1) I am by your side to serve you and serve your plans for France.
2) I tried my best and might have failed occasionally. I implore your forgiveness.
3) I have no personal political ambitions and I have no desire to become a servile status seeker, like many of the people around you whose loyalty is recent and short-lived.
4) Use me for as long as it suits you and suits your plans and casting call.
5) If you decide to use me, I need you as a guide and a supporter: without a guide, I may be ineffective and without your support I may lack credibility. With my great admiration, Christine L.”
Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?
This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?
Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.
It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.
He'd get an F in any school for that reply.
It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.
If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.
Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.
Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.
So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?
And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?
Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.
I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.
Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?
So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.
Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.
Rubbish.
I am saying it is fine for interesting people to give talks to students or to teach specific (ie, one-off or specifically defined) classes in areas related to their primary expertise, though I would expect qualified teachers to be there too in case pupils got unruly, there was some kind of disruption or other incident which the unqulaified guest is not trained to deal with. I am saying it is not fine for unqualified individuals to be paid to teach regular curriculum-based classes. And I am saying it is downright dangerous for non-qualified individuals to teach at primary level. If you do not understand the difference or if you disagree, then there is not much I can do about that.
I agree with you: it is perfectly fine for people with expertise to go into schools and give occasional talks, with a teacher present to give context. That is not 'teaching'.
What has Tristiam Hunt been doing? If the above, that is fine. If he has been unsupervised, then it is not, and Gove is in the wrong to suggest otherwise.
But if you are talking about downright dangerous, what are your views on the latest wonderful (ahem) news from the NHS under Labour?
Labour has shown that they were right: the NHS was safe in their hands. Sadly, the patients were not. Labour prefer the NHS as an organisation to the patients.
Yes, that is exactly what Tristram Hunt, David Miliabnd and, no doubt, many other MPs from all parties have done. Just as scientsist do it, sports people do it, journalists do it and so on. No-one is proposing that this practice be halted.
For someone who says he is not interested in making partisan points about the NHS you do seem remarkably keen to make partisan points about the NHS.
While teachers can become MPs, and past education secretaries have been teachers (eg Gillian Shepherd, Estelle Morris) this is because the only qualification to become an MP is to win a plurality of the votes in a parliamentary constituency at a general election or a by-election (technically you could have no qualifications and live on the dole and be an MP, although I can't recall if any MP has had quite that background?) To be a teacher you need the PGCE/QTS to teach in state schools and even most private school teachers have the PGCE and if they do not they are almost certainly graduates!
Off Topic - just finished reading the ministerial diaries of Chris Mullin (1999-2005).
Very interesting read. Mostly because they reveal the author to be an incredible lickspittal. Or if you prefer, a puff-ball of unbelievable arrogance.
Perhaps the best assessment: prick.
In one entry he brags about telling a whinging constituent (I paraphrase) "You blame everyone but yourself". Oblivious to fact that this is perfect description of himself as revealed by his writings.
Before I read this book, assumed that CMMP was a reasonably decent fellow, based on his efforts to redress injustice back in the day. BUT those days are well behind him.
His last subministerial assignment was obviously motivated by Tony Blair's desire to curry favor with Labour Luvvies by putting someone who voted against Iraq War (just once, and in full knowledge this was purely symbolic, or rather self-aggrandizing (sp). Other motivation was clearly an inside joke; they sent CM to every African shithole they could think of, where he could pretend to be a great humanitarian.
My favorite part of the book was last entry, just after 2005 election, when the People's Tony told Mullin to take a hike. Yes!
Off topic yet again - check out Politico.com and/or Boston Globe for coverage of last debate between Ed Markey (D) and Gabriel Gomez (R) before next week's Massachusetts US Senate special election.
Polling shows newbie Gomez running about seven points behind Representative Markey. Which given the likelihood of low turnout and difficulty of determining who actually will vote, means that Gomez definitely has a shot. Though personally think Markey will end up victorious.
