James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
I'd like to see someone like Sherrod Brown run next time. But maybe needs to move on to next generation? AOC can do the social media but I guess she is far too controversial to just sell economic issues.
Edit: And there's Joseph Patrick Kennedy III. Will he run?
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
I think it’s an interesting evolution. He’s basically turned it into a traditional paper with an editorial line, whilst trying to keep it as a “paper of record” with its place in society. He wants it to be the Thunderer of old, but internationally.
What are you talking about - X isn’t a paper of record, it’s a social media platform
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
What is slightly comic, is to see Democrat supporters borrowing MAGA talking points from X years back.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
What is slightly comic, is to see Democrat supporters borrowing MAGA talking points from X years back.
It's support for the House of Lords depending on whether or not it's favouring one's particular interests at the time all over again. That particular volte face was definitely one of the more nauseating things to see on our side of the (post) Brexit debate at the time.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
I'd like to see someone like Sherrod Brown run next time. But maybe needs to move on to next generation? AOC can do the social media but I guess she is far too controversial to just sell economic issues.
Edit: And there's Joseph Patrick Kennedy III. Will he run?
Not unless he wins a Senate seat or Governorship I expect. He could be Secretary of State for a President Buttigieg or President Shapiro though, especially as he was President Biden's Special Envoy for Northern Ireland
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
My eldest brother failed his 11+ and ended up as a Doctor of Philosophy with an academic career. I passed my 11+ and ended up posting on PB.
I also failed my 11+. The school appealed ( I was probably top of my class) but was apparently told I had failed so badly an appeal could not be considered.
I ended up doing 6 Highers in one year and left school at 16 to go onto University. Again, I think the 11+ didn’t get it entirely right.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
Yes, the FUD that is spread about EVs is absurd. I saw this initally reported as "Electric vehicle exploses outside Trump hotel", implyiing that the fact that it was electric had something to do with its exploding. It's ridiculous.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
I find it funny that we gave people on here who have amounted to very little raging at how "stupid" Elon Musk is and how much better/smarter they are than him. The lack of self awareness of some PBers is quite something. Unless these people are hiding a trillion dollar company and a hundred billion dollar company up their arses they really do need to stfu.
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
Yes, the FUD that is spread about EVs is absurd. I saw this initally reported as "Electric vehicle exploses outside Trump hotel", implying that the fact that it was electric had something to do with its exploding. It's ridiculous.
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
I find it funny that we gave people on here who have amounted to very little raging at how "stupid" Elon Musk is and how much better/smarter they are than him. The lack of self awareness of some PBers is quite something. Unless these people are hiding a trillion dollar company and a hundred billion dollar company up their arses they really do need to stfu.
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
I find it funny that we gave people on here who have amounted to very little raging at how "stupid" Elon Musk is and how much better/smarter they are than him. The lack of self awareness of some PBers is quite something. Unless these people are hiding a trillion dollar company and a hundred billion dollar company up their arses they really do need to stfu.
Who are you talking about?
Anyone who doesn't start with small things, such as with a small diamond mine.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
I think it’s an interesting evolution. He’s basically turned it into a traditional paper with an editorial line, whilst trying to keep it as a “paper of record” with its place in society. He wants it to be the Thunderer of old, but internationally.
What are you talking about - X isn’t a paper of record, it’s a social media platform
Why the aggressive tone? At the point he bought it, that’s exactly what it was and largely still is. Every media outlet and significant person on the planet put out statements on it via their blue tick. Something on Twitter became definitive and quotable.
It’s the 21st century equivalent of the court circular and the births/marriages/deaths in the Times. The platform for his editorial experiment started out, at least, as something that had a position in society far greater than any other social network.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Did Labour cover up the grooming gangs? As Leon points out, it was a Labour MP who stated that the number of victims could be a million.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Did Labour cover up the grooming gangs? As Leon points out, it was a Labour MP who stated that the number of victims could be a million.
Labour didn’t cover it up, it was institutions who covered up their inadequacy.
Some in Labour shunned Ann Cryer when she first raised this many years ago and some in the party challenged her motives. But labour as a whole. Many in Labour did fight for the victims.
When, in 2016, Lucy Allan, the MP for Telford called for an enquiry into the grooming gangs in her constituency 10 men at the council wrote to the Home Office to push for the request to be rejected including the current MP and the leader of the Lib Dems. But look at the signatories. This is an institution protecting itself not political.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some perspective from the US: There are continuing fights over subsidies to religious schools, mostly Catholic. In general, those subsidies are not to be used for religious teaching. (Recently, there were claims that some Hasidic schools in the New York area received subsidies -- but taught only religion.) Obvious point: Those schools save the taxpayers money, even if they get subsidies.
In recent years, there has been a large growth in "charter" schools, schools that receive money from states, but have more freedom in what is taught, and how it is taught.
There has also been an expansion in "home schooling", which does not receive much, if anything, in the way of subsidies. (One of my nieces home schooled her three boys.) Most of these, as far as I know, are in religious families.
In general, improvements in US public schools have been led by Republican governors, George W. Bush in Texas, Jeb Bush in Florida, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and so on. (Mitch Daniels had an excellent record as president of Purdue.)
