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.
The biggest negative for selective education is the 90% who wind up in the secondary modern sector.
From my well resourced Worcestershire comprehensive (a former secondary modern) we had in my year a British High Commissioner to Peru and in the year above a Vice President HR for Reckitt Benkieser, there were lots of other success stories. It is now a mediocre underfunded academy with buses heading in the opposite direction to well funded Alcester Grammar School in Warwickshire.
From my Grammar which I attended when we relocated, there were no super high flyers to speak of, just estate agents, provincial solicitors and accountants.
Nothing to do with selection or not, but I attended two state, and two public, schools. Although some from the schools have done well in life, there's only one who is noteworthy (*): and he went to one of the state schools. The roughest one, actually.
(*) Noteworthy unless you include cricket, which I don't...
I wouldn't say Tim Mason was specially noteworthy anyway, if I'm honest.
Ah, cannot remember if he was there at the same time I was - probably was, given his age (unless he was divs and upper only). Can't find a red book (*) to check.
A good letter. Those are quite possibly the dumbest attacks possible, so it isn’t surprising the Telegraph went all in on them.
Are they dumb? This is how populism works. They know what they’re doing.
They know the cab rank rule. They don’t care. Many of their readers won’t care either. They’ll share the “findings” happily.
I don’t think so - Sir Keir can bat them off easily
Made me think about lawyers though - how can they sleep at night when they defend people they know are guilty, and hope to get them off on a technicality?
I think it’s something that does trouble litigators - not just in criminal but in civil and commercial law. Equally so for prosecutors who get people convicted when they’re not convinced they are guilty.
But most jobs involve some ethical dilemmas. Anyone running a pub or off licence knows they’re selling alcohol to people who might be terminal alcoholics. Even more so if they’re marketing or advertising booze, or junk food, or tobacco. Anyone in the armed forces has this dilemma. If you work in the home office determining asylum claims or you’re processing incapacity benefit claims you know your decision could destroy someone’s life.
People with jobs that are 100% virtuous are lucky.
Lawyers can stop acting for a client who admits guilt but refuses to plead guilty. It can easily be looked at the other way round too - if someone's accused of something then they need the best defence available to ensure their guilt is proven beyond doubt, given the grave injustice a wrongful conviction could be. If a guilty person goes free one could argue the moral fault lies with the prosecution for failing in their duty to present their case correctly and prove it.
No doubt there are those who do push boundaries and act unethically, but as you point out that's something that exists in all professions. How does a PR bod, or an accountant deal with acting for those they know are morally compromised?
In comparison, criminal law may even have fewer ethical grey areas, given its well established set of rules designed to turn moral questions into a process with defined processes and outcomes all can abide by.
You may remember I have taught my dog the 3 card trick (with cups and kibble under one of the cups). I shuffle the cups and he taps the cup with the treat under it (It works with me also with a pint of Shere Drop).
My daughter is home for Christmas and wanted to have a go (not finding the kibble, but moving the cups). She then complained that the dog couldn't find the treat. He kept tapping the wrong cup apparently. So I asked her to show me what she was doing. She was doing it like the con artists at the race track playing find the lady. I couldn't damn well find the treat let alone the dog (find the treat I mean, I knew where the dog was). Her expectations of the dog were rather ambitious. He needs you to move the cups very very slowly. Even then the concentration is intense.
Has the dog worked out the Monty Hall paradox yet?
It's not a paradox.
Don't confuse the poor mutt before he's tried.
You should try living with a couple of border collies.
Do not on any account ever try to play poker with them.
They smoke cigars and hide other cards in their paws under the table! There are portraits on the Internet! It's true!!!
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.
The biggest negative for selective education is the 90% who wind up in the secondary modern sector.
From my well resourced Worcestershire comprehensive (a former secondary modern) we had in my year a British High Commissioner to Peru and in the year above a Vice President HR for Reckitt Benkieser, there were lots of other success stories. It is now a mediocre underfunded academy with buses heading in the opposite direction to well funded Alcester Grammar School in Warwickshire.
From my Grammar which I attended when we relocated, there were no super high flyers to speak of, just estate agents, provincial solicitors and accountants.
Nothing to do with selection or not, but I attended two state, and two public, schools. Although some from the schools have done well in life, there's only one who is noteworthy (*): and he went to one of the state schools. The roughest one, actually.