Funniest line of the debate, was contention of Gomez (a former SEAL) as quoted by Politico.com that “In the military, you either lead or you get out of the way,” he said. “You can’t sit up here and say it is somebody else’s fault.”
Yeah right! No such thing as covering-your-you-know-what in the military!!!
SSI - Markey, it will be close but Scott Brown took a clear lead into the election against Coakley and I don't think Mass is yet ready to break its current trend of electing a GOP Senator only once every third of a century, as Scott Brown quickly discovered in 2012!
Yet more off topic (since the topic is so boring) here in Great State of Washington, appears that the GOP-faux Democratic cabal currently dominating the state Senate will get its way (mostly) on state budget.
The linchpin of this unholy alliance is state Sen. Rodney Tom (R > D > mulitiple choice) who represents district that used to be solidly GOP (which is why he started out as a Republican) but is now swing Democratic (why he switched parties).
Interestingly enough, little birdie told me the other day that, if election were held now, he would be handily defeated by a freshman Democratic state rep from exact same district. This potential candidate is the first Iranian American to serve in WA state legislature. He's blind (in more ways than one) but his real advantage is that a) he's an actual Democrat; and b) he can raise money by the boatload from the Iranian community all across the US, most notably in Southern California.
Thus Tom (who is very well-off but not THAT well-off) is reported considering running for US Congresss next year, in 1st district seat currently held by freshman Democrat Suzan delBene. Sadly for Tom, she's (or rather her hubby) is VERY rich. She spent a bundle to win the primary & general election last year. And will double that to hold on to it.
Tom is a jerk, that's bipartisasn assesement in Olympia (state capital). This fact is less-well known in his district, mainly because normal folks don't really pay much attention to state legislators. BUT his triple-cross has clearly opened a lot of eyes.
Winston Churchill once famously said, that anyone can rat . . . but it takes REAL politico to re-rat! And Rodney ain't Winny!
Note that Scott Brown a) had served in state legislature (a qualification for higher office for many if not most voters) and b) emphazied soft-sell based on his pleasing personality.
Wherea Gomez comes across as a oppotunist smashmouth. Plus man of minstery who refuses to reveal his list of clients. His reply when Markey brought this up: Markey's ignorant because they're INVESTORS not clients! Hardly the most persuasive of counter-arguments!
Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?
This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?
Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.
It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.
He'd get an F in any school for that reply.
It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.
If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.
Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.
Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.
So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?
And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?
Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.
I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.
Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?
So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.
Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.
Rubbish.
I am saying it is fine for interesting people to give talks to students or to teach specific (ie, one-off or specifically defined) classes in areas related to their primary expertise, though I would expect qualified teachers to be there too in case pupils got unruly, there was some kind of disruption or other incident which the unqulaified guest is not trained to deal with. I am saying it is not fine for unqualified individuals to be paid to teach regular curriculum-based classes. And I am saying it is downright dangerous for non-qualified individuals to teach at primary level. If you do not understand the difference or if you disagree, then there is not much I can do about that.
I agree with you: it is perfectly fine for people with expertise to go into schools and give occasional talks, with a teacher present to give context. That is not 'teaching'.
What has Tristiam Hunt been doing? If the above, that is fine. If he has been unsupervised, then it is not, and Gove is in the wrong to suggest otherwise.
But if you are talking about downright dangerous, what are your views on the latest wonderful (ahem) news from the NHS under Labour?
Labour has shown that they were right: the NHS was safe in their hands. Sadly, the patients were not. Labour prefer the NHS as an organisation to the patients.
Yes, that is exactly what Tristram Hunt, David Miliabnd and, no doubt, many other MPs from all parties have done. Just as scientsist do it, sports people do it, journalists do it and so on. No-one is proposing that this practice be halted.
For someone who says he is not interested in making partisan points about the NHS you do seem remarkably keen to make partisan points about the NHS.
If that is the case - and we have yet to see the truth of the matter - then Gove is wrong to claim they are teaching. It will be interesting to see if this is the case. If Gove has misrepresented the situation then I'll give him both barrels.