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Yup. People don't like to be told what to think! SO they say as they object to EVs. Then they parrot a load of fear uncertainty and doubt (such as "the battery will explode" and spew them out, exactly as the people who fed it to them wanted
I find it funny that we gave people on here who have amounted to very little raging at how "stupid" Elon Musk is and how much better/smarter they are than him. The lack of self awareness of some PBers is quite something. Unless these people are hiding a trillion dollar company and a hundred billion dollar company up their arses they really do need to stfu.
Who are you talking about?
Funny how the free speech lads are almost invariably also the STFU lads.
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
The state has a duty to offer your GD a place in a school. What I suspect you are really saying is that the place offered is not the preferred option of your family. Which is quite different.
And if you care for your child, and they 'place' your child in a sink school rife with drugs and violence, many miles away from your home? Oh, and you cannot drive...
This is reality for some.
You immediately leap to a worst case scenario. Most options are alot more nuanced.
It is happening to parents in my village. Not many, but some.
It may happen to our son, if we are unlucky.
To give you an idea: my local secondary (a very short walk away) had 290 places. It had 299 first choice preferences, and 474 total preferences. The next closest (the same trust) had 275 places allocated, and 341 first choice preferences.
The majority of schools in the area are over-subscribed, some by quite a degree. The ones that are not are the ones parents do not want to send their kids to. Because they're cr@p.
And there you have the positive feedback loop. Those parents most concerned about their child's education do everything, including moving house, to get their kids into the best schools. So those schools end up with the most motivated pupils and also attract the best teachers. So those schools get even better, while the poor ones get worse.
So you end up with the same situation replicated across the country where each area has a number of decent schools that are packed full, and one or two poor schools that everyone desperately tries to avoid sending their kids to. That's the inevitable consequence of allowing parents to choose their child's school. It's elementary game theory.
You can have selection by application or selection by house price. Either way good parents will endeavour to keep their children away from crap.
You could always use a lottery to allocate over-subscribed places.
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Not a huge enthusiast for the Government, despite being in the same party, but I'd be seriously worried if Musk was a supporter. Let him rant...
I also enjoyed the usual suspects taking aim at Elon Musk for the cybertruck explosion and blaming Tesla. It actually seems to be the case that the cybertruck contained the explosive devices and minimised the damage and potential loss of life.
Remember the "usual suspects" included Musk himself who tweeted he was sending engineers to investigate.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
It makes me proud to be a member of the working classes.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
One more bit of perspective from the US: In recent decades, boys have fallen significantly behind girls in school achievements. (You can find a description of the problem in Susan Hoff Summers' "The War Against Boys".)
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Erm, isn't the lefty BBC chaired by Tory Tim Davie with input from Tory Robbie Gibb?
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
I have a grand daughter who cannot be placed by the State Sector, they have no vacancies. As a result she is now out of school, 2 years before her GSCE's, ( is it still called that?) Phillipson should be sacked, Labour have lost their left already to Farage and the Greens, so she will not be missed.
The state has a duty to offer your GD a place in a school. What I suspect you are really saying is that the place offered is not the preferred option of your family. Which is quite different.
And if you care for your child, and they 'place' your child in a sink school rife with drugs and violence, many miles away from your home? Oh, and you cannot drive...
This is reality for some.
You immediately leap to a worst case scenario. Most options are alot more nuanced.
It is happening to parents in my village. Not many, but some.
It may happen to our son, if we are unlucky.
To give you an idea: my local secondary (a very short walk away) had 290 places. It had 299 first choice preferences, and 474 total preferences. The next closest (the same trust) had 275 places allocated, and 341 first choice preferences.
The majority of schools in the area are over-subscribed, some by quite a degree. The ones that are not are the ones parents do not want to send their kids to. Because they're cr@p.
And there you have the positive feedback loop. Those parents most concerned about their child's education do everything, including moving house, to get their kids into the best schools. So those schools end up with the most motivated pupils and also attract the best teachers. So those schools get even better, while the poor ones get worse.
So you end up with the same situation replicated across the country where each area has a number of decent schools that are packed full, and one or two poor schools that everyone desperately tries to avoid sending their kids to. That's the inevitable consequence of allowing parents to choose their child's school. It's elementary game theory.
You can have selection by application or selection by house price. Either way good parents will endeavour to keep their children away from crap.
You could always use a lottery to allocate over-subscribed places.
Which would still produce rather different intakes in say Stoke and Knowsley to Kensington and Chelsea and Surrey
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
It makes me proud to be a member of the working classes.
No, you need to be a Labour voting public sector worker for that. Everyone else is either just a Brexit voting racist or a member of the evil capitalist class who sends their children to private school unlike eqalitarian state schools in Holland Park or the London Oratory
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Musk is veep in all but name. Not sure what Vance is going to do all day to be honest.
I believe the line is "President Musk and Vice President Trump".
Until they fall out. In any case, Musk might find that having President Trump's ear is not worth much if 90 per cent of policy enacted comes from the Project 2025 mob, headed by Vance.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Erm, isn't the lefty BBC chaired by Tory Tim Davie with input from Tory Robbie Gibb?
That's a good example of why it's a mistake to think that institutional capture is just a question of who is in charge. The cultural and legal framework is at least as important.
