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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
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...
But real choice is expensive. You need lots of spare places, and probably benefit from smaller institutions than we currently have, which probably increases the load of overheads over what we currently have.
In the absence of that, we get schools choosing pupils, one way or another. Whether by exam, church attendance or postcode.
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.
I highly doubt this factors into your decision at all but congratulations, you are a minority of 1.
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
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
It's a bit of a chimera anyway because people's definition of evidence differs and on any important issue you can never take all relevant evidence into account and selecting what you use is a subjective exercise.
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?
Very different. The pensions are taxed in payment, so there's a logic to not taxing the 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.
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.
That wasn’t implicit in what you said, but whatever, I have mentioned some now as you asked.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
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.
That wasn’t implicit in what you said, but whatever, I have mentioned some now as you asked.
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".
If the LA didn't pay, the guardians of child with Special Needs will argue that those needs are health based. They could then turn to the NHS for funding. While most adults living in homes requiring care are LA funded, health authorities have ICB (integrated care board) which will fund the cost of care for those with medical conditions that are ongoing and require care.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
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.
I highly doubt this factors into your decision at all but congratulations, you are a minority of 1.
This is an absolutely commonplace motivation. At least, it is amongst the Tory activists I know!
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.
I highly doubt this factors into your decision at all but congratulations, you are a minority of 1.
This is an absolutely commonplace motivation. At least, it is amongst the Tory activists I know!
It isn't amongst anyone I've ever known or met and most of them have private healthcare.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
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.
Much sense here - but you'll be labelled a (boo hiss) Technocrat and lose the election to a colourful 'character' with a Vision.
OK I am calling it. SKS derangement syndrome has achieved community transmission and is close to becoming endemic among PB Tories and fellow travellers. Signs of infection include going on about what school he went to and accusing him of avoiding scrutiny by going on the Today programme. More extreme cases may result in patients claiming he has photoshopped a picture with his wife to make him look taller than her when he is in fact taller than her. Scientist warn that no vaccine is likely to become available soon, and suggest that sufferers are quarantined to avoid secondary symptoms of extreme boredom setting in among uninfected individuals.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
OK I am calling it. SKS derangement syndrome has achieved community transmission and is close to becoming endemic among PB Tories and fellow travellers. Signs of infection include going on about what school he went to and accusing him of avoiding scrutiny by going on the Today programme. More extreme cases may result in patients claiming he has photoshopped a picture with his wife to make him look taller than her when he is in fact taller than her. Scientist warn that no vaccine is likely to become available soon, and suggest that sufferers are quarantined to avoid secondary symptoms of extreme boredom setting in among uninfected individuals.
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.
Deleted: sorry misread your question and answered another one.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
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.
That's interesting, and perhaps not all that uncommon as plenty of people are late developers. May I ask which subject?
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?
They're like aging prizefighters going through the motions to win their meagre share of the purse with zero expectation of victory.
Entirely coincidentally I watched Scorsese's finest last night leading me to coin the phrase Raging Bullshitters, which is a rough approximation of where Tories are at the moment.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
OK I am calling it. SKS derangement syndrome has achieved community transmission and is close to becoming endemic among PB Tories and fellow travellers. Signs of infection include going on about what school he went to and accusing him of avoiding scrutiny by going on the Today programme. More extreme cases may result in patients claiming he has photoshopped a picture with his wife to make him look taller than her when he is in fact taller than her. Scientist warn that no vaccine is likely to become available soon, and suggest that sufferers are quarantined to avoid secondary symptoms of extreme boredom setting in among uninfected individuals.
And he supports Arsenal, who are sponsored by Rwanda, so he's a complete hypocrite and a total fucker.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
Lib Dem like? What planet are you living on?
Banning things, putting up taxes, growing the state etc etc
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Yes, that's why I'd be interested to hear his thoughts on this subject.
I love this but apparently I am a moderate Hanovarian Tory. Is that an eighteenth century centrist dad? Quite alarmed to be a Tory, anyway, might need to go and lie down for a bit.
All this SKS attacking is just to distract from the fact that the Tories are currently plunging the UK into a recession.
The only attack they had left for Labour, that they cause recessions, is nearly dead. And for all that economic work, we've got the NHS in its worst state ever, nothing works anymore, the country is bitterly divided and people are leaving.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
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.
He has a distinctly unattractive voice. Needs a vocal coach.
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.