Re. the NHS: if you read the idiotic comments of some of your fellow travellers ('possibly one death', 'loudmouth') on the NHS then you can probably see why it is time to start making partisan comments. I'm sick and tired of being told that the NHS is some miracle organisation when there are obviously things going wrong in some parts. Whilst it is wrong to say that reflects on the entire organisation, it is worse to say that these should be swept under the carpet just in case it makes the organisation look bad.
Or are you saying that what's come out over the last few months shows that the NHS was as good as Labour were claiming before the election?
In particular, what do you think of the pay-offs to whistleblowers, and how do you think such measures effect patient care?
But feel free not to answer the question I asked if you do not have suitable answers.
From my own point of view: I'm blooming furious about it. I'll be equally furious when (and I mean 'when') similar things happen under this government. But I won't be sticking my fingers in my ears and saying 'la-la-la' whilst people die.
Re: getting carded in bars, had that experience myself a couple of years ago . . . a few days after my 55th birthday!
When the request/demand was made (by a 20-something bouncer) my reaction was, "really???" To his credit, the kid blushed and said, it's the rule. Thankfully he didn't add "gramps"!
Many moons ago, was on vacation with my daddy dearest. Back in those historic times, the legal drinking age varried from state to state (it's been 21 for many years now via federal action; no law BUT any state that has a lower age loses it's share of federal highway funds!)
I (naturally) wished to join him for a beer at a watering hole in state not our residence. So he asked the bartender (an older woman; on this side of Atlantic-Pacific the term "barmaid" is NOT generally used) "what's the legal drinking age in Pennsylvania?"
There may be something a little childish in it, but is does at least demonstrate a willingness to mix it in and take the fight to the other side - I think this is something that the government has conspicuously lacked up to now.
There may be something a little childish in it, but is does at least demonstrate a willingness to mix it in and take the fight to the other side - I think this is something that the government has conspicuously lacked up to now.
Is Twigg a Tory mole? He is doing more to help Gove than Ed...
"renegoiated", "recomended" - not up to our usual high standard of header, methinks.
On-topic, it's amazing how much a Prime Minister saying "it's in Britain's best interest" changes everything. This blind faith that because a Prime Minister says something is so, it is so. Even if the Four Horsemen were galloping down the straight mile at Ascot tomorrow, as long as Cameron says "the forthcoming extermination of all life is clearly in Britain's best interests" and we'd all be rooting for Armageddon.
It's too hot and my hayfever is bad tonight - I loathe summer (at least until mid-July when it be as summery as it likes).
@Tim Government isn;t just polling. It's also governing. Nonetheless, I suspect that by the election the Tories will have a lead in polls on Education policy. Labour's policy appears to be broadly "Carry on the government's current policy, but call it something different and make it more bureacratic." The Toby Young schools are here to stay. Labour will not close them.
"I see the Supreme Court has finally lost the plot altogether today by ruling that soldiers getting involved in warfare is a bit iffy."
There may be about 60,000 other offences to take into account then from July 1st 1916
If these legal actions are successful will we be seeing "legal observers" and money-grubbing lawyers following our troops around? We may have difficulty fighting any war - perhaps we should abolish the armed forces, save about £40 billion pa and ask the Germans to pick up the slack. All respect to our fighting forces.
There may be something a little childish in it, but is does at least demonstrate a willingness to mix it in and take the fight to the other side - I think this is something that the government has conspicuously lacked up to now.
Gove certainly believes in taking the battle to the enemy, and does it far better than most of his rivals. I think he will be an excellent LOTO.
you think a cricket coach who goes into a school once a week in summer term needs a teaching qualification? No, nobody does.
You think a PE teacher employed by the school needs a teaching qualification? Yes, doesn't everybody?
Is the difference so difficult to understand?
Are you saying Tristram Hunt has been teaching cricket? Perhaps Gove should, because he certainly knocked Twigg for six earlier.
On your substantive point: what period of time is Labour saying it is acceptable for people to teach unsupervised without qualifications, and what period is it not? A week? Two weeks? A month? Whatever Labour MPs have been doing + 1 day?