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
I suspect that this effect on property prices, and the consequent waste of capital that might be used for something more productive than a pile of bricks, costs the country a lot more in the long term than tax exemptions for private schools. I look forward to Labour, or any other party, tackling it after they've finished faffing around with a thousand other things.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
You don't see any dangers in promoting a violent fraudster, who constantly lies and whipped up the riots earlier this year?
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
Well not much of a surprise as IQ tests also include verbal reasoning tests more suited to law school than medical school entrants but 90%+ of those with top grade science GCSEs will also have an above average IQ too
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
I believe he's done well for himself. Suggests calling Trump America's Hitler is a good strategy.
Not a great parallel, though.
One was an immigrant who became radicalised due to tough economic times and had a creepy thing for very young women, was in the pocket of dodgy big business, and spouted random bullshit before launching a failed coup, rigging the legal system to get off multiple lawsuits and committing to work through the democratic system to gain power.
I quite enjoy seeing this topic debated because it brings out like no other the hypocrisy of the English middle classes.
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
I suspect that this effect on property prices, and the consequent waste of capital that might be used for something more productive than a pile of bricks, costs the country a lot more in the long term than tax exemptions for private schools. I look forward to Labour, or any other party, tackling it after they've finished faffing around with a thousand other things.
Not really - good schools will have a habit of being in the better part of town because that is where the parents of children wanting / expecting to learn will come from.
Building a lot more houses is the only thing that will reduce house prices and even then the houses in the better part of town will continue to be worth more than those elsewhere in the town.
A different approach is school admission by lottery but that would require the state paying transport costs because a lot of parents would not be willing / able to pay the costs of transporting their children to school 2 if there is a closer one
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
Are the same results replicable in a more challenging academic discipline?
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
a) No, for as I stated most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 too, indeed you got into grammar school yourself at 16.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
Yep I would agree with that. I obviously know quite a few doctors as well as being married to one. They tend to be very high performers across a range of topics with very good memories and ability to regurgitate stuff, but I would judge most to have very good but not exceptional analytical skills.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
You don't see any dangers in promoting a violent fraudster, who constantly lies and whipped up the riots earlier this year?
No because it makes people like you unhappy. If the establishment against him then I'm all for Musk. I loathe all of you and can't wait to see you all removed.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
Yep I would agree with that. I obviously know quite a few doctors as well as being married to one. They tend to be very high performers across a range of topics with very good memories and ability to regurgitate stuff, but I would judge most to have very good but not exceptional analytical skills.
The much harder question is working out what makes a good doctor. A friend who works teaching surgery constantly complains that the system wants to give him trainees who are very clever, when what he wants are people good with their hands who don't panic under pressure.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
If the ruling elite decide that Trump isn't fit to be President, then he will be replaced, regardless of the 2/3rds rules. You aren't going to leave him in place with the nuclear football when it has been decided he is unfit. Explain that to your constituents.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
If you are going to tax private education, then tax university education at the same time. Almost as if this is more about ideology than raising money or fairness.
Meanwhile in Broxtowe, 20 Labour councillors have quit the party over Starmer:
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
Was any of it on Twitter then- or at least, the subset of Twitter that KB engages with?
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
If the ruling elite decide that Trump isn't fit to be President, then he will be replaced, regardless of the 2/3rds rules. You aren't going to leave him in place with the nuclear football when it has been decided he is unfit. Explain that to your constituents.
The problem there is competence. If the Parallel Government was actually that good... but in reality it is NU10K all the way down.
If they were that good, Biden would have been replaced early, by a brilliant business leader, turned war hero, turned politician who had an approval rating of 105%. Apart from a slight vulnerability to certain playing cards, the perfect candidate.
If you are going to tax private education, then tax university education at the same time. Almost as if this is more about ideology than raising money or fairness.
Meanwhile in Broxtowe, 20 Labour councillors have quit the party over Starmer:
They claimed 10 of them had been blocked from standing for Labour at upcoming local elections for Nottinghamshire County Council after questioning the winter fuel policy.
Local councillors defect in all sorts of directions all the time. It isn't always driven by frustrated personal ambition... just most of the time.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
You don't see any dangers in promoting a violent fraudster, who constantly lies and whipped up the riots earlier this year?
No because it makes people like you unhappy. If the establishment against him then I'm all for Musk. I loathe all of you and can't wait to see you all removed.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
What magnificent results have these reports and enquiries produced?
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
Well not much of a surprise as IQ tests also include verbal reasoning tests more suited to law school than medical school entrants but 90%+ of those with top grade science GCSEs will also have an above average IQ too
A more interesting question than performance in medical school is performance as doctors, and even there things are complicated because patient ratings are often only weakly related to clinical effectiveness.
As one senior policeman remarked, apart from murdering his patients, everyone agreed Shipman was a bloody good doctor.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
If the ruling elite decide that Trump isn't fit to be President, then he will be replaced, regardless of the 2/3rds rules. You aren't going to leave him in place with the nuclear football when it has been decided he is unfit. Explain that to your constituents.
The problem there is competence. If the Parallel Government was actually that good... but in reality it is NU10K all the way down.