He has a distinctly unattractive voice. Needs a vocal coach.
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
So was most of the party, though, so it's more of an objection to Labour than Starmer himself.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
Lib Dem like? What planet are you living on?
Banning things, putting up taxes, growing the state etc etc
Most left wing govt of my lifetime.
I've said it again, the Boris Johnson government is delivering large parts of Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto.
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
So was most of the party, though, so it's more of an objection to Labour than Starmer himself.
But principled people in the Labour Party refused to serve under Corbyn, Starmer served in his shadow cabinet.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
My answer (which I deleted) was to the wrong question (which I misread).
I was thinking of Secondary Moderns when tlg86 asked about Comprehensives.
If everyone went to a comprehensive then it would of course be true that you can become DPP. Starmer's successor went to a comprehensive, I believe.
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
So was most of the party, though, so it's more of an objection to Labour than Starmer himself.
But principled people in the Labour Party refused to serve under Corbyn, Starmer served in his shadow cabinet.
He resigned from the Shadow Cabinet and said he should resign.
My view is that if he hadn't served, he would never have been elected. So whilst I agree with what you are saying, I do believe his decision is justified.
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
So was most of the party, though, so it's more of an objection to Labour than Starmer himself.
But principled people in the Labour Party refused to serve under Corbyn, Starmer served in his shadow cabinet.
And if only Corbynites had served in the shadow cabinet Corbyn would probably have been succeeded as leader by another loon, so thank God he did.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
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...
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
So was most of the party, though, so it's more of an objection to Labour than Starmer himself.
But principled people in the Labour Party refused to serve under Corbyn, Starmer served in his shadow cabinet.
And if only Corbynites had served in the shadow cabinet Corbyn would probably have been succeeded as leader by another loon, so thank God he did.
I can tell you from my experience at Labour Party meetings, SKS serving made people vote for him. We'd have RLB as leader now if he hadn't done that.
Emily Thornberry is a reliable source on what SKS was like during Cabinet and she and Keir were most definitely against mostly everything Corbyn did and said.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
Lib Dem like? What planet are you living on?
Banning things, putting up taxes, growing the state etc etc
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).
I expect most Conservatives would rather the grammar educated Thatcher as PM than most of the post war Etonian PMs we have had
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
My answer (which I deleted) was to the wrong question (which I misread).
I was thinking of Secondary Moderns when tlg86 asked about Comprehensives.
If everyone went to a comprehensive then it would of course be true that you can become DPP. Starmer's successor went to a comprehensive, I believe.
That's also the wrong question. It's not whether it's possible for anyone to go from a comprehensive to become DPP but whether it's possible for a specific hypothetical person - the person for whom going to a grammar school previously made the difference.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
Lib Dem like? What planet are you living on?
Banning things, putting up taxes, growing the state etc etc
I love this but apparently I am a moderate Hanovarian Tory. Is that an eighteenth century centrist dad? Quite alarmed to be a Tory, anyway, might need to go and lie down for a bit.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
We'll never know, of course, but I'd like to know what he thinks. Successful people tend to be nice about their school so it would be awkward for him to say "yeah, it was all me, so long as I had decent teachers I was always going to make 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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
Like the great Liz Truss, our first PM fully educated at a comprehensive for her secondary education.
Or those great election winners comprehensive educated William Hague and Ed Miliband.
Regardless of whether privately educated Sunak or grammar and privately educated Starmer win the next general election we are still waiting for a fully comprehensive educated, general election winning PM
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."
"Is Wikipedia wrong?"
The words that will be etched into the tombstone of Western Civilisation.
The article suggests Roberts will try to broker a pragmatic, rather than strictly legal decision. We'll see.
One thing it might have mentioned is that three of the Republican attorneys who helped litigate Bush v Gore now sit on the Court.
Well, quite a lot of the press (e.g. the FT) failed to mention that all 7 members of the Colorado Supreme Court were Democrat appointees so I guess there has to be balance somewhere.
A typically asinine comment.
Colorado is a solidly Democratic state, so it is utterly unremarkable. Indeed if you had bothered to check out the justices themselves, you'd have noted that there is little about any of them that's politically ;as opposed to legally) notable. https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Justices.cfm
That a third of the U.S. Supreme Court participated as advocates for a political party on one side of one of the most politically charged (and legally unmoored in precedent) decisions in its history is slightly more worthy of note, to my mind.
