepresented in high status occupations. It's good to see these stats on Labour's shad-cab going against the grain on this.
Indeed. Still overrepresented by a factor of two, but that s\ort of fluctuation is beginning to get into statistically less significant territory.
Basically, no change on the previous poll by the same pollsters in August, but this is the highest DUP result since the last Assembly election, and the lowest UUP or TUV result.
Actually shows a swing from SF to DUP since the last Assembly election as the DUP squeeze other Unionist parties
No change from the last poll, but yes, change from the last election as you describe: DUP up, UUP and TUV down. The other notable shift is Alliance are further up from the last election, which was IIRC a record performance for them.
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
So you want to ban private schools? Why not ban Waitrose and Marks and Spencer and Harrods and Ferraris too while your at it, after all can't have others getting a better product they can buy others can't afford can we? Heck, why not just nationalise the whole economy and be done with it!
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
On the contrary. Sectarian schooling subsidised by the vast majority of nonbelievers is going to be next.
Good luck with that. Are you hoping to ban Jewish schools or Islamic schools first?
It's the public subsidy element that needs to be eliminated. NO reason for any sect to have its own schools on the council tax.
They can do their own religious instruction separately.
Why should religious parents pay tax to fund secular state schools then? If they are banned from letting their children attend religious schools many of them will homeschool instead of they can't afford private religious schools
Because very many religiouys sects don't have state schools provided free on the rates.
It's like banning people from NHS hospitals unless they are C of E or RC (or, if lucky, one or two other denominations).
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
Why is it particularly telling? He's never pretended to be against the honours system on principle as far as I know, and every single former DPP going back to 1880 has been knighted (other than Max Hill, who has only been ex-DPP for a week, and will doubtless get his gong in the New Years Honours).
Just doing a particular job shouldn't automatically get you a forelock tugger.
Also: cats are great. Fun and unpredictable. And I love the bracing walks of November
Agree with all of that. Where are you? Somewhere British, my the look of the sky?
Late October/Early November is absolutely my favourite time of year.
Ah, just seen: Falmouth. Nice.
On pets: I kind of get your ambivalence to them. We've basically only got cats out of some vague feeling that having pets is part of childhood - I'm not sure we would if it was just the two of us. But they're good company, and a different sort of pet to any other. They're semi-independent, so all you're really doing is providing them with bed and board. And at least one of ours is a bit special needs and absolutely would not survive in the wild.
Leon is so literal-minded that pets are his pet hate.
A more interesting stat would be, percentage of the cabinet who send/sent their own kids (if they had kids) to private school.
Good call. We should have a law that any MP of a governing party should have to send their kids to the worst performing school in their constituency. See how they like that fecker!
I'm interested by the header name "Class Warfare" - is there a suggestion that somehow it is class warfare if the cabinet is more similar to the population as a whole in terms of their educational experience, but it isn't class warfare when the cabinet is made up from people whose educational experience was entirely separate from the population as a whole? That only people who are, potentially, more likely to advocate for the working class can be "class warriors" whereas people who are Old Etonians are somehow immune to the calling of class interest?
Think you might be reading too much into a pithy play on words, there.
I am just used to many people claiming anyone in favour of wealth redistribution towards the poor is "class war" but when we've had policies primarily implemented by the rich and privileged in favour of the rich and privileged is somehow not class war. Also, if there is a class war there must be two sides - and I know which side I'm on.
The reality of Starmer’s plans is more kids will move from the private sector to the state sector which will bugger up kids from poorer background as scarce resources have to do even more while making the elite even more eliter*
*Not a real word but it should be.
I disagree. I believe that the elimination of private schools, or even the disincentive to use private schools, will make people who have money and influence (those more likely to use private schools) will have more of a stake in the state school system and therefore the state school system would likely improve. I also think that private schools shouldn't exist as it is clear that some (like Eton) are just pipelines towards power - not because the attendees get a specifically special education - but because the kind of people who went to Eton and go to Eton have access to power, and therefore the networks created there reinforce that. Whereas if that network was disrupted and distributed across the state school system, more power would be more accessible to more people.
Nope. Eton will just open branches in the US, Singapore, Dubai, Moscow, and the kids can be educated closer to where their parents live. Okay, perhaps not Moscow any more. The rest will engage in extreme selection by house price within the UK.
There are ‘branches’ of several British private schools in Bangkok. Don’t know how well the students turn out.