If they were that good, Biden would have been replaced early, by a brilliant business leader, turned war hero, turned politician who had an approval rating of 105%. Apart from a slight vulnerability to certain playing cards, the perfect candidate.
Not an issue of competence. It's an issue of power.
Nobody could complain about JD Vance stepping up to be President if Trump is canned. He was on the ticket. Americans voting for a very aged President should have taken into consideration when casting their vote that his replacement part way through was a real prospect.
No cries of "coup" will be heard. Even if it is a very fair summary.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
The Rest is Politics: Rory and a newly impoverished Al discuss what various politicians and parties should do differently in 2025. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwBO8nrzCt8
A few may have got their money out. Hell mend them anyway, the whole things shouts ponzi and 100% risk guaranteed.
I had about 10 grand "invested" in lendy.com before it went pop, did actually make 12% interest and learnt a valuable lesson. If a ship is going down - get to the exit first.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Whilst I agree with some of your general criticism of Labour's educational policies, I am sorry to tell you you are wrong to have so much faith in the reliability of the 11+.
Assessments of this kind are notoriously unreliable even in adults, let alone children. They also risk failing many individuals who are highly intelligent but may have neurodiverse conditions that result in high levels of anxiety brought on by such testing. People can most definitely be coached to the test to give an appearance of a higher IQ.
Anecdotally, one highly intelligent and eye-wateringly wealthy individual of my acquaintance was not only massively successful in business, but also achieved a PhD in engineering and an MBA at top universities.
You guessed it, he failed his 11+ !!
11+ identifies 90% of those with the highest IQ they need for admittance, that doesn't necessarily mean others with drive can't become successful businesspeople etc. High IQ generally only identifies future academics, doctors, lawyers etc.
There is also of course the 13+ and sixth form entry into grammars now too for those who do very well at GCSE
Performance in knowledge-based tests, e.g. science GCSEs, is a better predictor of performance in medical school than IQ or IQ-like aptitude tests: see the work of Prof Chris McManus.
Well not much of a surprise as IQ tests also include verbal reasoning tests more suited to law school than medical school entrants but 90%+ of those with top grade science GCSEs will also have an above average IQ too
A more interesting question than performance in medical school is performance as doctors, and even there things are complicated because patient ratings are often only weakly related to clinical effectiveness.
As one senior policeman remarked, apart from murdering his patients, everyone agreed Shipman was a bloody good doctor.
Hitler was also a competent dictator who greatly expanded German territory and got out of work Germans building roads, could be charming in person, was a strong speaker and liked art and opera but both were also evil psychopaths. So intelligence and competence alone are not enough
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
A wise man wrote this a few weeks ago,
The most dangerous place to stand in Westminster is the space between Kemi Badenoch and a passing bandwagon.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
a) No, for as I stated most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 too, indeed you got into grammar school yourself at 16.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
You are not reading what I am posting:
a) It is traumatic to change schools at 13 and most won't. Nobody did from my school even though they were given the option (I wasn't by the way, as I was still at the idiot level). At 16 I had no choice as A levels weren't available and many academic kids from my Secondary school dropped out at this stage sadly. It was what they were expected to do, so stuffed by the system. Many Grammar school boys also left after poor O levels, again let down by the system as they had been judged far too early at 11.
b) You have a fixation about my English O level because I said it wasn't at the top grade. Stop it. My English O level was perfectly good. I passed it easily. It was just that all my other passes were at the top grade. Are you seriously saying that someone with a decent English O level and top grades in all other subjects and who was fast tracked at A level by the Grammar school but failed his 11 plus spectacularly (OK I agree wasn't the worst, but I was well below average) was simply because my verbal reasoning let me down? Come on be sensible. I failed it by some margin, because I was well below average at 11.
This is all nonsense. I was clearly crap at 11 and rather good at 16. You are going through contortions to justify your view.
It is also telling that you say 'maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped'. This shows your lack of understanding of the average school kid and not those whose parents have higher expectations and tutor their kids. I say this because hope just didn't come into it. I have no memory of the 11 plus. I was a kid at school who would just go onto the next school in due course. I didn't even know what an 11 plus was. The fact that you say hope, means there is something to be achieved and therefore prepared for. That didn't exist for me not the kids I was at school with. That was for kids whose parents were ambitious for their children.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
If the ruling elite decide that Trump isn't fit to be President, then he will be replaced, regardless of the 2/3rds rules. You aren't going to leave him in place with the nuclear football when it has been decided he is unfit. Explain that to your constituents.
Two possible counterpoints.
First- Trump wasn't fit to be the candidate. But it wasn't in the interest of anyone important to say that out loud. Those who did were shunned.
Second- having gaga Trump in office means the real power leaks out elsewhere. To jumped-up minions. They will lose if he goes, which means they have to fight for him staying.
As long as DJT is able to be wheeled about, and to wave without someone noticing the stagehand moving his arm, he'll stay. Whether he likes it or not.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
If the ruling elite decide that Trump isn't fit to be President, then he will be replaced, regardless of the 2/3rds rules. You aren't going to leave him in place with the nuclear football when it has been decided he is unfit. Explain that to your constituents.
The problem there is competence. If the Parallel Government was actually that good... but in reality it is NU10K all the way down.