Only if you think they are incapable of doing their job
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
Like the great Liz Truss, our first PM fully educated at a comprehensive for her secondary education.
Or those great election winners comprehensive educated William Hague and Ed Miliband
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."
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
Like the great Liz Truss, our first PM fully educated at a comprehensive for her secondary education.
Or those great election winners comprehensive educated William Hague and Ed Miliband
Good to see you catching the Truss Train, HY! All aboard!
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
Like the great Liz Truss, our first PM fully educated at a comprehensive for her secondary education.
Or those great election winners comprehensive educated William Hague and Ed Miliband
If only William Hague had gone to a grammar school, he'd have won that election. Right.
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...
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
Benefiting from something doesn't mean you have to support it or view it as a good thing. Eg I benefited from the venal bonus culture in the pre-crash City.
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
My answer (which I deleted) was to the wrong question (which I misread).
I was thinking of Secondary Moderns when tlg86 asked about Comprehensives.
If everyone went to a comprehensive then it would of course be true that you can become DPP. Starmer's successor went to a comprehensive, I believe.
Well, yes, if we banned private and grammar schools then comps would clean up.
Yes, Alison Saunders went to a comp and sixth form college (looks like her family moved around the country a fair bit too). Not that it matters very much in the social mobility debate, but I'd suggest her tenure as DPP wasn't a great advert for comprehensive education. The same can be said of our one PM who went to a comp.
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...
Hence the case for more free schools too
No, it is a case for more local schools.
You won't get many new local secondaries in rural areas beyond maybe free schools, once they leave village primaries most pupils have to travel to the nearest town or city for secondary 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."
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
Like, erh, Sir Keir Starmer?
Exactly. He benefitted from the 11+ grammar school system.
How do you know he wouldn't have done just as well at a comprehensive?
Like the great Liz Truss, our first PM fully educated at a comprehensive for her secondary education.
Or those great election winners comprehensive educated William Hague and Ed Miliband
If only William Hague had gone to a grammar school, he'd have won that election. Right.
Technically Hague did go to Ripon grammar briefly before moving to Wath upon Dearne comprehensive
I love this but apparently I am a moderate Hanovarian Tory. Is that an eighteenth century centrist dad? Quite alarmed to be a Tory, anyway, might need to go and lie down for a bit.
Same as HYUFD. That is a worry. Let's not dwell on it.
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.
I love this but apparently I am a moderate Hanovarian Tory. Is that an eighteenth century centrist dad? Quite alarmed to be a Tory, anyway, might need to go and lie down for a bit.
Same as HYUFD. That is a worry. Let's not dwell on it.
I know, terrifying, right? It's interesting to see how in the absence of mass suffrage the political questions of the time didn't really split down left/right lines. Standing army or no standing army? Stuarts or Hanovarians? Hard to care one way or t'other.
The article suggests Roberts will try to broker a pragmatic, rather than strictly legal decision. We'll see.
One thing it might have mentioned is that three of the Republican attorneys who helped litigate Bush v Gore now sit on the Court.
Well, quite a lot of the press (e.g. the FT) failed to mention that all 7 members of the Colorado Supreme Court were Democrat appointees so I guess there has to be balance somewhere.
A typically asinine comment.
Colorado is a solidly Democratic state, so it is utterly unremarkable. Indeed if you had bothered to check out the justices themselves, you'd have noted that there is little about any of them that's politically ;as opposed to legally) notable. https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Justices.cfm
That a third of the U.S. Supreme Court participated as advocates for a political party on one side of one of the most politically charged (and legally unmoored in precedent) decisions in its history is slightly more worthy of note, to my mind.
Only if you think they are incapable of doing their job
No, that's only Alito and Thomas.
I don't see, though, why you would wish for the nakedly political past of the three to be ignored, in the context of a case like this, even if you acknowledged they are capable ? I said it was worthy of note, not that they should be disqualified. It seems bizarre to suggest it shouldn't be.
I love this but apparently I am a moderate Hanovarian Tory. Is that an eighteenth century centrist dad? Quite alarmed to be a Tory, anyway, might need to go and lie down for a bit.
Same as HYUFD. That is a worry. Let's not dwell on it.
I know, terrifying, right? It's interesting to see how in the absence of mass suffrage the political questions of the time didn't really split down left/right lines. Standing army or no standing army? Stuarts or Hanovarians? Hard to care one way or t'other.
Believe it or not, history students will be looking back at our great divides in 300 years (if we're still around then) and saying much the same thing.