There may be something a little childish in it, but is does at least demonstrate a willingness to mix it in and take the fight to the other side - I think this is something that the government has conspicuously lacked up to now.
Gove certainly believes in taking the battle to the enemy, and does it far better than most of his rivals. I think he will be an excellent LOTO.
Doubt your wish will come true - he will be in the Lords by 2020.
@Foxinsoxuk On Gove "I think he will be an excellent LOTO" I don't agree. He's good at what he's doing. He wouldn't be a good LOTO. Too EdMillibandish.
@Foxinsoxuk On Gove "I think he will be an excellent LOTO" I don't agree. He's good at what he's doing. He wouldn't be a good LOTO. Too EdMillibandish.
I think that Dave Cameron will last to the next election, and that Gove will be the Tory leader after that, hence LOTO.
I am not convinced that he would be a good prime minister, but it may well be that Conservative members decide to back him rather than the dull but competent Hammond, or the "nasty party" May.
Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?
This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?
Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.
It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.
He'd get an F in any school for that reply.
It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.
If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.
Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.
Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.
So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?
And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?
Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.
I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.
Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?
So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.
Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.
Rubbish.
I am saying it is fine for interesting people to give talks to students or to teach specific (ie, one-off or specifically defined) classes in areas related to their primary expertise, though I would expect qualified teachers to be there too in case pupils got unruly, there was some kind of disruption or other incident which the unqulaified guest is not trained to deal with. I am saying it is not fine for unqualified individuals to be paid to teach regular curriculum-based classes. And I am saying it is downright dangerous for non-qualified individuals to teach at primary level. If you do not understand the difference or if you disagree, then there is not much I can do about that.
I agree with you: it is perfectly fine for people with expertise to go into schools and give occasional talks, with a teacher present to give context. That is not 'teaching'.
What has Tristiam Hunt been doing? If the above, that is fine. If he has been unsupervised, then it is not, and Gove is in the wrong to suggest otherwise.
But if you are talking about downright dangerous, what are your views on the latest wonderful (ahem) news from the NHS under Labour?
Labour has shown that they were right: the NHS was safe in their hands. Sadly, the patients were not. Labour prefer the NHS as an organisation to the patients.
Yes, that is exactly what Tristram Hunt, David Miliabnd and, no doubt, many other MPs from all parties have done. Just as scientsist do it, sports people do it, journalists do it and so on. No-one is proposing that this practice be halted.
For someone who says he is not interested in making partisan points about the NHS you do seem remarkably keen to make partisan points about the NHS.
If that is the case - and we have yet to see the truth of the matter - then Gove is wrong to claim they are teaching. It will be interesting to see if this is the case. If Gove has misrepresented the situation then I'll give him both barrels.
Re. the NHS: if you read the idiotic comments of some of your fellow travellers ('possibly one death', 'loudmouth') on the NHS then you can probably see why it is time to start making partisan comments. I'm sick and tired of being told that the NHS is some miracle organisation when there are obviously things going wrong in some parts. Whilst it is wrong to say that reflects on the entire organisation, it is worse to say that these should be swept under the carpet just in case it makes the organisation look bad.
Or are you saying that what's come out over the last few months shows that the NHS was as good as Labour were claiming before the election?
In particular, what do you think of the pay-offs to whistleblowers, and how do you think such measures effect patient care?
But feel free not to answer the question I asked if you do not have suitable answers.
From my own point of view: I'm blooming furious about it. I'll be equally furious when (and I mean 'when') similar things happen under this government. But I won't be sticking my fingers in my ears and saying 'la-la-la' whilst people die.
I doubt there are many on here whose preferred GE outcome is a Lab/LD coalition. I think you'll also struggle to find any quotes from me saying the NHS is beyond reproach. We know from blood contamination through Shipman to Stafford that is not the case.
Doesn't answer a single question - who does he think he is - the Prime Minister?