If they were that good, Biden would have been replaced early, by a brilliant business leader, turned war hero, turned politician who had an approval rating of 105%. Apart from a slight vulnerability to certain playing cards, the perfect candidate.
Not an issue of competence. It's an issue of power.
Nobody could complain about JD Vance stepping up to be President if Trump is canned. He was on the ticket. Americans voting for a very aged President should have taken into consideration when casting their vote that his replacement part way through was a real prospect.
No cries of "coup" will be heard. Even if it is a very fair summary.
I was objecting to the idea that the "ruling elite" is going to do anything.
They barely exist, except as legends in their own minds.
Just as in this country, where the Sir Arnolds are fucking useless.
The case for exempting VAT on private schools rests on two basic arguments I think. Unfortunately for the people making them, neither quite stacks up.
Argument 1 is that private education is a societal good. It promotes aspiration and should be encouraged. The problem with the argument as it applies to VAT is that the encouragement of aspiration is limited to those who can afford the very expensive school fees today but not 20% more than that. We can assume the wealthy don't need the aspiration boost. Implying to the vast majority who can't afford the privilege, they don't need the aspiration but should support those who can afford it, isn't a compelling argument to that vast majority.
Argument 2 is that private education fills in the gaps in state provision. Removing the VAT exemption is counterproductive as it would force some currently privately educated students into the state sector. The issue here is that those implementing the policy have numbers to show they will get more revenue than additional costs incurred. Those numbers may or may not be correct but this is a general tax payer question; school fee paying parents don't get to decide.
So they are left I think with a hybrid argument. While exempting VAT on private education may not do anything for most people, it doesn't do them much harm either. Meanwhile it means a lot for a small number of people and for that reason it should be retained. It isn't a very powerful argument.
Argument 1 is more completely that such schools are generally charities, and there is already law that should ensure that these schools provide a public good, which extends beyond those who can afford their fees.
It seems reasonable to look at whether you could tighten up these rules - lord knows there are plenty of charities more generally that would benefit from a bit more scrutiny - and perhaps charge VAT on schools that do not qualify as charities. But I'd suspect they most private schools would pass a test of providing a public good as a charity.
I hope I captured fairly the augments of those supporting VAT exemption for private schools. My point is they need better arguments.
What's the argument for exempting food and children's clothes from VAT? Most EU countries charge VAT (often at a reduced rate) on both of these.
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
James Carville on what Dems need to do now. Back to pocketbook issues.
"Our economic message must be sharp, crisp, clear — and we must take it right to the people. To Democratic presidential hopefuls, your auditions for 2028 should be based on two things: 1) How authentic you are on the economy and 2) how well you deliver it on a podcast."
Some of them are starting to get it, and understand why they lost.
Let’s hope these voices prevail over those who think the Dems should double down on the wokery and immigration, while calling the other guy Hitler.
You know who else called Trump America’s Hitler?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
He is now Vice President.
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
Will we see amendment 25 in operation this year? Got to be a chance.
It requires a majority of the cabinet and a two thirds majority in the House and Senate.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
If the ruling elite decide that Trump isn't fit to be President, then he will be replaced, regardless of the 2/3rds rules. You aren't going to leave him in place with the nuclear football when it has been decided he is unfit. Explain that to your constituents.
You've been predicting Trump's imminent political demise for as long as I can remember.
You went to a grammar school, you should also be supporting parental and pupil choice
Grammar schools are free at the point of use.
It's just all the private coaching ahead of the 11+ that costs a lot.
Most grammar school pupils are not privately coached, especially those that come from primary schools in all selective counties like Kent, Bucks and Lincolnshire. If you don't have an above average IQ you also won't pass the 11+ or 13+ however much you are coached
Coaching plays a huge part in IQ scores, whether by the school or private coach. Simply getting your head around how to do the different tests is a big part of it.
No it doesn't, IQ is largely inherited and genetic and the rest is based on logic skills. The 11 plus focuses on verbal and numerical reasoning tests so harder to learn the facts and answers for unless you can work out how to do them
And you can be taught how to do them. I know we have been around this loop before so I know it is pointless, but I believe @rcs1000 showed tuition can make a difference of 20 points which is huge. I used to have to administer the test as part of the recruitment of a very large computer manufacturer I worked for in the 80s. The questions only follow a small number of variations for which simple techniques can be applied. For instance in a number sequences if you can't get it then simply subtracting each number from the previous number and write it down below and between the two numbers so you get a new sequence and keep doing that until a pattern emerges. This will solve most. It probably takes about 15 seconds to do so easily within the time limit per question. So for all these questions there is now no test between someone with an IQ of 150 and 90 if the person with an IQ of 90 has been trained in the technique. Similar techniques can be applied for other tests eg the approximation questions and the shape questions.
So basically even you admit nobody with an IQ below 90, about a third of the population, could ever pass the 11 plus even if coached 24/7 for it.
Those with an IQ of 150 would of course pass with likely full marks even if never coached at all
Let's take a real example. The IQ tests I set for recruits required a score of 130 to get an interview. I took the same test before I joined. I was never given my score, but it had to be North of 130 to get in. I failed my 11 plus and I obviously failed badly as we were streamed and I went into the 3rd stream of 5 in the Secondary school, where I was expected to leave without taking any exams eventually. I got a degree in Maths from one of the top universities in the early 70s and top grades in all my O and A levels except O level English, which I still passed comfortably.