Yep, same over here. They generally have good reputations and a record of UK and US university admissions.
My wider point was that trying to legislate some of the best schools in the world out of existence, won’t simply lead to them closing and everyone going to state school. They’ll pop up somewhere else, and the global elites will send their kids there instead.
The main losers will be the kids of the UK middle classes, who can no longer afford to send their kids to those schools.
I don't care what the global elite get up to. I do care that we are ruled by people who've never been to a football match and prioritise the protection of grouse shooting when we are hit by a global pandemic. The Covid Inquiry is a devastating case study in what happens when a country is governed by a narrow elite whose life experiences are so far outside of the norm of the people they are governing.
I'm pretty confident that British politicians will have attended football matches at a higher rate than the general population.
Rugby for Boris. Cricket for Major and May. Starmer and Corbyn are both Arsenal fans. Cameron and Blair both claimed to be football supporters but probably weren't. Did Brown, Wilson or Heath say much on the subject? Ah, I've left out Liz Truss. Alec Douglas-Home was another cricket man.
But you are right. It is a fair bet that every MP will have attended at least one of their local club's home games as a guest of the directors.
Gordon Brown is a lifelong Raith Rovers fan. He didn't really shout about it. Probably because there wasn't much to shout about.
And of course, that's why people pay for private education for their children - because they think it is better, not "as not [sic] to take away resources from the less fortunate".
No doubt they carry on doing it despite the fears that it may make their children arrogant and obnoxious.
A more interesting stat would be, percentage of the cabinet who send/sent their own kids (if they had kids) to private school.
Good call. We should have a law that any MP of a governing party should have to send their kids to the worst performing school in their constituency. See how they like that fecker!
Only if they oppose choice and private education and free schools, religious schools and grammar schools etc. Otherwise there is no hypocrisy if they choose the above for their kids
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
Oh come on. I'm no Starmer supporter, but that is pathetic. It is not telling he didn't at all.
Some people are anti titles, some crave them, but 99% of us don't care at all, but if given one would accept it. If it is the stupid tradition that on leaving certain posts you get knighted then so be it. Only if you are really anti would you refuse it.
Our cup runneth over, KTHopkins and Tommeh are BACK!
I don't have a TV licence, so watch a fair bit of YouTube of an evening. The algorithm throws up some "interesting" channels. Only last night, Hopkins' channel popped up in my recommendations! I subscribe to various lefty/greeny channels, so maybe YouTube thought I needed a bit of Hopkins to balance me out?
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
Why is it particularly telling? He's never pretended to be against the honours system on principle as far as I know, and every single former DPP going back to 1880 has been knighted (other than Max Hill, who has only been ex-DPP for a week, and will doubtless get his gong in the New Years Honours).
Just doing a particular job shouldn't automatically get you a forelock tugger.
The whole honours system is embarrassing bollocks and yes Starmer should have refused his knighthood, or, at the very, least, should never use it in public
A more interesting stat would be, percentage of the cabinet who send/sent their own kids (if they had kids) to private school.
Good call. We should have a law that any MP of a governing party should have to send their kids to the worst performing school in their constituency. See how they like that fecker!
Only if they oppose choice and private education and free schools, religious schools and grammar schools etc. Otherwise there is no hypocrisy if they choose the above for their kids
Because everyone has a choice.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
I'm puzzled as to why so many of you call Starmer Sir K, SKS or Sir Keir. He seems a fairly normal sort of fella, not prone to pretensions. I can't imagine he'd insist on it, and if he did, he'd deserve to be laughed at.
He could have refused the knighthood then. Tellingly, he didn’t
Oh come on. I'm no Starmer supporter, but that is pathetic. It is not telling he didn't at all.
Some people are anti titles, some crave them, but 99% of us don't care at all, but if given one would accept it. If it is the stupid tradition that on leaving certain posts you get knighted then so be it. Only if you are really anti would you refuse it.
No, it shows he’s a lame effeminate wanker. Which is hardly news, I guess
Labour also 35% ahead of the Conservatives in London in the same poll (55% v 20%), compared to a 16.1% lead at GE 2019, the 2nd highest YouGov Labour lead in London on record. Fieldwork October 12-17.
A more interesting stat would be, percentage of the cabinet who send/sent their own kids (if they had kids) to private school.
Good call. We should have a law that any MP of a governing party should have to send their kids to the worst performing school in their constituency. See how they like that fecker!
