Classic whataboutary from Alanbrooke. The only thing they have left is to try to paint others as all the same. The final bunker.
I am surprised by how bad Sunak is, even with his lack of experience you might have thought that the people around him would create some basic competence and political common, but no.
LOL I realise you want to think SKS is great PM material but he isnt. There is very little difference between him and Sunk it will be continuity crap.
Are there really that many people who think Starmer is great PM material, as opposed to "hopefully adequate, but even if he's mediocre that will be an unimaginable improvement on anything the Conservative Party has foisted on the public since at least 2019"?
Vote Starmer, because he'll have to do.
I did a fag packet Myers Briggs on both. I reckon Sunak is ESTJ and SKS is ESFJ, In effect both are technocrats and neither is a mover and shaker. I cant see there being much of a difference between them.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
It's all a bit Elon Musk tech-bro, from a world where software experiments can be devised over breakfast with the results in by tea-time.
And much as I yearn for evidence-based policy, we must remember even the targets might be subject to political debate. For instance, is the aim of secondary education to increase equality or the number of grade 9s or Pisa rankings or university entry? Does a high conviction rate signify a working criminal justice system or one that has failed to deter or prevent crime?
What the targets are is what the debate should be around!
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
It's all a bit Elon Musk tech-bro, from a world where software experiments can be devised over breakfast with the results in by tea-time.
And much as I yearn for evidence-based policy, we must remember even the targets might be subject to political debate. For instance, is the aim of secondary education to increase equality or the number of grade 9s or Pisa rankings or university entry? Does a high conviction rate signify a working criminal justice system or one that has failed to deter or prevent crime?
I would have said, personally - and this is speaking as a history teacher - that the key goal of any education system should be to instil decent levels of literacy, numeracy and the ability to interact with others. To this we should probably increasingly add the best way to use technology efficiently and safely. Once you've got those in place, the rest will follow much more easily, including things like lifelong learning and retraining.
Certainly that should be the be-all and the end-all-here of primary schools. Anything on top is gravy (and actually, a lot of the more specialist stuff they are taught in primary schools is, in my experience, incorrect anyway. Not surprising given their teachers aren't specialists and usually have only a page of a bad textbook to work on, but it does make you wonder what good it is).
Unfortunately, our current school system not only doesn't do that particularly well but through Ofsted's mad curriculum framework, poor quality assessments that assess the wrong things in the wrong ways, policy decisions on 'inclusion' that leaves little time for supporting children properly and means inadequate provision is made for those who can't cope in main schools, and the Luddite like attitude of the DfE to technology (they are so bad they actually can't use email efficiently) it's actively militating against them.
All while on a shoestring budget.
You are not the first secondary teacher to suggest primary schools need to return to the 3Rs.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
Very good. One but. 'Evidence based' is a similar attitude to the faux 'following the science' trotted out by politicians hiding behind fig leaves.
Empiricism is great, as long as you have done the non-empirical process of deciding what counts as a good outcome.
Two education examples: lots of highly educated people and opinion formers assume that very high levels of degree level stuff is good for us all, and good in itself. Where I live, in a WWC community in the north, where white van man is king this neither seems nor is true.
Secondly, values. A lot of empiricists assume that STEM stuff is all great, and that Elamite cuneiform, Viking Studies, Medieval Basque literature are all absurd just about tolerated add ons, but don't really count in the great scheme of things.
The constant repetition by many on here that "Labour has no policies" doesn't make it true, although what is true that those policies are not (yet) well-known. However, if anybody is seriously interested in Labour's emerging policies rather than simply claiming they don't have any, they could start by looking here:
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Sixth Form colleges appear to work. Perhaps partly because they don't get effed around with quite so often.
Resources, of course, is why the original postwar tripartite system was such a failure for everyone but the grammar school kids. Not much has changed since, in that respect.
I've been impressed by my eldest daughter's sixth form college.
I was hugely impressed by the one my kids attended. Almost completely non selective both pastorally and academically excellent.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
It's all a bit Elon Musk tech-bro, from a world where software experiments can be devised over breakfast with the results in by tea-time.
And much as I yearn for evidence-based policy, we must remember even the targets might be subject to political debate. For instance, is the aim of secondary education to increase equality or the number of grade 9s or Pisa rankings or university entry? Does a high conviction rate signify a working criminal justice system or one that has failed to deter or prevent crime?
There are thing for which it might work very well, though. Energy; transport; house building; military procurement, etc.
Will it though? It would be courageous for any politician to build half a dozen different sorts of power station, declaring in advance that five will fail (in relative terms). Of course that is the nature of experiments; you don't know which will fail. And so politicians privatise problems away.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
It's all a bit Elon Musk tech-bro, from a world where software experiments can be devised over breakfast with the results in by tea-time.
And much as I yearn for evidence-based policy, we must remember even the targets might be subject to political debate. For instance, is the aim of secondary education to increase equality or the number of grade 9s or Pisa rankings or university entry? Does a high conviction rate signify a working criminal justice system or one that has failed to deter or prevent crime?
There are thing for which it might work very well, though. Energy; transport; house building; military procurement, etc.
Will it though? It would be courageous for any politician to build half a dozen different sorts of power station, declaring in advance that five will fail (in relative terms). Of course that is the nature of experiments; you don't know which will fail. And so politicians privatise problems away.
Depends on how they fail.
If five are less efficient than the sixth, that's acceptable.
If three don't work, that isn't.
If four work badly, one works well and one blows up...
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Sixth Form colleges appear to work. Perhaps partly because they don't get effed around with quite so often.
Resources, of course, is why the original postwar tripartite system was such a failure for everyone but the grammar school kids. Not much has changed since, in that respect.
I've been impressed by my eldest daughter's sixth form college.
I was hugely impressed by the one my kids attended. Almost completely non selective both pastorally and academically excellent.
Sixth form colleges, like private schools, benefit from well-motivated pupils doing subjects within their grasp. More teaching and learning; less riot control.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
It's all a bit Elon Musk tech-bro, from a world where software experiments can be devised over breakfast with the results in by tea-time.
And much as I yearn for evidence-based policy, we must remember even the targets might be subject to political debate. For instance, is the aim of secondary education to increase equality or the number of grade 9s or Pisa rankings or university entry? Does a high conviction rate signify a working criminal justice system or one that has failed to deter or prevent crime?
There are thing for which it might work very well, though. Energy; transport; house building; military procurement, etc.