(*) Noteworthy unless you include cricket, which I don't...
I wouldn't say Tim Mason was specially noteworthy anyway, if I'm honest.
Ah, cannot remember if he was there at the same time I was - probably was, given his age (unless he was divs and upper only). Can't find a red book (*) to check.
A good letter. Those are quite possibly the dumbest attacks possible, so it isn’t surprising the Telegraph went all in on them.
Are they dumb? This is how populism works. They know what they’re doing.
They know the cab rank rule. They don’t care. Many of their readers won’t care either. They’ll share the “findings” happily.
I don’t think so - Sir Keir can bat them off easily
Made me think about lawyers though - how can they sleep at night when they defend people they know are guilty, and hope to get them off on a technicality?
I think it’s something that does trouble litigators - not just in criminal but in civil and commercial law. Equally so for prosecutors who get people convicted when they’re not convinced they are guilty.
But most jobs involve some ethical dilemmas. Anyone running a pub or off licence knows they’re selling alcohol to people who might be terminal alcoholics. Even more so if they’re marketing or advertising booze, or junk food, or tobacco. Anyone in the armed forces has this dilemma. If you work in the home office determining asylum claims or you’re processing incapacity benefit claims you know your decision could destroy someone’s life.
People with jobs that are 100% virtuous are lucky.
I work in financial services so luckily I can sleep easily at night.
I’m out on the doorstep every Thursday clapping for the bankers.
A good letter. Those are quite possibly the dumbest attacks possible, so it isn’t surprising the Telegraph went all in on them.
Are they dumb? This is how populism works. They know what they’re doing.
They know the cab rank rule. They don’t care. Many of their readers won’t care either. They’ll share the “findings” happily.
I don’t think so - Sir Keir can bat them off easily
Made me think about lawyers though - how can they sleep at night when they defend people they know are guilty, and hope to get them off on a technicality?
I think it’s something that does trouble litigators - not just in criminal but in civil and commercial law. Equally so for prosecutors who get people convicted when they’re not convinced they are guilty.
But most jobs involve some ethical dilemmas. Anyone running a pub or off licence knows they’re selling alcohol to people who might be terminal alcoholics. Even more so if they’re marketing or advertising booze, or junk food, or tobacco. Anyone in the armed forces has this dilemma. If you work in the home office determining asylum claims or you’re processing incapacity benefit claims you know your decision could destroy someone’s life.
People with jobs that are 100% virtuous are lucky.
Lawyers can stop acting for a client who admits guilt but refuses to plead guilty. It can easily be looked at the other way round too - if someone's accused of something then they need the best defence available to ensure their guilt is proven beyond doubt, given the grave injustice a wrongful conviction could be. If a guilty person goes free one could argue the moral fault lies with the prosecution for failing in their duty to present their case correctly and prove it.
No doubt there are those who do push boundaries and act unethically, but as you point out that's something that exists in all professions. How does a PR bod, or an accountant deal with acting for those they know are morally compromised?
In comparison, criminal law may even have fewer ethical grey areas, given its well established set of rules designed to turn moral questions into a process with defined processes and outcomes all can abide by.
From my standard jury speech:
"My Learned Friend Mr X represents Mr Y and that is an essential part of our justice system. Everyone is entitled to a proper defence and a testing of the evidence that the Crown brings against them. It is not in the public interest that innocent people are found guilty but it is in the public interest that those whose guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be convicted and punished for their crimes."
This is the bit where I am trying to come across as fair and reasonable. It doesn't usually last....
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
Twins.
Must be any number of films about kings/heirs where one brother supplants another.
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
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.
The biggest negative for selective education is the 90% who wind up in the secondary modern sector.
From my well resourced Worcestershire comprehensive (a former secondary modern) we had in my year a British High Commissioner to Peru and in the year above a Vice President HR for Reckitt Benkieser, there were lots of other success stories. It is now a mediocre underfunded academy with buses heading in the opposite direction to well funded Alcester Grammar School in Warwickshire.
From my Grammar which I attended when we relocated, there were no super high flyers to speak of, just estate agents, provincial solicitors and accountants.