Only if they oppose choice and private education and free schools, religious schools and grammar schools etc. Otherwise there is no hypocrisy if they choose the above for their kids
But they come up with the policies, dole out the funds and generally dick about with our kids education. By never sending their sprogs to crap state schools, they never have to face the consequences. Typical!
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
Who asks specifically for English Breakfast Tea, which is just generic basic tea that you will be given if you ask for a cup of tea? It's like asking for a hen's egg.
Just back from a trip to Budapest and Vienna. Asking for "tea" produced any number of weird concoctions, but "black tea" (aka English Breakfast tea) was difficult to find, and if it arrived it was in a glass made with luke-warm water. The idea that it might be accompanied by a few drops of milk was baffling to the locals.
With a few honourable exceptions -Sri Lankans not only make a great cuppa but actually grow the bloody stuff - Jonny Foreigner tends to struggle with the basics of a proper cup of tea. It's one of the reasons I rarely leave the country.
Neither of the two friendly agreeable girls that are making my breakfast understands that “English Breakfast” is a TYPE of tea. Indeed neither seems able to grasp the concept
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
These are good questions. It's not English tea and it is not drunk only with breakfast. It's great that the young have such inquiring minds and don't simply accept the absurdities of the world they are presented with.
Not to mention that a full English breakfast is a fry-up. Otoh, I do not drink tea but have heard of English Breakfast tea which you can buy in Sainsbury's. I've always kind of assumed that any non-typed tea was also English Breakfast tea but don't drink the stuff so it does not matter. My tea industry mole has fled the country, unfortunately.
Who asks specifically for English Breakfast Tea, which is just generic basic tea that you will be given if you ask for a cup of tea? It's like asking for a hen's egg.
Just back from a trip to Budapest and Vienna. Asking for "tea" produced any number of weird concoctions, but "black tea" (aka English Breakfast tea) was difficult to find, and if it arrived it was in a glass made with luke-warm water. The idea that it might be accompanied by a few drops of milk was baffling to the locals.
With a few honourable exceptions -Sri Lankans not only make a great cuppa but actually grow the bloody stuff - Jonny Foreigner tends to struggle with the basics of a proper cup of tea. It's one of the reasons I rarely leave the country.
Basically, no change on the previous poll by the same pollsters in August, but this is the highest DUP result since the last Assembly election, and the lowest UUP or TUV result.
Actually shows a swing from SF to DUP since the last Assembly election as the DUP squeeze other Unionist parties
No change from the last poll, but yes, change from the last election as you describe: DUP up, UUP and TUV down. The other notable shift is Alliance are further up from the last election, which was IIRC a record performance for them.
Sorry, the sentence beginning, "Actually..." was HYUFD, not me.
Does the cat have a dodgy eye? You need to know whether to buy your daughter a trip to the vet or a photography course this Christmas, which, incidentally, falls in precisely seven weeks from today.
He had some damage to it when younger. Currently recovering from another fight and has been to vet in last week. So he's well looked after. Spoilt in fact.
Other than SKS, how many of the shadow cabinet could be described as impressive? I'm not seeing many people making an impact?
Doing a prediction on electoral calculus I was surprised that more significant Tories would not be losing their seats based on being reduced to sub 200 MPs. Tobias Ellwood, Penny Mordaunt, Johnny Mercer, Miriam Cates and Neil O'Brien were the main ones I noticed. Obviously some big names likes IDS, JRM, Lee Anderson but not many of those you'd expect to be rebuilding the party in opposition. On my rough calculation Jeremy Hunt was safe.
Also: cats are great. Fun and unpredictable. And I love the bracing walks of November
Agree with all of that. Where are you? Somewhere British, my the look of the sky?
Late October/Early November is absolutely my favourite time of year.
Ah, just seen: Falmouth. Nice.
On pets: I kind of get your ambivalence to them. We've basically only got cats out of some vague feeling that having pets is part of childhood - I'm not sure we would if it was just the two of us. But they're good company, and a different sort of pet to any other. They're semi-independent, so all you're really doing is providing them with bed and board. And at least one of ours is a bit special needs and absolutely would not survive in the wild.
Leon is so literal-minded that pets are his pet hate.
The New Stupidity of the Young is evidenced by these Palestinian marches, the poster-removers &c. When quizzed, so many of them have no idea why they’re marching or what exactly they’re protesting
It’s just colonisers = evil, plus an intense desire not to stand out, to go along with the herd
Young people attaching themselves to the latest cause is hardly new. The intellectual incuriosity and attitudinal herding of the coming generation IS new
A recent Economist podcast is good on this, looking at the cultural wars aspect of Israel/Gaza.