Will it though? It would be courageous for any politician to build half a dozen different sorts of power station, declaring in advance that five will fail (in relative terms). Of course that is the nature of experiments; you don't know which will fail. And so politicians privatise problems away.
Energy is particularly amenable to small scale experiments at the moment.
Classic whataboutary from Alanbrooke. The only thing they have left is to try to paint others as all the same. The final bunker.
I am surprised by how bad Sunak is, even with his lack of experience you might have thought that the people around him would create some basic competence and political common, but no.
LOL I realise you want to think SKS is great PM material but he isnt. There is very little difference between him and Sunk it will be continuity crap.
Are there really that many people who think Starmer is great PM material, as opposed to "hopefully adequate, but even if he's mediocre that will be an unimaginable improvement on anything the Conservative Party has foisted on the public since at least 2019"?
Vote Starmer, because he'll have to do.
I did a fag packet Myers Briggs on both. I reckon Sunak is ESTJ and SKS is ESFJ, In effect both are technocrats and neither is a mover and shaker. I cant see there being much of a difference between them.
ESFJ? Really? Warm and Extroverted?
Is this the same SKS we are talking about?
With people who have the capacity to get to this level, the 16 MB boxes all seem a bit limited; but I wonder if SKS has 'P' rather than 'J' traits, and his 'E' not a strongly marked as some. But if this is a Christmas game as well, anyone for Boris as ENFP?
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
So a few lost votes while the same policy probably gets 1000 people out campaigning for the party.
Heck I suspect even voting Tory would be a wasted vote...
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Sixth Form colleges appear to work. Perhaps partly because they don't get effed around with quite so often.
Resources, of course, is why the original postwar tripartite system was such a failure for everyone but the grammar school kids. Not much has changed since, in that respect.
I've been impressed by my eldest daughter's sixth form college.
I was hugely impressed by the one my kids attended. Almost completely non selective both pastorally and academically excellent.
Sixth form colleges, like private schools, benefit from well-motivated pupils doing subjects within their grasp. More teaching and learning; less riot control.
Indeed - but there's literally no downside. You're not denying places to those who want in, or restricting them to those who can afford it.
On topic, it’s too late for Sunak now. He has shown himself to be politically naive, an exceptionally poor strategist, and an appalling party manager.
If it weren’t for the fact that the Tories have a complete lack of talent and would look utterly ridiculous changing PMs again, I’d almost suggest their best bet is to try another new leader. In fact, there’s even something to be said for Sunak standing down at the GE and giving a new Tory leader and chancellor candidate the opportunity to fight the election. At least there’d be novelty value in it.
I can’t muster much sympathy for Sunak or the Tories, because they made this bed.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
Sent out Christmas cards ft photos of him and his wife, photoshopped to stop him looking shorter than her
Donned military fatigues for a photoshoot
Two things that would be ridiculed relentlessly on here were it Boris, Sunak, or Farage, but ignored now. And if anyone does mention it… “weirdly obsessed”
Morning Sam, any links?
Combat Keir, and Sir Keir showing off a mean left jab
The Christmas card deception is disturbing in itself - Stalin would have been proud - but it also makes Sir Keir look a bit of a cheapskate and not really getting into the Christmas spirit. I know he's a busy man, but could he not at least have arranged a proper photo session with him and his wife at home or something? Having minions hacking around with a crap random image makes him appear unfestive, insouciant and a bit of a miser.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
Have you heard the telephone tape recording that has emerged of the conversation between Trump and two Michigan State electors, Republicans trying to get them NOT to formally endorse the 2020 Michigan result. Could be another criminal case.
Sent out Christmas cards ft photos of him and his wife, photoshopped to stop him looking shorter than her
Donned military fatigues for a photoshoot
Two things that would be ridiculed relentlessly on here were it Boris, Sunak, or Farage, but ignored now. And if anyone does mention it… “weirdly obsessed”
Morning Sam, any links?
Combat Keir, and Sir Keir showing off a mean left jab
The Christmas card deception is disturbing in itself - Stalin would have been proud - but it also makes Sir Keir look a bit of a cheapskate and not really getting into the Christmas spirit. I know he's a busy man, but could he not at least have arranged a proper photo session with him and his wife at home or something? Having minions hacking around with a crap random image makes him appear unfestive, insouciant and a bit of a miser.
Is that actually his Christmas card? Good god. Was that what they got the work experience kid to do in December?
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
The snag, as I have said before, is that VAT on school fees won't solve it.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
The biggest problem with this, and Covid threw up lots of interesting examples, is that our incredibly large and bureaucratic state is really, really poor at collecting data and even worse in assimilating it. It has been obvious for a decade or more, for example, that Curriculum for Excellence does not work in the real world, however, it was thought that it would work in an academic study. No one seriously disputes (possibly the SNP) that educational standards are falling in Scotland and that several of the old ideas thrown away, such as phonics, actually worked.
But there is absolutely no impetus to be self critical, to analyse objectively what isn't working and why. It is so much easier just to reduce the pass mark. I appreciate that you want to vote for a government that is better than the SNP (who doesn't?) but this simple example shows how the sort of pragmatism and evidence based policy that you want simply will not happen. What would happen is what we have now with people in charge who have built up their seniority doing things a particular way and who are very reluctant to recognise the need for change, let alone actually do it.
Sent out Christmas cards ft photos of him and his wife, photoshopped to stop him looking shorter than her
Donned military fatigues for a photoshoot
Two things that would be ridiculed relentlessly on here were it Boris, Sunak, or Farage, but ignored now. And if anyone does mention it… “weirdly obsessed”
Morning Sam, any links?
Combat Keir, and Sir Keir showing off a mean left jab
The Christmas card deception is disturbing in itself - Stalin would have been proud - but it also makes Sir Keir look a bit of a cheapskate and not really getting into the Christmas spirit. I know he's a busy man, but could he not at least have arranged a proper photo session with him and his wife at home or something? Having minions hacking around with a crap random image makes him appear unfestive, insouciant and a bit of a miser.
Didn't someone on here post earlier that Starmer is 5'8" and his wife is 5'4"?
I mean, fair enough, Labour and Starmer haters are going to latch on to any straws, I get that. But 'Stalin would have been proud' seems a bit ott.
I dunno why you bother anyway, Kormagate is obviously going to do for Starmer as we all know.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
The biggest problem with this, and Covid threw up lots of interesting examples, is that our incredibly large and bureaucratic state
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
The snag, as I have said before, is that VAT on school fees won't solve it.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
My neighbour and friend who has recently retired as a teacher at what I guess is a middling local private school makes exactly the same point and I admit it has some power.