I would say solicitors and accountants are rather higher flyers than 'Vice President HR for Reckitt Benkieser', whose UK head office is in Slough
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
Guilt is a Scottish thriller and mystery series. It was the first drama commission of the BBC Scotland channel and first broadcast there before being broadcast across the UK on BBC Two. Written and created by Neil Forsyth, the show initially centres on two brothers, played by Mark Bonnar and Jamie Sives, who get involved in a hit and run, before involving a large cast in an ongoing story.
You are on the most extreme wing of the Whig Party. You burn a flame for the 'Good Old Cause' of regicide and republicanism. You're almost certainly either an extreme Protestant Dissenter or a Deist. You would disestablish the Church, and believe that government is purely a secular, contractarian affair. Examples: Robert Molesworth, Walter Moyle
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
Given Leon is presumably still in the sin bin perhaps I can do the random off topic spam post instead.
We were reflecting (while listening to Let it go in the car, as you do) that there are very few films or TV series that are specifically about siblings. Ie ones where the sibling relationship is THE central plot device.
There’s Frozen of course, but beyond that we managed The Lion King, Succession, Little Women, Rain Man, then struggled. Plenty of plots where siblings or sibling rivalry are involved, like The Godfather, but it’s not the primary relationship. What am I missing?
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.
The biggest negative for selective education is the 90% who wind up in the secondary modern sector.
From my well resourced Worcestershire comprehensive (a former secondary modern) we had in my year a British High Commissioner to Peru and in the year above a Vice President HR for Reckitt Benkieser, there were lots of other success stories. It is now a mediocre underfunded academy with buses heading in the opposite direction to well funded Alcester Grammar School in Warwickshire.
From my Grammar which I attended when we relocated, there were no super high flyers to speak of, just estate agents, provincial solicitors and accountants.
Nothing to do with selection or not, but I attended two state, and two public, schools. Although some from the schools have done well in life, there's only one who is noteworthy (*): and he went to one of the state schools. The roughest one, actually.
(*) Noteworthy unless you include cricket, which I don't...
I wouldn't say Tim Mason was specially noteworthy anyway, if I'm honest.
Ah, cannot remember if he was there at the same time I was - probably was, given his age (unless he was divs and upper only). Can't find a red book (*) to check.
I think we had something like that, with our timetables included. I doubt many kept theirs for posterity. My college did the same, come to think of it.
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?
Philosophically yes.
The correct vehicle for asking wealthy people to make a contribution to society is via progressive taxation.
Encouraging private healthcare to supplement healthcare provision reduces the costs / frees up capacity in the state system.
There is clearly a risk that you create bifurcated provision where the wealthy feel no obligation to support funding of state healthcare, which is why you set it up as a tax credit (so they get a partial reduction) rather than a rebate.
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.
Part of the job of a PM is to be a competent administrator and strategist and he has proved he can do this either in his current or previous roles
Part of the job is to inspire…. Not so much
Part of the job is to have meaningful changes in mind and to secure a mandate for that. Even accounting for the limited room for manoeuvre he will have I’ve not seen evidence of insightful thinking
His fundamental flaw is that he’s a plodder. He’ll be fine. But not great.
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.
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.
Part of the job of a PM is to be a competent administrator and strategist and he has proved he can do this either in his current or previous roles
Part of the job is to inspire…. Not so much
Part of the job is to have meaningful changes in mind and to secure a mandate for that. Even accounting for the limited room for manoeuvre he will have I’ve not seen evidence of insightful thinking
His fundamental flaw is that he’s a plodder. He’ll be fine. But not great.
As the Economist pointed out a few weeks ago he is a consummate politician who while appearing Mr Clean and Sir Boring Plodder is a shape shifting opportunist who makes transitions in loyalty and policy without turning a hair. Consider the transition from 'socialist Jezza for PM sidekick Ref2 ignore Brexit vote' man to 'One Nation Social Democrat Brexit means Brexit Jezza Who?' man, while retaining a lot of either support or neutrality around himself.
The Economist compared him with Rory, who, decently and morally, doing none of that, is therefore out of politics and can't affect anything.
Great to see I am #Top10 poster by like:post ratio.
I feel I could get even higher than my 6th-ranked placing, but then I’d have to eschew my occasionally rude and obnoxious posts about PB Tories, which I refuse to do.
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.