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...
Hence the case for more free schools too
No, it is a case for more local schools.
You won't get many new local secondaries in rural areas beyond maybe free schools, once they leave village primaries most pupils have to travel to the nearest town or city for secondary school
How would you get a Free School there - the money available from the DfE wouldn't provide enough for the school to work...
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
Good luck with your personal nuclear deterrent.
I always saw Trident as a metaphorical sock down the trousers, perhaps SW will bring this into actual being.
Banning things, putting up taxes, growing the state etc etc
Most left wing govt of my lifetime.
You must be on a wind-up. Most left wing government of your life?
I was born in the 1980s, and it absolutely is the most left-wing govt I've experienced.
No way. Blair was only just left of centre but a long way to the left of the current govenment.
You see 'inept' and assume it must be left-wing, whereas the ineptitude is available on both sides of the political spectrum (see Heath 1970-74).
The 'bigger state' is mainly down to the pandemic.
And the population aging.
There is, of course, more than one left-right axis. On economics, this one isn't very right wing. It's protectionist, relatively high-spending, not worried about balanced budgets, and moving away from the free (or regulated) market in quite a few areas.
It is, however, very right-wing on the authoritarian/liberal axis and the nationalist/internationalist ones, for example.
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.
Got to give them credit for that: selling parents to the navy is an innovative way of generating additional funds while simultaneously solving manning issues in the armed forces
The article suggests Roberts will try to broker a pragmatic, rather than strictly legal decision. We'll see.
One thing it might have mentioned is that three of the Republican attorneys who helped litigate Bush v Gore now sit on the Court.
Well, quite a lot of the press (e.g. the FT) failed to mention that all 7 members of the Colorado Supreme Court were Democrat appointees so I guess there has to be balance somewhere.
A typically asinine comment.
Colorado is a solidly Democratic state, so it is utterly unremarkable. Indeed if you had bothered to check out the justices themselves, you'd have noted that there is little about any of them that's politically ;as opposed to legally) notable. https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Justices.cfm
That a third of the U.S. Supreme Court participated as advocates for a political party on one side of one of the most politically charged (and legally unmoored in precedent) decisions in its history is slightly more worthy of note, to my mind.
Only if you think they are incapable of doing their job
Very capable of doing their job ... of removing women's bodily autonomy. They delivered.
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.
Got to give them credit for that: selling parents to the navy is an innovative way of generating additional funds while simultaneously solving manning issues in the armed forces
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.
He was prepared and worked to make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister, that is huge red flag and flaw.
I can agree with that.
Eliminate from the next election everyone who worked for any of Corbyn, Johnson or Truss to be Prime Minister, and the LibDems might stand a fighting chance….
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.
I don't know of course but I suspect he'd say 'no'.
That of course, is not an argument for grammar schools or the 11+, quite the opposite.
That's the attitude that results in opportunities being taken away from working class people in the name of progress.
The exact opposite tends to happen. Middle class parents get their children tutored for the 11 plus whereas working class parents often don't so the Grammar school system is biased against working class children.
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.
They are not so much 'running things' as running things into the ground.
At this point I believe it is on purpose. Rishi should stop being a coward and call the election.
Is this the current incarnation of 'Lockdown NOW' that a certain non wired equine kept opining for?
So you are out of up to date points.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Vs Corbyn? Not at all, I think my spending a month helping to run a parliamentary campaign was time well spent.
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
Lib Dem like? What planet are you living on?
Banning things, putting up taxes, growing the state etc etc
Most left wing govt of my lifetime.
You’re not thinking very clearly today.
How does “most left wing” equate with LibDem-like?
Always fun, this sort of thing. Turns out I am (or would have been) 'Court - Non-Aligned':
You epitomise the Court - you are interested in carrying on the Queen's government, governing pragmatically, and avoiding the extremes of party. You're probably also quite keen on feathering your own nest and gaining power for the sake of it - and war is usually a good way of doing that. You may have at some point been a Whig or Tory, or both, but you're really a partisan of the Looking Out for Number 1 Party
Bit harsh on the corruption thing but not a million miles out on the 'no fixed party alignment' one.
Comments
In the absence of that, we get schools choosing pupils, one way or another. Whether by exam, church attendance or postcode.
While most adults living in homes requiring care are LA funded, health authorities have ICB (integrated care board) which will fund the cost of care for those with medical conditions that are ongoing and require care.