This reply shows Twigg to be a right idiot. Gove has had some fun asking some proper questions about Labour's newly-announced education policies. True, he's having fun, but the questions are relevant. For instance: if such 'unqualified' teachers are a problem, then will Twigg be admonishing his colleague for doing such teaching? Or is it okay for Labour MPs, but not anyone else?
Twigg's reply does not even attempt to answer any of the questions, and just name-calls.
It's particularly funny the way he claims that there is a looming teacher shortage, without realising that his policies will remove teachers from schools and hence worsen that shortage.
He'd get an F in any school for that reply.
It also shows Labour haven't exactly thought these policies through.
If the Education Secretary is unable to tell the difference between an MP going in to a school to teach a class and a full-time teacher employed by that school on a salary, then I fear he may be in the wrong job.
Ah, so we are getting some flesh on the bones of Labour's policy thanks to SO.
Part-time teachers (especially if an MP) are fine. Full-time not.
So what are the definitions of full-time and part-time? Would a class being taught by two part-time teachers working 50% of the time with no full-time interaction be fine, yet one unqualified teacher teaching full-time be wrong?
And why 'especially an MP?' I can understand why an MP might go into to give talks to a school, but have yet to see a reason why an electoral mandate suddenly gives them teaching qualifications?
Especially when the majority do not know basic maths.
I would have thought that the payment of a salary is the key Josias. I happen to agree with Labour that someone paid by the state to teach kids should have an approved qualification, because I believe that teaching is a profession in the same way as being a doctor, a lawyer or an architect is a profession. I especially believe that to be the case at primary level. However, I also think it is very valuable for kids to be given classes or talks by people such as MPs, scientists, historians, journalists and the like as it helps to broaden their horizons beyond the exam curriculum. It's something that I know that I benefited from when I was at school and, to my knowledge, it is not something that any of our political parties opposes.
Rubbish. So you are saying that is fine for people can go in and teach children unsupervised if they are not paid, but it is not okay if they are paid?
So we could have full-time unpaid 'teachers' teaching our children, but if they are paid it becomes wrong? That is absolutely ludicrous.
Twigg and Labour have really f'ed this up.
Rubbish.
I am saying it is fine for interesting people to give talks to students or to teach specific (ie, one-off or specifically defined) classes in areas related to their primary expertise, though I would expect qualified teachers to be there too in case pupils got unruly, there was some kind of disruption or other incident which the unqulaified guest is not trained to deal with. I am saying it is not fine for unqualified individuals to be paid to teach regular curriculum-based classes. And I am saying it is downright dangerous for non-qualified individuals to teach at primary level. If you do not understand the difference or if you disagree, then there is not much I can do about that.
I agree with you: it is perfectly fine for people with expertise to go into schools and give occasional talks, with a teacher present to give context. That is not 'teaching'.
What has Tristiam Hunt been doing? If the above, that is fine. If he has been unsupervised, then it is not, and Gove is in the wrong to suggest otherwise.
But if you are talking about downright dangerous, what are your views on the latest wonderful (ahem) news from the NHS under Labour?
Labour has shown that they were right: the NHS was safe in their hands. Sadly, the patients were not. Labour prefer the NHS as an organisation to the patients.
Yes, that is exactly what Tristram Hunt, David Miliabnd and, no doubt, many other MPs from all parties have done. Just as scientsist do it, sports people do it, journalists do it and so on. No-one is proposing that this practice be halted.
For someone who says he is not interested in making partisan points about the NHS you do seem remarkably keen to make partisan points about the NHS.
If that is the case - and we have yet to see the truth of the matter - then Gove is wrong to claim they are teaching. It will be interesting to see if this is the case. If Gove has misrepresented the situation then I'll give him both barrels.
Re. the NHS: if you read the idiotic comments of some of your fellow travellers ('possibly one death', 'loudmouth') on the NHS then you can probably see why it is time to start making partisan comments. I'm sick and tired of being told that the NHS is some miracle organisation when there are obviously things going wrong in some parts. Whilst it is wrong to say that reflects on the entire organisation, it is worse to say that these should be swept under the carpet just in case it makes the organisation look bad.