Part of the job of a PM is to be a competent administrator and strategist and he has proved he can do this either in his current or previous roles
Part of the job is to inspire…. Not so much
Part of the job is to have meaningful changes in mind and to secure a mandate for that. Even accounting for the limited room for manoeuvre he will have I’ve not seen evidence of insightful thinking
His fundamental flaw is that he’s a plodder. He’ll be fine. But not great.
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
Good luck with your personal nuclear deterrent.
The MoD should run that.
The SoS Health, for example, should not be “running” the NHS. That’s Amanda Pritchard’s job. He/she should set strategy and then let them get on with delivering on it.
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.
Why do you think she is especially reliable?
Because she was prepared to call out the anti-Semitism and anti-Russia stances?
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.
This is an incredibly sensitive decision which huge ramifications.
Emphasising their background only sets up a narrative that they made their judgement based on partisan politics.
There is nothing to gain from making that point: when they put on the robes of a SCOTUS justice they should have cast off the follies of their youth.
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.
And yet, for example, look at the King Henry VI Foundation.
The school fees cover the operating cost of the school (Eton)
Fundraising plus 10% of endowment income goes to maintain the fabric of the historical estate
20% of endowment income is spent on on scholarships at Eton
70% of endowment income is allocated for educational projects outside of the school.
How is that not a charity? The endowment is about £600m so these are not small sums.
I assume there's some complex relationship between the Foundation and Eton?
But whether or not the Foundation can be said to be a charity (from that summary of it, it certainly sounds like an arguable case, though the 10% for the physical upkeep is pushing at the boundaries and probably over it, IMO), that doesn't mean it follows that Eton, as the school itself, is a charity.
The Foundation owns the School - originally the school was its primary charitable activity (education of poor scholars) and it still funds the King’s Scholars directly.
(The buildings date between the 15th and the 21st century - the £5m contribution from the foundation is maintenance of heritage)
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.
I'm a Whig Commonwealthcause, none of you namby-pamby types. (Beware of the attempts to sign you up for software, though.)
Comments
No doubt there are those who do push boundaries and act unethically, but as you point out that's something that exists in all professions. How does a PR bod, or an accountant deal with acting for those they know are morally compromised?
In comparison, criminal law may even have fewer ethical grey areas, given its well established set of rules designed to turn moral questions into a process with defined processes and outcomes all can abide by.
Incidentally, the 'famous' person who went to a state school at the same time as me was...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shane_Meadows
"My Learned Friend Mr X represents Mr Y and that is an essential part of our justice system. Everyone is entitled to a proper defence and a testing of the evidence that the Crown brings against them. It is not in the public interest that innocent people are found guilty but it is in the public interest that those whose guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be convicted and punished for their crimes."
This is the bit where I am trying to come across as fair and reasonable. It doesn't usually last....
NEW THREAD
The correct vehicle for asking wealthy people to make a contribution to society is via progressive taxation.
Encouraging private healthcare to supplement healthcare provision reduces the costs / frees up capacity in the state system.
There is clearly a risk that you create bifurcated provision where the wealthy feel no obligation to support funding of state healthcare, which is why you set it up as a tax credit (so they get a partial reduction) rather than a rebate.
But no-one will this as end of thread.
Part of the job is to inspire…. Not so much
Part of the job is to have meaningful changes in mind and to secure a mandate for that. Even accounting for the limited room for manoeuvre he will have I’ve not seen evidence of insightful thinking
His fundamental flaw is that he’s a plodder. He’ll be fine. But not great.
Mix of Hanoverian Tory and Junto Whig
Do you work for the Daily Mail?
The Economist compared him with Rory, who, decently and morally, doing none of that, is therefore out of politics and can't affect anything.
Probably about right.
Great to see I am #Top10 poster by like:post ratio.
I feel I could get even higher than my 6th-ranked placing, but then I’d have to eschew my occasionally rude and obnoxious posts about PB Tories, which I refuse to do.
The SoS Health, for example, should not be “running” the NHS. That’s Amanda Pritchard’s job. He/she should set strategy and then let them get on with delivering on it.
Emphasising their background only sets up a narrative that they made their judgement based on partisan politics.
There is nothing to gain from making that point: when they put on the robes of a SCOTUS justice they should have cast off the follies of their youth.
CJ Roberts gets that, even if you don’t.
(The buildings date between the 15th and the 21st century - the £5m contribution from the foundation is maintenance of heritage)