That 11 plus wasn't exactly useful was it?
You were likely above average even when you took the 11 plus, just not quite high enough in IQ at the time to make the grade for a very selective grammar school. Had you taken the entrance at 16 for sixth form after your O levels you would likely have got into the grammar school
Well that is clearly not the case because:
a) I didn't just fail the 11 plus, I failed it convincingly because as I mentioned we were streamed based upon the results of the 11 plus and not only was my result not high enough to get into the grammar school, but I was no more than average of the failures because I was in stream 3 of 5 of the group that failed. That was a class expected to leave school without taking any exams. Not that I have any memory of taking an 11 plus.
b) After my O levels I went to the grammar school and was at a level where I was fast streamed with just 3 other grammar school boys out of the whole year and took an A level early.
So I had gone from being an average 11 plus failures (so well below average) to being at the very top of those that passed the 11 plus. That clearly makes no sense whatsoever. I might have been an extreme example but there were plenty more examples of boys who moved across and outperformed the grammar school boys and plenty from the grammar school who crashed and burned.
Selection at 11, particularly using an IQ test is plainly nuts.
PS I note also Kazuo Ishiguro has just got a new honour in addition to his knighthood and noble prize. He was at the same school as me and in my A level year and was not a spectacularly special student. Not fast tracked, however people just develop at different rates and should be streamed and set accordingly and not have some random judgement made at some random age.
So you certainly weren't in the bottom streams then and as you have said you were never as good at English as Maths so that probably dragged your average down a bit.
In any case as you said you went to grammar school after O Levels anyway and so ended up taking A levels early and at your top university from a grammar school sixth form regardless as most grammars have entry at 13 and 16 not just 11 as yours did too
Whoosh, missing the whole point:
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
a) No, for as I stated most grammars have entries at 13 and 16 too, indeed you got into grammar school yourself at 16.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
You are not reading what I am posting:
a) It is traumatic to change schools at 13 and most won't. Nobody did from my school even though they were given the option (I wasn't by the way, as I was still at the idiot level). At 16 I had no choice as A levels weren't available and many academic kids from my Secondary school dropped out at this stage sadly. It was what they were expected to do, so stuffed by the system. Many Grammar school boys also left after poor O levels, again let down by the system as they had been judged far too early at 11.
b) You have a fixation about my English O level because I said it wasn't at the top grade. Stop it. My English O level was perfectly good. I passed it easily. It was just that all my other passes were at the top grade. Are you seriously saying that someone with a decent English O level and top grades in all other subjects and who was fast tracked at A level by the Grammar school but failed his 11 plus spectacularly (OK I agree wasn't the worst, but I was well below average) was simply because my verbal reasoning let me down? Come on be sensible. I failed it by some margin, because I was well below average at 11.
This is all nonsense. I was clearly crap at 11 and rather good at 16. You are going through contortions to justify your view.
It is also telling that you say 'maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped'. This shows your lack of understanding of the average school kid and not those whose parents have higher expectations and tutor their kids. I say this because hope just didn't come into it. I have no memory of the 11 plus. I was a kid at school who would just go onto the next school in due course. I didn't even know what an 11 plus was. The fact that you say hope, means there is something to be achieved and therefore prepared for. That didn't exist for me not the kids I was at school with. That was for kids whose parents were ambitious for their children.
Yes so when as a late developer you did better at 16 you still got into grammar school after O level and onto a top university, so your not getting in at 11 didn't stop you getting in later.
It is still the case that only grammar schools really challenge private schools in terms of Oxbridge entry, and seeing their pupils become barristers, judges, city solicitors, surgeons and doctors, CEOs and board members of FTSE companies, Cabinet Ministers, permanent secretaries, Oscar winners etc ie most of the top professions and elite in this country. Yes entry is not easy to them but once in then the world can be your oyster, as it was for you too once you got in for sixth form
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
You don't see any dangers in promoting a violent fraudster, who constantly lies and whipped up the riots earlier this year?
No because it makes people like you unhappy. If the establishment against him then I'm all for Musk. I loathe all of you and can't wait to see you all removed.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Labour councillors in Broxtowe, where a London based candidate was parachuted in for the election and local candidates barred, defect over the direction of the party.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
After telling his supporters to get behind Farage again after a brief spat between them, it seems Robinson now has Musk's backing as well
' "Don't turn your back on Nigel" Tommy Robinson supports Farage during shock intervention from prison'
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Erm, isn't the lefty BBC chaired by Tory Tim Davie with input from Tory Robbie Gibb?
That's a good example of why it's a mistake to think that institutional capture is just a question of who is in charge. The cultural and legal framework is at least as important.
Quite. Andrew Bailey was once meant to be the 'pro-Brexit' Bank of England chief - I don't think even the most shameless remainer could claim that's how he's operated.
Labour councillors in Broxtowe, where a London based candidate was parachuted in for the election and local candidates barred, defect over the direction of the party.