Or are you saying that what's come out over the last few months shows that the NHS was as good as Labour were claiming before the election?
In particular, what do you think of the pay-offs to whistleblowers, and how do you think such measures effect patient care?
But feel free not to answer the question I asked if you do not have suitable answers.
From my own point of view: I'm blooming furious about it. I'll be equally furious when (and I mean 'when') similar things happen under this government. But I won't be sticking my fingers in my ears and saying 'la-la-la' whilst people die.
I doubt there are many on here whose preferred GE outcome is a Lab/LD coalition. I think you'll also struggle to find any quotes from me saying the NHS is beyond reproach. We know from blood contamination through Shipman to Stafford that is not the case.
So what do you think of the string of recent revelations, from Stafford to Furness and the CQC mess? Is it right for the NHS to buy off whistleblowers?
Comments
“Dear Nicolas, very briefly and respectfully,
1) I am by your side to serve you and serve your plans for France.
2) I tried my best and might have failed occasionally. I implore your forgiveness.
3) I have no personal political ambitions and I have no desire to become a servile status seeker, like many of the people around you whose loyalty is recent and short-lived.
4) Use me for as long as it suits you and suits your plans and casting call.
5) If you decide to use me, I need you as a guide and a supporter: without a guide, I may be ineffective and without your support I may lack credibility. With my great admiration, Christine L.”
•Ted Cruz 25%
•Rand Paul 13%
•Marco Rubio 11%
•Rick Perry 10%
•Chris Christie 8%
•Paul Ryan 8%
•Rick Santorum 2%
•Bobby Jindal 2%
For someone who says he is not interested in making partisan points about the NHS you do seem remarkably keen to make partisan points about the NHS.
Very interesting read. Mostly because they reveal the author to be an incredible lickspittal. Or if you prefer, a puff-ball of unbelievable arrogance.
Perhaps the best assessment: prick.
In one entry he brags about telling a whinging constituent (I paraphrase) "You blame everyone but yourself". Oblivious to fact that this is perfect description of himself as revealed by his writings.
Before I read this book, assumed that CMMP was a reasonably decent fellow, based on his efforts to redress injustice back in the day. BUT those days are well behind him.
His last subministerial assignment was obviously motivated by Tony Blair's desire to curry favor with Labour Luvvies by putting someone who voted against Iraq War (just once, and in full knowledge this was purely symbolic, or rather self-aggrandizing (sp). Other motivation was clearly an inside joke; they sent CM to every African shithole they could think of, where he could pretend to be a great humanitarian.
My favorite part of the book was last entry, just after 2005 election, when the People's Tony told Mullin to take a hike. Yes!
Polling shows newbie Gomez running about seven points behind Representative Markey. Which given the likelihood of low turnout and difficulty of determining who actually will vote, means that Gomez definitely has a shot. Though personally think Markey will end up victorious.
Funniest line of the debate, was contention of Gomez (a former SEAL) as quoted by Politico.com that “In the military, you either lead or you get out of the way,” he said. “You can’t sit up here and say it is somebody else’s fault.”
Yeah right! No such thing as covering-your-you-know-what in the military!!!
[dives for (extra) cover!]
The linchpin of this unholy alliance is state Sen. Rodney Tom (R > D > mulitiple choice) who represents district that used to be solidly GOP (which is why he started out as a Republican) but is now swing Democratic (why he switched parties).
Interestingly enough, little birdie told me the other day that, if election were held now, he would be handily defeated by a freshman Democratic state rep from exact same district. This potential candidate is the first Iranian American to serve in WA state legislature. He's blind (in more ways than one) but his real advantage is that a) he's an actual Democrat; and b) he can raise money by the boatload from the Iranian community all across the US, most notably in Southern California.
Thus Tom (who is very well-off but not THAT well-off) is reported considering running for US Congresss next year, in 1st district seat currently held by freshman Democrat Suzan delBene. Sadly for Tom, she's (or rather her hubby) is VERY rich. She spent a bundle to win the primary & general election last year. And will double that to hold on to it.