Of course the question this point begs is: what happens to those children who can't cope elsewhere and whose parents lack either the income and/or the motivation to send them to said private school?
Sent out Christmas cards ft photos of him and his wife, photoshopped to stop him looking shorter than her
Donned military fatigues for a photoshoot
Two things that would be ridiculed relentlessly on here were it Boris, Sunak, or Farage, but ignored now. And if anyone does mention it… “weirdly obsessed”
Morning Sam, any links?
Combat Keir, and Sir Keir showing off a mean left jab
The Christmas card deception is disturbing in itself - Stalin would have been proud - but it also makes Sir Keir look a bit of a cheapskate and not really getting into the Christmas spirit. I know he's a busy man, but could he not at least have arranged a proper photo session with him and his wife at home or something? Having minions hacking around with a crap random image makes him appear unfestive, insouciant and a bit of a miser.
Didn't someone on here post earlier that Starmer is 5'8" and his wife is 5'4"?
I mean, fair enough, Labour and Starmer haters are going to latch on to any straws, I get that. But 'Stalin would have been proud' seems a bit ott.
I dunno why you bother anyway, Kormagate is obviously going to do for Starmer as we all know.
For Starmer haters heelgate is at least a step in the right direction. Now lets get back to Rishis heelicopter obsession.....
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
The snag, as I have said before, is that VAT on school fees won't solve it.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
My neighbour and friend who has recently retired as a teacher at what I guess is a middling local private school makes exactly the same point and I admit it has some power.
Of course the question this point begs is: what happens to those children who can't cope elsewhere and whose parents lack either the income and/or the motivation to send them to said private school?
How do you mean? What happens if the small private schools close? Those who were already struggling will likely struggle more in bigger class sizes that their closure will precipitate.
The politics of envy rarely result in better outcomes, even though they might make some with unresolved issues feel better.
Sent out Christmas cards ft photos of him and his wife, photoshopped to stop him looking shorter than her
Donned military fatigues for a photoshoot
Two things that would be ridiculed relentlessly on here were it Boris, Sunak, or Farage, but ignored now. And if anyone does mention it… “weirdly obsessed”
You're at risk of getting weirdly obsessed with being called weirdly obsessed.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Ben Pointer: I think your argument so biased, unthinking and seemingly class based, allows me to rest my case.
Ok, I know we'll never persuade each other but you appear to be 'resting your case' because you can't refute my points.
I hope Labour stick to their guns on this one; I suspect they will water it down though.
I tend to think it will be vetoed by civil servants in the treasury. I fully suspect it opens a hellish can of worms that ends up in a tax tribunal loss vs pyrhhic victory situation.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Sixth Form colleges appear to work. Perhaps partly because they don't get effed around with quite so often.
Resources, of course, is why the original postwar tripartite system was such a failure for everyone but the grammar school kids. Not much has changed since, in that respect.
I've been impressed by my eldest daughter's sixth form college.
I was hugely impressed by the one my kids attended. Almost completely non selective both pastorally and academically excellent.
Sixth form colleges, like private schools, benefit from well-motivated pupils doing subjects within their grasp. More teaching and learning; less riot control.
Indeed - but there's literally no downside. You're not denying places to those who want in, or restricting them to those who can afford it.
When my children were teenagers, I had a high opinion of our local sixth form college. However, it didn't do a lot for my daughter or younger son! Not "disciplined" enough for my daughter, who left to do an "in office" accountancy course, halfway through her A level course. And didn't motivate her younger brother, who was still carrying a chip on his shoulder from 'failing' the 11+.
Sent out Christmas cards ft photos of him and his wife, photoshopped to stop him looking shorter than her
Donned military fatigues for a photoshoot
Two things that would be ridiculed relentlessly on here were it Boris, Sunak, or Farage, but ignored now. And if anyone does mention it… “weirdly obsessed”
Morning Sam, any links?
Combat Keir, and Sir Keir showing off a mean left jab
The Christmas card deception is disturbing in itself - Stalin would have been proud - but it also makes Sir Keir look a bit of a cheapskate and not really getting into the Christmas spirit. I know he's a busy man, but could he not at least have arranged a proper photo session with him and his wife at home or something? Having minions hacking around with a crap random image makes him appear unfestive, insouciant and a bit of a miser.
Didn't someone on here post earlier that Starmer is 5'8" and his wife is 5'4"?
I mean, fair enough, Labour and Starmer haters are going to latch on to any straws, I get that. But 'Stalin would have been proud' seems a bit ott.
I dunno why you bother anyway, Kormagate is obviously going to do for Starmer as we all know.
A trivial thing perhaps, but why did Sir Keir's media handlers think it necessary to doctor a photo to make his wife appear shorter than him? Other than to avoid the accusation that they were pandering to the giantessophilia scene, I can't think of a reason why they'd do it.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
The biggest problem with this, and Covid threw up lots of interesting examples, is that our incredibly large and bureaucratic state
FIFY
The biggest problem with evidence based policy making is the horrifying danger that the evidence might go against our personal prejudices. And/or How Things Are Done
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
Over 15GW of wind power again this morning after Orsted confirmed that they are proceeding with the Horsea 3 wind farm yesterday which will be the largest single windfarm in the world and should be on line by 2027. This is despite the cancellation of a number of major developments around the world with the company recognising and acknowledging that the policy structure in the UK made it attractive.
Amongst all the populist blundering incompetence wind is something the UK has got broadly right.
It's a good illustration of a positive long term policy adopted and persisted with.
In terms of “meaningful change”, for better or worse, to coin a recent SKS phrase, Davey must be up there alongside Osborne as CoE and Gove as Ed Sec of cabinet ministers other than the PM in the last decade.
Sadly the toxic legacy of having helped the Tories get in means Lib Dems are still hesitant to talk about their record in coalition.
I think Ed Davey is underrated as a politician too. We have got a bit too used to flamboyant scoundrels to value dull competence.
I think he will come over well at the debate stage of the campaign, being a bit more charismatic than Keir.
I expect he won’t get a chance. It’ll be Sunak vs Keir, with a conference league debate of Davey, Yousaf, Tice, Price and whoever the Green leader is nowadays.
Point of information: Rhun ap Iorwerth is the current Plaid leader. (Adam Price was ditched a while back.) Having to make this point possibly reinforces the point implied in your post about the utter irrelevance of the undercard debate.