Many issues and this one in particular have become binary in nature, framed as the powerful vs the powerless in every domain. And someone powerful can never be discriminated against, while all struggles of the powerless are equal and a common cause, and hence "Queers for Palestine".
Our cup runneth over, KTHopkins and Tommeh are BACK!
They’re planning a march to defend the cenotaph at the weekend. Should be fine
One of the more worrying developments this week is the risk of genuine concerns about rising anti-semitism, particularly but not exclusively in immigrant cultures, being overshadowed by the tub-thumping anti-Muslamics and Furriners brigade, who are keen to jump on any cause to prove a point.
There are some people whose support you can do without... the anti-semites in our society are doing quite a good job of outing themselves without the need for counter-protests.
To be fair to MeteoGroup I understand that their statistical downscaling from global model output to a site-specific forecast was pretty good compared to the Met Office, and because they don't have to pay for the raw model data they can provide a cheaper service to cash-strapped organisations like local councils and the BBC.
The Met Office put out their own forecasts on YouTube, but I don't think their viewing numbers are that impressive.
I'm pretty sure Meteogroup do pay for both ECMWF and Met Office output.
I'm not sure what input goes into their site specific forecasts - probably more than one global model. They are used by the power companies as well as councils - an application where maximum accuracy can save you a lot of money - so I don't think they are penny pinching.
I'll ask their head forecaster next time I see him...
Comments
I wonder how Macron's attempt at disrupting The Thing is going in France.
Also: cats are great. Fun and unpredictable. And I love the bracing walks of November
However, the BBC does have the nicest looking graphic design and a forecast which, while worthless, goes two weeks into the future. So even though I know it is useless I still often find myself on their website.
But basically, if you want to know what the weather will be like, start with the Met Office.
“Why’s it called breakfast then?”
“Is it English?”
The dimness of the young is becoming palpable, daily
Late October/Early November is absolutely my favourite time of year.
(One of the problems that has just happened and is now going to be blooming hard to fix is the hollowing out of middle London. To afford to live inside the M25, you either have to be very rich indeed to buy, or very poor indeed to get social housing.
And yes, global city, yes tax takes subsidising the rest of us, but it's not a good society.)
Of course ban private schools and you will still get selection by house price to the most outstanding comprehensives and academies, selection by vicar's reference in church schools, selection by academic ability in the remaining grammar schools anyway
But I guess you knew this and decided to use the talking point anyway?
On pets: I kind of get your ambivalence to them. We've basically only got cats out of some vague feeling that having pets is part of childhood - I'm not sure we would if it was just the two of us. But they're good company, and a different sort of pet to any other. They're semi-independent, so all you're really doing is providing them with bed and board.
And at least one of ours is a bit special needs and absolutely would not survive in the wild.
You hate Sir Keir and you hate Sir Keir
You hate Sir Keir and you hate Sir Keir
You hate Sir Keir and you hate Sir Keir
You are the Sir Keir ... hater
Would anyone like to bet? Money to winners charity of choice.
It’s just colonisers = evil, plus an intense desire not to stand out, to go along with the herd
Young people attaching themselves to the latest cause is hardly new. The intellectual incuriosity and attitudinal herding of the coming generation IS new
I imagine it has added black pudding or heroin or something.
I also think you underestimate the significance of dealing with an organisation dedicated to actually killing a few million identifiable individuals who demonstrate their desire to put that into effect as soon as possible.
subsidised by religious
parents are left untouched?Even Starmer has said he will protect religious schools as he knows on a free society religious parents are entitled to send their children to good religious schools as much as secular parents are entitled to send their children to secular schools
I don't think forecast wise they will be any better or worse as they don't have a large supercomputer of their own.
On the other hand, the BBC website presentation is very poor, which may not be down to the forecast provider.
It is relatively easy to take the output of the freely available GFS and convert it into a symbol for specific locations - many websites do this - but it really doesn't give you much in the way of useful information.
Check the radar if you want to know if you can walk to the shops without an umbrella.