Have to say I'm really enjoying Elon Musk trolling the Labour government and ministers. It's very enjoyable seeing the boot on the other foot after 14 years of Labour surrogates in the BBC, charities and think tanks attacking the Tory government under the guise of neutrality. Hope he keeps it up and uses the giant bully pulpit of Twitter to constantly hurt Labour and Starmer.
Are you also enjoying Musk's recent membership of the Tommy Robinson fan club?
I'm not really that fussed, as long as it hurts Labour and contributes their demise. The party that covers up rape gangs because they need their votes, seems like a solid brand for them.
Shame on you Max.
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Isn't "Tommy Robinson" a name he nicked from a football hooligan? No legal name change or anything?
Comments
Edit: And there's Joseph Patrick Kennedy III. Will he run?
Some fella called J.D. Vance?
Anybody know what happened to him?
As Mike Pence will ruefully note, he is responsible for dealing with Trump's Vices and that's a full time job.
I ended up doing 6 Highers in one year and left school at 16 to go onto University. Again, I think the 11+ didn’t get it entirely right.
year? Got to be a chance.
It’s the 21st century equivalent of the court circular and the births/marriages/deaths in the Times. The platform for his editorial experiment started out, at least, as something that had a position in society far greater than any other social network.
It's possible but there's more chance of me saying something nice about the DfE.
Edit - I suppose he could have a stroke or something. That might change the equation. But if he's able to speak (I won't say, is compos mentis because that ship has sailed) the 25th won't be invoked.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/child-sex-abuse-gangs-could-5114029
Some in Labour shunned Ann Cryer when she first raised this many years ago and some in the party challenged her motives. But labour as a whole. Many in Labour did fight for the victims.
When, in 2016, Lucy Allan, the MP for Telford called for an enquiry into the grooming gangs in her constituency 10 men at the council wrote to the Home Office to push for the request to be rejected including the current MP and the leader of the Lib Dems. But look at the signatories. This is an institution protecting itself not political.
https://x.com/lara_e_brown/status/1874093248991432783?s=61
Or would be, if that didn't make Vance Acting President...
In recent years, there has been a large growth in "charter" schools, schools that receive money from states, but have more freedom in what is taught, and how it is taught.
There has also been an expansion in "home schooling", which does not receive much, if anything, in the way of subsidies. (One of my nieces home schooled her three boys.) Most of these, as far as I know, are in religious families.
In general, improvements in US public schools have been led by Republican governors, George W. Bush in Texas, Jeb Bush in Florida, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and so on. (Mitch Daniels had an excellent record as president of Purdue.)
Those improvements have even come in surprising places. Recently, Mississippi improved fourth grade reading scores enough so that some have described it as the Mississippi Miracle". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/kids-reading-scores-have-soared-in-mississippi-miracle
All those parents paying extra to buy houses near good state schools, patting themselves on the back for doing so and mixing with everyone ie those equally able to pay for more expensive houses, then enjoying the capital appreciation of said house and not having to pay tax on it when they sell while screaming blue murder at the merest suggestion that the value of the house should be used to pay for their care in old age because that would be hideously unfair to their children who deserved to inherit this unearned windfall. As I recall those who screamed loudest about this "unfairness" when it was proposed in 2017 were some of the most left-wing posters on here and Corbyn duly jumped on that particular bandwagon.
If only we could impose a tax on such hypocrisy and indeed on the expensive houses these hypocrites buy.
Also Philippson railing against inherited privilege when her only job before becoming an MP was in Mummy's charity. lol.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/30/german-official-elon-musk-trying-to-influence-election-afd
(I have no idea what German law says, however I can see no reason why he would treat it any different from UK Law - which he thinks he can ignore.)
a) This isn't just about me and lots of people suffer from selection at 11, namely those who are late starters and those who bloom early then fade. Also those that are gifted in one area and poor in another. Streaming and setting is far better.
b) I passed my English O level comfortably, just not with the top grade. I passed all my other exams (not just maths) with the top grade. I hardly think 'dragging my average down a little bit' explains why I was at a level that is below that to even be expected to take CSEs let alone O levels (so I was very, very much below average) and then being at the very very top of the grammar school. That can hardly be explained by my English not quite being at the top level. I was rubbish at 11 and soaring at 16. You also previously had the details from the IQ test I took as part of my interview for a job which is completely inconsistent with my 11 plus score.
You are trying to avoid the very very obvious conclusion that people develop at different rates. At 11 I was very much below average, by say 15 I was substantially above average. Same is true for many others and also the complete opposite for many.
And swapping schools half way through is traumatic for kids, whereas swapping streams or sets isn't.
One was an immigrant who became radicalised due to tough economic times and had a creepy thing for very young women, was in the pocket of dodgy big business, and spouted random bullshit before launching a failed coup, rigging the legal system to get off multiple lawsuits and committing to work through the democratic system to gain power.
Trump's not an immgrant.
Building a lot more houses is the only thing that will reduce house prices and even then the houses in the better part of town will continue to be worth more than those elsewhere in the town.
A different approach is school admission by lottery but that would require the state paying transport costs because a lot of parents would not be willing / able to pay the costs of transporting their children to school 2 if there is a closer one
John Nance Gardner described it as not worth a bucket of warm piss.
b) As you said your English O Level was not top grade, so maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped
Here is the IICSA website - https://www.iicsa.org.uk/index.html.