PS Irrelevant or not that the undercard debate may be, I’d argue that Richard Tice shouldn’t be included. Unlike the other parties, DeformedUK (or whatever they’re calling themselves this week) don’t have any MPs or a realistic prospect of winning any seats at GE2024/5.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
The snag, as I have said before, is that VAT on school fees won't solve it.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
My neighbour and friend who has recently retired as a teacher at what I guess is a middling local private school makes exactly the same point and I admit it has some power.
Of course the question this point begs is: what happens to those children who can't cope elsewhere and whose parents lack either the income and/or the motivation to send them to said private school?
I can answer this one because I listened to an LBC phone in Either Tom Swarbrick or Ben Kentish....
The local authority has a statutory duty to provide appropriate education (And transport to if pupils live beyond a certain distance of said institutions). There's a massive industry in providing said education for SEND pupils with no worries about parents paying any sort of bill because the Local authority is statutorily obliged to because there isn't appropriate state provision. And it sounded like a blank cheque for the private schools providing such education quite honestly.# You'd hope central Gov't would refund councils the VAT element of this if it's made obligatory for private schools as that's simply one area of Gov't shifting money to another, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Doesn’t really work if you’re Team Tory, though nowadays most of them seem to loathe Rishi as much as SKS. If you’re on the two cheeks of the same arse part of the spectrum it’s fine.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
Agile politics
Minimum Viable Politics - shudder.
The whole country's well on the way to becoming a Minimum Viable Product after 13 years of Tory misrule.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
I think we should accept that parents who choose to opt out of state education and pay for the privilege should get the tacit acknowledgement that they deserve a bit of a break from the state, for that.
Ben Pointer: I think your argument so biased, unthinking and seemingly class based, allows me to rest my case.
Ok, I know we'll never persuade each other but you appear to be 'resting your case' because you can't refute my points.
I hope Labour stick to their guns on this one; I suspect they will water it down though.
I tend to think it will be vetoed by civil servants in the treasury. I fully suspect it opens a hellish can of worms that ends up in a tax tribunal loss vs pyrhhic victory situation.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Sixth Form colleges appear to work. Perhaps partly because they don't get effed around with quite so often.
Resources, of course, is why the original postwar tripartite system was such a failure for everyone but the grammar school kids. Not much has changed since, in that respect.
I've been impressed by my eldest daughter's sixth form college.
I was hugely impressed by the one my kids attended. Almost completely non selective both pastorally and academically excellent.
Sixth form colleges, like private schools, benefit from well-motivated pupils doing subjects within their grasp. More teaching and learning; less riot control.
Indeed - but there's literally no downside. You're not denying places to those who want in, or restricting them to those who can afford it.
When my children were teenagers, I had a high opinion of our local sixth form college. However, it didn't do a lot for my daughter or younger son! Not "disciplined" enough for my daughter, who left to do an "in office" accountancy course, halfway through her A level course. And didn't motivate her younger brother, who was still carrying a chip on his shoulder from 'failing' the 11+.
Quite right. Time to abolish the 11+ in the few places it still clings on.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
The snag, as I have said before, is that VAT on school fees won't solve it.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
My neighbour and friend who has recently retired as a teacher at what I guess is a middling local private school makes exactly the same point and I admit it has some power.
Of course the question this point begs is: what happens to those children who can't cope elsewhere and whose parents lack either the income and/or the motivation to send them to said private school?
I can answer this one because I listened to an LBC phone in Either Tom Swarbrick or Ben Kentish....
The local authority has a statutory duty to provide appropriate education (And transport to if pupils live beyond a certain distance of said institutions). There's a massive industry in providing said education for SEND pupils with no worries about parents paying any sort of bill because the Local authority is statutorily obliged to because there isn't appropriate state provision. And it sounded like a blank cheque for the private schools providing such education quite honestly.# You'd hope central Gov't would refund councils the VAT element of this if it's made obligatory for private schools as that's simply one area of Gov't shifting money to another, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
That's interesting. I will have to ask my friend if her school takes publicly funded pupils with extra needs. (I have a feeling not - the parents who are paying would surely object.)
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
The Telegraph is flying a different anti-Starmer kite every day, from various legal cases through to dressing up in uniform.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
The snag, as I have said before, is that VAT on school fees won't solve it.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
My neighbour and friend who has recently retired as a teacher at what I guess is a middling local private school makes exactly the same point and I admit it has some power.
Of course the question this point begs is: what happens to those children who can't cope elsewhere and whose parents lack either the income and/or the motivation to send them to said private school?
I can answer this one because I listened to an LBC phone in Either Tom Swarbrick or Ben Kentish....
The local authority has a statutory duty to provide appropriate education (And transport to if pupils live beyond a certain distance of said institutions). There's a massive industry in providing said education for SEND pupils with no worries about parents paying any sort of bill because the Local authority is statutorily obliged to because there isn't appropriate state provision. And it sounded like a blank cheque for the private schools providing such education quite honestly.# You'd hope central Gov't would refund councils the VAT element of this if it's made obligatory for private schools as that's simply one area of Gov't shifting money to another, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
That's interesting. I will have to ask my friend if her school takes publicly funded pupils with extra needs. (I have a feeling not - the parents who are paying would surely object.)
It's not something my private school did back in the day. I couldn't be sure, but I got the impression that these are entirely different schools to the private schools for the slightly better off; various LA pay ALL the fees for every pupil there. There seemed to be huge mileage (And transportation charges) to and from them too as the effective catchments are enormous. The phone in was specifically should better off parents of SEND kids have to make a contribution towards the fees - with the balance of callers deciding "No".
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Doesn’t really work if you’re Team Tory, though nowadays most of them seem to loathe Rishi as much as SKS. If you’re on the two cheeks of the same arse part of the spectrum it’s fine.
The other thing that confuses me about our PB SKS haters. They keep complaining that SKS is copying the Tories, only he is saner (which is what 'boring' means in the context of May/Johnson/Truss/Truss again/Sunak). So what are they complaining about?
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
Labour has really upped its PR game in the last couple of months.
Some very effective attacks, the Tories seem to have all but given up. I wonder if when a party is going to lose all of the good people go to the other and that is what we are now seeing.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
I think we should accept that parents who choose to opt out of state education and pay for the privilege should get the tacit acknowledgement that they deserve a bit of a break from the state, for that.
Only wealthy people can do that. Most people couldn't afford it even if they "scrimp and save".