The Met Office's website has summarised UKV model output (this is their local forecast for the UK, developed from their Global model output) here:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/maps-and-charts/rainfall-radar-forecast-map#?model=ukmo-ukv&layer=rainfall-rate&bbox=[[45.598665689820635,-32.12402343750001],[61.4597705702975,24.125976562500004]]
Other sites have it in a better format but might not be quite as up to date - eg:
https://www.theweatheroutlook.com/twodata/ukv.aspx
The plan is when people say to Labour... where is the money coming from, they can point to a popular money raising scheme. And it's clear to most people they won't be paying.
Anyway - any takers?
I think there's something like 550k people in private schools in 2023. I'm happy to be it's more than 500k in 2026. Conditional on a Lab victory and the policy coming in.
They can do their own religious instruction separately.
But you are right. It is a fair bet that every MP will have attended at least one of their local club's home games as a guest of the directors.
Plenty of private religious schools
and international schools on the continent too. Plus free schools were a Swedish idea originally
A pretty incredible find, if true. A pyramid in Indonesia which is at least 16,000 years old (5000 years OLDER than Gobekli Tepe). Maybe 27,000 years old
https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-pyramid-buried-in-indonesia-could-be-the-oldest-in-the-world
Wtaf? There are a lot of ifs and could be’s here, and I’ve seen archaeologists being sniffy on Twitter. Nonetheless reliable people claim this is likely true
Who knows. Brilliant mystery
I know the Americans were putting a lot of money into their model, but I think GFS are still third in forecast accuracy, and it's a global model, while the Met Office run a higher resolution model over Europe and the UK.
Daughter's cat -
The Met Office put out their own forecasts on YouTube, but I don't think their viewing numbers are that impressive.
https://www.youtube.com/@metoffice
So hardly the average state school
Religion is for churches / temples / mosques / etc, not for schools.
Wait for the explosions that occur when I call him Sir Kier ...
xx
pay tax to fund secular state
schools then? If they are
banned from letting their
children attend religious state
schools many of them will homeschool instead if they
can't afford private religious schools
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-pupils-and-their-characteristics
Overall there are 6.5% pupils in independent schools.
However I would expect the percentage of private school pupils in secondary school to be higher.
No change from the last poll, but yes, change from the last election as you describe: DUP up, UUP and TUV down. The other notable shift is Alliance are further up from the last election, which was IIRC a record performance for them.
It's like banning people from NHS hospitals unless they are C of E or RC (or, if lucky, one or two other denominations).
Joe Rogan and Elon Musk, discussing Gobekli Tepe and ancient civilisations.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7edwvm2c6Ieuzun4xtFYCJ?si=WeDSWKSUT4uEyhPeYY4gGA (Starts about 80’ in).
He didn't really shout about it.
Probably because there wasn't much to shout about.
No doubt they carry on doing it despite the fears that it may make their children arrogant and obnoxious.
hypocrisy if they choose the above for their kids
Some people are anti titles, some crave them, but 99% of us don't care at all, but if given one would accept it. If it is the stupid tradition that on leaving certain posts you get knighted then so be it. Only if you are really anti would you refuse it.
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."
Unfortunately I might have to vote for him
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/plans-for-12-mile-tidal-barrier-across-the-wash-win-support-from-centrica/ar-AA1jqnSW?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=80f15f1e2927438aac53c7015129766d&ei=9
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/sadiq-khan-susan-hall-mayoral-election-race-labour-conservative-greens-liberal-poll-b1118297.html
Doing a prediction on electoral calculus I was surprised that more significant Tories would not be losing their seats based on being reduced to sub 200 MPs. Tobias Ellwood, Penny Mordaunt, Johnny Mercer, Miriam Cates and Neil O'Brien were the main ones I noticed. Obviously some big names likes IDS, JRM, Lee Anderson but not many of those you'd expect to be rebuilding the party in opposition. On my rough calculation Jeremy Hunt was safe.
Many issues and this one in particular have become binary in nature, framed as the powerful vs the powerless in every domain. And someone powerful can never be discriminated against, while all struggles of the powerless are equal and a common cause, and hence "Queers for Palestine".
Edit: https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2023/11/01/the-global-culture-war-about-gaza-blurs-the-usual-battle-lines
There are some people whose support you can do without... the anti-semites in our society are doing quite a good job of outing themselves without the need for counter-protests.
I'm not sure what input goes into their site specific forecasts - probably more than one global model. They are used by the power companies as well as councils - an application where maximum accuracy can save you a lot of money - so I don't think they are penny pinching.
I'll ask their head forecaster next time I see him...