If you wish to discuss lockdown, I now believe the entire thing was a mistake. I was wrong to call for a lockdown and I regret doing so.
I am able to hold my hands up, will you ever apologise for supporting this bunch of arseholes?
Just as I would take 3 months off to go and help a Scindy defence!
I won't be voting for Sunak next time, however. We've had enough of this Lib dem-esque govt imo...
Entirely coincidentally I watched Scorsese's finest last night leading me to coin the phrase Raging Bullshitters, which is a rough approximation of where Tories are at the moment.
Most left wing govt of my lifetime.
The only attack they had left for Labour, that they cause recessions, is nearly dead. And for all that economic work, we've got the NHS in its worst state ever, nothing works anymore, the country is bitterly divided and people are leaving.
Speaking as a working class Northerner, it riles up Northerners the most.
Needs a vocal coach.
This is what PB Tories spend their nights looking at
I was thinking of Secondary Moderns when tlg86 asked about Comprehensives.
If everyone went to a comprehensive then it would of course be true that you can become DPP. Starmer's successor went to a comprehensive, I believe.
My view is that if he hadn't served, he would never have been elected. So whilst I agree with what you are saying, I do believe his decision is justified.
Serious.
Seriously?
Emily Thornberry is a reliable source on what SKS was like during Cabinet and she and Keir were most definitely against mostly everything Corbyn did and said.
If I’m Prime Minister, I’ll make sure the European Super League doesn’t happen.
It’s time to start putting fans first.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1738183425817706527
*grabs popcorn*
Or those great election winners comprehensive educated William Hague and Ed Miliband.
Regardless of whether privately educated Sunak or grammar and privately educated Starmer win the next general election we are still waiting for a fully comprehensive educated, general election winning PM
The words that will be etched into the tombstone of Western Civilisation.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GB.ZS?locations=SG-GB
Yes, Alison Saunders went to a comp and sixth form college (looks like her family moved around the country a fair bit too). Not that it matters very much in the social mobility debate, but I'd suggest her tenure as DPP wasn't a great advert for comprehensive education. The same can be said of our one PM who went to a comp.
You see 'inept' and assume it must be left-wing, whereas the ineptitude is available on both sides of the political spectrum (see Heath 1970-74).
It's interesting to see how in the absence of mass suffrage the political questions of the time didn't really split down left/right lines. Standing army or no standing army? Stuarts or Hanovarians? Hard to care one way or t'other.
I don't see, though, why you would wish for the nakedly political past of the three to be ignored, in the context of a case like this, even if you acknowledged they are capable ?
I said it was worthy of note, not that they should be disqualified. It seems bizarre to suggest it shouldn't be.
To be honest a lot of issues are oils be meaningfully progressed by switching to a contribution based (or time served) welfare system.
But no politician is going theee
There is, of course, more than one left-right axis. On economics, this one isn't very right wing. It's protectionist, relatively high-spending, not worried about balanced budgets, and moving away from the free (or regulated) market in quite a few areas.
It is, however, very right-wing on the authoritarian/liberal axis and the nationalist/internationalist ones, for example.
Got to give them credit for that: selling parents to the navy is an innovative way of generating additional funds while simultaneously solving manning issues in the armed forces
May be @rcs1000 should run a pilot study?
Greetings all from the festive liminal space that is the motorway services at Aire de Langres Perruguey. 439m asl.
Brianna Ghey’s parents call for compassion for her killers’ families
Esther Ghey says teenagers who murdered her daughter have shown no remorse, but asks for empathy for their parents
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/parents-of-brianna-ghey-pay-tribute-to-beautful-daughter-after-pair-convicted-of
Brianna Ghey trial: judge warns against threats towards killers’ families
In written judgment stating two teenagers can be named, Mrs Justice Yip urges people to avoid ‘vitriol or malice’
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/22/brianna-ghey-trial-judge-warns-against-threats-towards-killers-families
How does “most left wing” equate with LibDem-like?
Tories love banning stuff.
You epitomise the Court - you are interested in carrying on the Queen's government, governing pragmatically, and avoiding the extremes of party. You're probably also quite keen on feathering your own nest and gaining power for the sake of it - and war is usually a good way of doing that. You may have at some point been a Whig or Tory, or both, but you're really a partisan of the Looking Out for Number 1 Party
Bit harsh on the corruption thing but not a million miles out on the 'no fixed party alignment' one.