Should people with health insurance get some form of tax break too?
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
So your point is that Sir Keir Starmer, age 8, should have built a time machine, seen that he was going to become Labour leader and then decide to not attend the school his parents chose because it changed its status whilst he was there?
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
He went to a state school... Which became a private school when he was there...
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
Average Ninja is correct, as 'go' is usually read as "being sent by his parents". And he couldn't very well be 'sent' more than once could he?
Also - his status didn't change (grandfather rights), so no fees IIRC.
Ben Pointer: surely, even you, could think of a much better compromise.
Even me? Not really, but please suggest one. Any compromise I can think of would be a fudge.
Honestly, I would abolish private education if I had the power to, I think it is that corrosive to the nation.
I spent my career dealing with people of average capability who were in well-paid senior management jobs primarily because they had had the fortune to be born to rich parents and hence be privately educated. My biggest issue is that the country therefore does not get the brightest people doing the most intellectually demanding jobs.
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
Sixth form colleges are indeed the jewel in the crown of our state education system. However, in 2010 there were 96 of them. There are now 47. The other 49 have either become part of academies (to avoid VAT, mainly) or have merged with GFE colleges.
So the Conservatives can't even conserve these beacons of excellence.
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
What exactly are his flaws? He hasn't really done anything wrong in my view, that's why he's been so successful.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
So your point is that Sir Keir Starmer, age 8, should have built a time machine, seen that he was going to become Labour leader and then decide to not attend the school his parents chose because it changed its status whilst he was there?
Are you crazy?
No, my point is just that your correction wasn’t accurate. He did attend a private school.
Do you think there’s something wrong with attending a private school?
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
He went to a state school... Which became a private school when he was there...
We might as well say the residents of Mariupol moved from Ukraine to Russia in May 2022.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Singapore tops the PISA rankings and spends and taxes less than we do.
As it has good discipline in the classroom and high expectations of its pupils. So what is actually needed is more of that and more choice for parents
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
So your point is that Sir Keir Starmer, age 8, should have built a time machine, seen that he was going to become Labour leader and then decide to not attend the school his parents chose because it changed its status whilst he was there?
Are you crazy?
No, my point is just that your correction wasn’t accurate. He did attend a private school.
Do you think there’s something wrong with attending a private school?
I went to two private schools, I've got nothing against them myself although it is crazy my parents didn't pay any tax for the fees. I don't think abolishing them would help, rather we need to up the state schools that the Tories have spent a decade destroying (after some initial success).
He didn't go to a private school, which was the point I made. Your point seems to be that he should have chosen to leave when it changed its status because in future he would become Labour leader and so be accused of being a hypocrite.
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
What exactly are his flaws? He hasn't really done anything wrong in my view, that's why he's been so successful.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
So your point is that Sir Keir Starmer, age 8, should have built a time machine, seen that he was going to become Labour leader and then decide to not attend the school his parents chose because it changed its status whilst he was there?
Are you crazy?
No, my point is just that your correction wasn’t accurate. He did attend a private school.
Do you think there’s something wrong with attending a private school?
I went to two private schools, I've got nothing against them myself although it is crazy my parents didn't pay any tax for the fees. I don't think abolishing them would help, rather we need to up the state schools that the Tories have spent a decade destroying (after some initial success).
He didn't go to a private school, which was the point I made. Your point seems to be that he should have chosen to leave when it changed its status because in future he would become Labour leader and so be accused of being a hypocrite.
Itd didn't even change status as far as he was concerned - IIRC his parents didn't have to pay fees because of established position in the school. Only new pupils (post privatisation) did.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
It actually enables those private schools to afford more bursaries and leads them to share more facilities with the local community. Ending it will just reduce choice and make them even more exclusive.
Parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools as they are world leading
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
So your point is that Sir Keir Starmer, age 8, should have built a time machine, seen that he was going to become Labour leader and then decide to not attend the school his parents chose because it changed its status whilst he was there?
Are you crazy?
No, my point is just that your correction wasn’t accurate. He did attend a private school.
Do you think there’s something wrong with attending a private school?
I went to two private schools, I've got nothing against them myself although it is crazy my parents didn't pay any tax for the fees. I don't think abolishing them would help, rather we need to up the state schools that the Tories have spent a decade destroying (after some initial success).
He didn't go to a private school, which was the point I made. Your point seems to be that he should have chosen to leave when it changed its status because in future he would become Labour leader and so be accused of being a hypocrite.
Itd didn't even change status as far as he was concerned - IIRC his parents didn't have to pay fees because of established position in the school. Only new pupils (post privatisation) did.
A kid from my junior school went to Reigate grammar. This would have been about ten years after Sir Keir attended. Presumably he got in on some sort of scholarship (he was a 'gifted' child), but it certainly wasn't spoken about as a private school at that time, so I was quite surprised to learn that it was one when the matter arose recently concerning Sir Keir.
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
What exactly are his flaws? He hasn't really done anything wrong in my view, that's why he's been so successful.
Every politician has flaws.
I am just asking you to name some. I am sure we would agree.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Sixth Form colleges appear to work. Perhaps partly because they don't get effed around with quite so often.
Resources, of course, is why the original postwar tripartite system was such a failure for everyone but the grammar school kids. Not much has changed since, in that respect.
I've been impressed by my eldest daughter's sixth form college.
I was hugely impressed by the one my kids attended. Almost completely non selective both pastorally and academically excellent.
Sixth form colleges, like private schools, benefit from well-motivated pupils doing subjects within their grasp. More teaching and learning; less riot control.
Indeed - but there's literally no downside. You're not denying places to those who want in, or restricting them to those who can afford it.
When my children were teenagers, I had a high opinion of our local sixth form college. However, it didn't do a lot for my daughter or younger son! Not "disciplined" enough for my daughter, who left to do an "in office" accountancy course, halfway through her A level course. And didn't motivate her younger brother, who was still carrying a chip on his shoulder from 'failing' the 11+.
Quite right. Time to abolish the 11+ in the few places it still clings on.
Absolutely not, we need more choice not less.
Of course if enough local parents sign a petition they can ballot to end selective education in their area where it exists and make it comprehensive, however they rarely do as the grammars are excellent and if enough do the ballot normally fails, see Ripon.