Could someone in her party send her the link? Or tell her about the Drew Review and Operation Stovewood by the NCA. Or the Jay report or what Dame Louise Casey has done?
Or remind her of what her fellow Cabinet Minister, Suellla Braverman, the Home Secretary to do in May 2023 when the final IICSA Report came out?
This is bandwagon jumping of the most tawdry kind instead of action - which she could have been asking for when she was an actual Cabinet Minister.
Meanwhile in Broxtowe, 20 Labour councillors have quit the party over Starmer:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewxrzq0489o
If not, did it really happen?
If they were that good, Biden would have been replaced early, by a brilliant business leader, turned war hero, turned politician who had an approval rating of 105%. Apart from a slight vulnerability to certain playing cards, the perfect candidate.
They claimed 10 of them had been blocked from standing for Labour at upcoming local elections for Nottinghamshire County Council after questioning the winter fuel policy.
Local councillors defect in all sorts of directions all the time. It isn't always driven by frustrated personal ambition... just most of the time.
As one senior policeman remarked, apart from murdering his patients, everyone agreed Shipman was a bloody good doctor.
Nobody could complain about JD Vance stepping up to be President if Trump is canned. He was on the ticket. Americans voting for a very aged President should have taken into consideration when casting their vote that his replacement part way through was a real prospect.
No cries of "coup" will be heard. Even if it is a very fair summary.
(Poor quality - sorry,)
The most dangerous place to stand in Westminster is the space between Kemi Badenoch and a passing bandwagon.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/11/20/how-not-to-a-tractor-floating-voters/
a) It is traumatic to change schools at 13 and most won't. Nobody did from my school even though they were given the option (I wasn't by the way, as I was still at the idiot level). At 16 I had no choice as A levels weren't available and many academic kids from my Secondary school dropped out at this stage sadly. It was what they were expected to do, so stuffed by the system. Many Grammar school boys also left after poor O levels, again let down by the system as they had been judged far too early at 11.
b) You have a fixation about my English O level because I said it wasn't at the top grade. Stop it. My English O level was perfectly good. I passed it easily. It was just that all my other passes were at the top grade. Are you seriously saying that someone with a decent English O level and top grades in all other subjects and who was fast tracked at A level by the Grammar school but failed his 11 plus spectacularly (OK I agree wasn't the worst, but I was well below average) was simply because my verbal reasoning let me down? Come on be sensible. I failed it by some margin, because I was well below average at 11.
This is all nonsense. I was clearly crap at 11 and rather good at 16. You are going through contortions to justify your view.
It is also telling that you say 'maybe you didn't do as well on the verbal reasoning section of the 11+ as you hoped'. This shows your lack of understanding of the average school kid and not those whose parents have higher expectations and tutor their kids. I say this because hope just didn't come into it. I have no memory of the 11 plus. I was a kid at school who would just go onto the next school in due course. I didn't even know what an 11 plus was. The fact that you say hope, means there is something to be achieved and therefore prepared for. That didn't exist for me not the kids I was at school with. That was for kids whose parents were ambitious for their children.
First- Trump wasn't fit to be the candidate. But it wasn't in the interest of anyone important to say that out loud. Those who did were shunned.
Second- having gaga Trump in office means the real power leaks out elsewhere. To jumped-up minions. They will lose if he goes, which means they have to fight for him staying.
As long as DJT is able to be wheeled about, and to wave without someone noticing the stagehand moving his arm, he'll stay. Whether he likes it or not.
They barely exist, except as legends in their own minds.
Just as in this country, where the Sir Arnolds are fucking useless.
He was known as Cactus Jack.
He also made a memorable comment about a politician's hair turning orange overnight.
He had some interesting opinions about Mexicans.
Alistair Cooke wrote a book chapter about him:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/MEMORIES-GREAT-GOOD-Alistair-Cooke/dp/1862054525
It is still the case that only grammar schools really challenge private schools in terms of Oxbridge entry, and seeing their pupils become barristers, judges, city solicitors, surgeons and doctors, CEOs and board members of FTSE companies, Cabinet Ministers, permanent secretaries, Oscar winners etc ie most of the top professions and elite in this country. Yes entry is not easy to them but once in then the world can be your oyster, as it was for you too once you got in for sixth form
Tommy Robinson very nearly derailed one criminal trial of some of the rapists with his antics. Thus showing that he couldn't give a stuff about the victims because if that trial had been derailed they would either have seen the rapists go free or have to go through the whole ghastly experience of giving evidence all over again.
He doesn't give two hoots about children who are sexually abused. He uses it as away of grifting money from deluded supporters and attacking Muslims and people from Pakistan. He's a tawdry racist and Musk supporting him without bothering to research the reality of the man speaks very ill of him.
Labour councillors in Broxtowe, where a London based candidate was parachuted in for the election and local candidates barred, defect over the direction of the party.
https://x.com/hughcasswell/status/1874824103150112859?s=61
' "Don't turn your back on Nigel" Tommy Robinson supports Farage during shock intervention from prison'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQp04K4JaLc
BBC News - Twenty Broxtowe councillors quit Labour over Starmer's leadership - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewxrzq0489o