However parents can't sign a petition to ballot to open new grammars in their area and have selective education there rather than the comprehensive/academy system only, that needs to change so it is a level playing field
A kid from my junior school went to Reigate grammar. This would have been about ten years after Sir Keir attended. Presumably he got in on some sort of scholarship (he was a 'gifted' child), but it certainly wasn't spoken about as a private school at that time, so I was quite surprised to learn that it was one when the matter arose recently concerning Sir Keir.
No you see it's only a private school because Sir Keir went there and you see just like the fact he is not actually working class despite being work class, the Tories who despise these sorts of people sneer at him.
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Singapore tops the PISA rankings and spends and taxes less than we do.
As it has good discipline in the classroom and high expectations of its pupils. So what is actually needed is more of that and more choice for parents
IMV (and as I've said boringly many times): parents matters just as much as school. If a relatively unscholarly kid has parents who are willing to invest time and effort into their kid(s), then that kid may bloom - even if it is only in finding something that does 'click' with them. If a relatively bright kid has parents who are not interested in school, or in getting the kid to school (as I fear is happening with one of my son's friends), then that kid will always struggle.
Choice for parents is irrelevant if the parents are uninterested in educating their kids. IMV it is mainly of advantage to middle-class parents anyway.
In my case, our son will probably have the choice of two secondary schools (village colleges in Cambridgeshire-speak). I like both of them; but the one that is furthest away is in big demand and I doubt he'd get in. So the 'choice' becomes either the very local school, a *really* long drive, or private.
The 'choice' is not much of a 'choice' for many people...
During the last Labour Government, people were annoyed that they were being seen too quickly by their GP. The 48 hour target was hit so often, that people were told they needed to book within 48 hours.
Under the last Labour Government, the cancer target was hit.
Under the last Labour Government, the A&E 4 hour target was hit in over 90% of cases.
Before the last Labour government, all targets were missed and the NHS was on its knees. After the last Labour government, all targets are being missed and the NHS is on its knees.
The Tories are the problem. It is hard to conclude they are anything but incompetent at running it.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
Average Ninja is correct, as 'go' is usually read as "being sent by his parents". And he couldn't very well be 'sent' more than once could he?
Also - his status didn't change (grandfather rights), so no fees IIRC.
I believe he had grandfather rights to 16. He could have gone to a state sixth form college for his A Levels but instead was paid for by the state to stay on at Reigate Grammar.
What I find odd about all this is that no one talks about the fact he passed the eleven plus and went to a grammar school. Not that social mobility is really that important politically, but he makes a big thing of his working class roots. I’d genuinely be interested to hear if he thinks he could have made it to DPP if he’d gone to a comprehensive.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
I think we should accept that parents who choose to opt out of state education and pay for the privilege should get the tacit acknowledgement that they deserve a bit of a break from the state, for that.
Only wealthy people can do that. Most people couldn't afford it even if they "scrimp and save".
Should people with health insurance get some form of tax break too?
Personally, I would like to vote for a political party that had the following manifesto:
Look, this is all rather difficult, and who knows what the future will bring. I can't make any definitive promises about getting the economy moving, of reducing taxes, but these are going to be our guiding principles:
1. We're evidence based. Schooling. Policing. Health. You name it, we plan to run lots of trials. We have no idea which ideas will work. But unless we try things with a sensible system for evaluating results, we'll still never know.
2. Iteration. Iteration. Iteration. We're not going to rest on our laurels. We're going to be constantly seeing if we can improve things. Everything will be based on publicly available targets, and you will be able to judge us on those goals.
3. We're not that smart. We're going to make mistakes. Flip flopping is isn't bad, it's the correct response to new information that challenges existing views.
4. We will look for root causes, not try and treat symptoms. Why is it that the British economy is importing (say) certain types of labor? What is it we can change with the tax, benefit and education systems that makes it so that British people are more likely to be employed in these roles? Why is it that there are so few homes being built?
5. We won't lie to you. Things are going to be tough. There are an increasing number of people out there, all of whom want to live Western lives and they're willing to work longer and harder, because they're poorer. There's no free lunch and we can't simply shut ourselves off from the world.
How, within the space of one government, do you iterate trials of school policy ? Results are complicated by cohort, and take years to see out. And I would guess most parents would not be particularly keen on a mass parallel experiment with their kids as test subjects.
Your general point isn't a bad one, but it ignores the difficulties inherent in political, as opposed to commercial decisions.
The truth is, we've already had lots of experiments with various school systems - selective, comprehensive, LEA, direct grant, grant maintained, city academies, academies, academy trusts, vocational, academic, and on and on. The data goes back 80 years and is genuinely plentiful.
The problem is they all show one thing - our education system never achieves what we ostensibly want it too.
And that's because we've never done the one thing that might make a difference - made per pupil funding in state schools the same level as private schools.
And why not? Because no politician is willing to spend the money.
As we also see in transport, health, power generation...
Singapore tops the PISA rankings and spends and taxes less than we do.
As it has good discipline in the classroom and high expectations of its pupils. So what is actually needed is more of that and more choice for parents
85% of people in Singapore rent their homes, I believe.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
I think we should accept that parents who choose to opt out of state education and pay for the privilege should get the tacit acknowledgement that they deserve a bit of a break from the state, for that.
Only wealthy people can do that. Most people couldn't afford it even if they "scrimp and save".
Should people with health insurance get some form of tax break too?
Absolutely they should.
Absolutely ludicrous. This nonsense argument that actually people are using private provision for the good of the state is laughable.
During the last Labour Government, people were annoyed that they were being seen too quickly by their GP. The 48 hour target was hit so often, that people were told they needed to book within 48 hours.
Under the last Labour Government, the cancer target was hit.
Under the last Labour Government, the A&E 4 hour target was hit in over 90% of cases.
Before the last Labour government, all targets were missed and the NHS was on its knees. After the last Labour government, all targets are being missed and the NHS is on its knees.
The Tories are the problem. It is hard to conclude they are anything but incompetent at running it.
Governments shouldn’t be running things
I certainly agree that Tory Governments shouldn't be running things.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
Average Ninja is correct, as 'go' is usually read as "being sent by his parents". And he couldn't very well be 'sent' more than once could he?
Also - his status didn't change (grandfather rights), so no fees IIRC.
I believe he had grandfather rights to 16. He could have gone to a state sixth form college for his A Levels but instead was paid for by the state to stay on at Reigate Grammar.
What I find odd about all this is that no one talks about the fact he passed the eleven plus and went to a grammar school. Not that social mobility is really that important politically, but he makes a big thing of his working class routes. I’d genuinely be interested to hear if he thinks he could have made it to DPP if he’d gone to a comprehensive.
Mm, I'm also struck by the Tories here and elsewhere. Not very logical are they?
If SKS went to a private fee paying school, then that's no more than they think right and proper for our lords and masters.
If SKS went the grammar route, ditto right and proper for the inferior middle classes (but only Etonians etc should rule).
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
I think we should accept that parents who choose to opt out of state education and pay for the privilege should get the tacit acknowledgement that they deserve a bit of a break from the state, for that.
Only wealthy people can do that. Most people couldn't afford it even if they "scrimp and save".
Should people with health insurance get some form of tax break too?
Absolutely they should.
Absolutely ludicrous. This nonsense argument that actually people are using private provision for the good of the state is laughable.
Should we also take away tax breaks for private pension contributions?
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
What exactly are his flaws? He hasn't really done anything wrong in my view, that's why he's been so successful.
Every politician has flaws.
I am just asking you to name some. I am sure we would agree.
If you think he’s done nothing wrong, I am not sure we will. From my side, I think he has more political capital to spend, and he should be bolder about the things that need to change. We are in a bad state, and we need institutional reform, and he has a big opportunity to deliver it.
He is desperately fearful of losing the election, and is cautious to a fault, and given the parlous state of the country I think he is being too cautious.
To that end he is very good at criticising (to be fair, anyone who is facing the Tories would have got that down to a fine art) but is not particularly good at verbalising what he would do differently.
You are a courtly Whig corruptionist who is keen on the Protestant Succession and War with France, but mostly what you care about is exercising power in a highly disciplined way: you're a manager and a power-broker, more interested in your own personal gain and power than principle.
What is convenient to the Whigs' chances of holding power - like the Act of Union - is convenient for you. You are also pretty handy at raising a loan to fund the standing armies and corrupt pensions and places that you are so keen on. Examples: Somers, Wharton, Russell, Montagu, Walpole etc
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
What exactly are his flaws? He hasn't really done anything wrong in my view, that's why he's been so successful.
Every politician has flaws.
I am just asking you to name some. I am sure we would agree.
Nothing wrong with pointing out SKS’s flaws. He has them, and he makes mistakes, and there may come a time when they cost him. At the moment, the Tories are so utterly crap that anything SKS does or doesnt do pales into insignificance, which is why he will win the election, and I hope he does.
What exactly are his flaws? He hasn't really done anything wrong in my view, that's why he's been so successful.
Every politician has flaws.
I am just asking you to name some. I am sure we would agree.
If you think he’s done nothing wrong, I am not sure we will. From my side, I think he has more political capital to spend, and he should be bolder about the things that need to change. We are in a bad state, and we need institutional reform, and he has a big opportunity to deliver it.
He is desperately fearful of losing the election, and is cautious to a fault, and given the parlous state of the country I think he is being too cautious.
To that end he is very good at criticising (to be fair, anyone who is facing the Tories would have got that down to a fine art) but is not particularly good at verbalising what he would do differently.
Just because I don't think he's done anything wrong, it doesn't mean he doesn't have flaws.
Education. I shall spend an hour on Christmas Day composing my letter, personal and confidential, to Starmer about his policy that will costing parents, who really scrape by to send their kids to private education, another 20%, because of his class based plan over VAT and Tax. I am in a Con/Lab marginal and would have voted Labour for the first time in 60 years, but not now, be either a wasted Lib Dem vote or abstain.
We'll have a whip round for you.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
You can have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be overturned by changes in government, even if you support the policy ? (I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I suspect most will find a way to cover the extra cost but yes I do have sympathy for those whose life arrangements might be impacted by these changes, particularly the children.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
I think we should accept that parents who choose to opt out of state education and pay for the privilege should get the tacit acknowledgement that they deserve a bit of a break from the state, for that.
Only wealthy people can do that. Most people couldn't afford it even if they "scrimp and save".
Should people with health insurance get some form of tax break too?
Absolutely they should.
Absolutely ludicrous. This nonsense argument that actually people are using private provision for the good of the state is laughable.
I have private health insurance and generally use a private GP because:
1) the NHS in my experience is tremendous at saving your life, but terrible with just about everything else. 2) I consider it a duty to not be too much of a burden on the state, and as I can afford it, I opt out.
So far the anti Starmer brigade have come up with several reasons why he should not PM. Went to a private school, not tall enough, flip flops, boring and out of touch. I wonder if any can spot the fatal flaw why this might not quite work......
Sir Keir Starmer did not go to a private school.
Is Wikipedia wrong?
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
Average Ninja is correct, as 'go' is usually read as "being sent by his parents". And he couldn't very well be 'sent' more than once could he?
Also - his status didn't change (grandfather rights), so no fees IIRC.
I believe he had grandfather rights to 16. He could have gone to a state sixth form college for his A Levels but instead was paid for by the state to stay on at Reigate Grammar.
What I find odd about all this is that no one talks about the fact he passed the eleven plus and went to a grammar school. Not that social mobility is really that important politically, but he makes a big thing of his working class roots. I’d genuinely be interested to hear if he thinks he could have made it to DPP if he’d gone to a comprehensive.
My better half's Dad flunked his 11+ but did a PhD and had a lecturing career so who knows for Keir.
Comments
Is this the same SKS we are talking about?
Lady Starmer looks like she is a highly attractive woman in her early forties.
But, actually, she is an amazingly attractive 60 year old.
Empiricism is great, as long as you have done the non-empirical process of deciding what counts as a good outcome.
Two education examples: lots of highly educated people and opinion formers assume that very high levels of degree level stuff is good for us all, and good in itself. Where I live, in a WWC community in the north, where white van man is king this neither seems nor is true.
Secondly, values. A lot of empiricists assume that STEM stuff is all great, and that Elamite cuneiform, Viking Studies, Medieval Basque literature are all absurd just about tolerated add ons, but don't really count in the great scheme of things.
If five are less efficient than the sixth, that's acceptable.
If three don't work, that isn't.
If four work badly, one works well and one blows up...
Heck I suspect even voting Tory would be a wasted vote...
You're not denying places to those who want in, or restricting them to those who can afford it.
If it weren’t for the fact that the Tories have a complete lack of talent and would look utterly ridiculous changing PMs again, I’d almost suggest their best bet is to try another new leader. In fact, there’s even something to be said for Sunak standing down at the GE and giving a new Tory leader and chancellor candidate the opportunity to fight the election. At least there’d be novelty value in it.
I can’t muster much sympathy for Sunak or the Tories, because they made this bed.
Sorry, but no sympathy. Charitable status for privates schools is an utter sham. No reason on earth why an VAT exemption that benefits the wealthiest 7% of the population should persist. Private education is a corrosive influence on this country.
It won't affect Eton, or Winchester, or Roedean.
It will wreck small private schools taking children who can't cope elsewhere, which actually *is* a valuable social function.
It will also wreck some right dodgy places too - hopefully including the private school in Cannock, which is a truly ghastly place on all levels (and which incidentally is a limited company already in common with most private schools) - but overall it feels to me like it's the wrong policy aimed at the wrong target.
As an aside, if reform of VAT to improve the education system were to be considered, a bloody good start would be to change the VAT status of VIth form colleges to bring them in line with schools.
But there is absolutely no impetus to be self critical, to analyse objectively what isn't working and why. It is so much easier just to reduce the pass mark. I appreciate that you want to vote for a government that is better than the SNP (who doesn't?) but this simple example shows how the sort of pragmatism and evidence based policy that you want simply will not happen. What would happen is what we have now with people in charge who have built up their seniority doing things a particular way and who are very reluctant to recognise the need for change, let alone actually do it.
I mean, fair enough, Labour and Starmer haters are going to latch on to any straws, I get that. But 'Stalin would have been proud' seems a bit ott.
I dunno why you bother anyway, Kormagate is obviously going to do for Starmer as we all know.
Of course the question this point begs is: what happens to those children who can't cope elsewhere and whose parents lack either the income and/or the motivation to send them to said private school?
The politics of envy rarely result in better outcomes, even though they might make some with unresolved issues feel better.
(I'm agnostic on it myself, given the significant downsides, which ydoethur notes.)
I hope Labour stick to their guns on this one; I suspect they will water it down though.
Not "disciplined" enough for my daughter, who left to do an "in office" accountancy course, halfway through her A level course. And didn't motivate her younger brother, who was still carrying a chip on his shoulder from 'failing' the 11+.
Personally, I would make the VAT change for new entrants but I can see that might not stand up in the courts.
And are we to say that this private school VAT and charitable privilege can never be removed, since it will always affect someone?
PS Irrelevant or not that the undercard debate may be, I’d argue that Richard Tice shouldn’t be included. Unlike the other parties, DeformedUK (or whatever they’re calling themselves this week) don’t have any MPs or a realistic prospect of winning any seats at GE2024/5.
The local authority has a statutory duty to provide appropriate education (And transport to if pupils live beyond a certain distance of said institutions). There's a massive industry in providing said education for SEND pupils with no worries about parents paying any sort of bill because the Local authority is statutorily obliged to because there isn't appropriate state provision. And it sounded like a blank cheque for the private schools providing such education quite honestly.#
You'd hope central Gov't would refund councils the VAT element of this if it's made obligatory for private schools as that's simply one area of Gov't shifting money to another, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
"He attended the selective state Reigate Grammar School, which became a private school while he was a student."
Some very effective attacks, the Tories seem to have all but given up. I wonder if when a party is going to lose all of the good people go to the other and that is what we are now seeing.
Should people with health insurance get some form of tax break too?
https://www.gotoquiz.com/political_compass_rage_of_party_queen_anne_ed
I'm a Jacobite Crypto-Papist
Are you crazy?
Also - his status didn't change (grandfather rights), so no fees IIRC.
Honestly, I would abolish private education if I had the power to, I think it is that corrosive to the nation.
I spent my career dealing with people of average capability who were in well-paid senior management jobs primarily because they had had the fortune to be born to rich parents and hence be privately educated. My biggest issue is that the country therefore does not get the brightest people doing the most intellectually demanding jobs.
So the Conservatives can't even conserve these beacons of excellence.
Do you think there’s something wrong with attending a private school?
As it has good discipline in the classroom and high expectations of its pupils. So what is actually needed is more of that and more choice for parents
He didn't go to a private school, which was the point I made. Your point seems to be that he should have chosen to leave when it changed its status because in future he would become Labour leader and so be accused of being a hypocrite.
I am sure you won't be talking about that though.
Parents from all over the world send their children to our private schools as they are world leading
If you like choral music / opera, watch out for Ossian Huskinson - one of the best bass voices I've ever heard.
Let’s run an @rcs1000 style empirical experiment to see if it works here too.
Of course if enough local parents sign a petition they can ballot to end selective education in their area where it exists and make it comprehensive, however they rarely do as the grammars are excellent and if enough do the ballot normally fails, see Ripon.
However parents can't sign a petition to ballot to open new grammars in their area and have selective education there rather than the comprehensive/academy system only, that needs to change so it is a level playing field
Choice for parents is irrelevant if the parents are uninterested in educating their kids. IMV it is mainly of advantage to middle-class parents anyway.
In my case, our son will probably have the choice of two secondary schools (village colleges in Cambridgeshire-speak). I like both of them; but the one that is furthest away is in big demand and I doubt he'd get in. So the 'choice' becomes either the very local school, a *really* long drive, or private.
The 'choice' is not much of a 'choice' for many people...
What I find odd about all this is that no one talks about the fact he passed the eleven plus and went to a grammar school. Not that social mobility is really that important politically, but he makes a big thing of his working class roots. I’d genuinely be interested to hear if he thinks he could have made it to DPP if he’d gone to a comprehensive.
If SKS went to a private fee paying school, then that's no more than they think right and proper for our lords and masters.
If SKS went the grammar route, ditto right and proper for the inferior middle classes (but only Etonians etc should rule).
He is desperately fearful of losing the election, and is cautious to a fault, and given the parlous state of the country I think he is being too cautious.
To that end he is very good at criticising (to be fair, anyone who is facing the Tories would have got that down to a fine art) but is not particularly good at verbalising what he would do differently.
Junto Whig
You are a courtly Whig corruptionist who is keen on the Protestant Succession and War with France, but mostly what you care about is exercising power in a highly disciplined way: you're a manager and a power-broker, more interested in your own personal gain and power than principle.
What is convenient to the Whigs' chances of holding power - like the Act of Union - is convenient for you. You are also pretty handy at raising a loan to fund the standing armies and corrupt pensions and places that you are so keen on. Examples: Somers, Wharton, Russell, Montagu, Walpole etc
1) the NHS in my experience is tremendous at saving your life, but terrible with just about everything else.
2) I consider it a duty to not be too much of a burden on the state, and as I can afford it, I opt out.