Tom is a jerk, that's bipartisasn assesement in Olympia (state capital). This fact is less-well known in his district, mainly because normal folks don't really pay much attention to state legislators. BUT his triple-cross has clearly opened a lot of eyes.
Winston Churchill once famously said, that anyone can rat . . . but it takes REAL politico to re-rat! And Rodney ain't Winny!
Note that Scott Brown a) had served in state legislature (a qualification for higher office for many if not most voters) and b) emphazied soft-sell based on his pleasing personality.
Wherea Gomez comes across as a oppotunist smashmouth. Plus man of minstery who refuses to reveal his list of clients. His reply when Markey brought this up: Markey's ignorant because they're INVESTORS not clients! Hardly the most persuasive of counter-arguments!
My guess is that Mrs Clinton will survive this!
"I see the Supreme Court has finally lost the plot altogether today by ruling that soldiers getting involved in warfare is a bit iffy."
There may be about 60,000 other offences to take into account then from July 1st 1916
Re. the NHS: if you read the idiotic comments of some of your fellow travellers ('possibly one death', 'loudmouth') on the NHS then you can probably see why it is time to start making partisan comments. I'm sick and tired of being told that the NHS is some miracle organisation when there are obviously things going wrong in some parts. Whilst it is wrong to say that reflects on the entire organisation, it is worse to say that these should be swept under the carpet just in case it makes the organisation look bad.
Or are you saying that what's come out over the last few months shows that the NHS was as good as Labour were claiming before the election?
In particular, what do you think of the pay-offs to whistleblowers, and how do you think such measures effect patient care?
But feel free not to answer the question I asked if you do not have suitable answers.
From my own point of view: I'm blooming furious about it. I'll be equally furious when (and I mean 'when') similar things happen under this government. But I won't be sticking my fingers in my ears and saying 'la-la-la' whilst people die.
When the request/demand was made (by a 20-something bouncer) my reaction was, "really???" To his credit, the kid blushed and said, it's the rule. Thankfully he didn't add "gramps"!
Many moons ago, was on vacation with my daddy dearest. Back in those historic times, the legal drinking age varried from state to state (it's been 21 for many years now via federal action; no law BUT any state that has a lower age loses it's share of federal highway funds!)
I (naturally) wished to join him for a beer at a watering hole in state not our residence. So he asked the bartender (an older woman; on this side of Atlantic-Pacific the term "barmaid" is NOT generally used) "what's the legal drinking age in Pennsylvania?"
Her reply "I think your old enough, hon"!
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/michael-gove-kindly-warns-stephen-twigg-people-think-youre-weak/
There may be something a little childish in it, but is does at least demonstrate a willingness to mix it in and take the fight to the other side - I think this is something that the government has conspicuously lacked up to now.
"renegoiated", "recomended" - not up to our usual high standard of header, methinks.
On-topic, it's amazing how much a Prime Minister saying "it's in Britain's best interest" changes everything. This blind faith that because a Prime Minister says something is so, it is so. Even if the Four Horsemen were galloping down the straight mile at Ascot tomorrow, as long as Cameron says "the forthcoming extermination of all life is clearly in Britain's best interests" and we'd all be rooting for Armageddon.
It's too hot and my hayfever is bad tonight - I loathe summer (at least until mid-July when it be as summery as it likes).
Government isn;t just polling. It's also governing.
Nonetheless, I suspect that by the election the Tories will have a lead in polls on Education policy. Labour's policy appears to be broadly "Carry on the government's current policy, but call it something different and make it more bureacratic."
The Toby Young schools are here to stay. Labour will not close them.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/matthew-dancona-tory-idealism-will-no-longer-influence-our-pragmatic-pm-8664878.html
It seems a bit OTT to me.
That's a good idea. Lawyers should be drafted into the front lines of all the world's most lethal flash points.
On your substantive point: what period of time is Labour saying it is acceptable for people to teach unsupervised without qualifications, and what period is it not? A week? Two weeks? A month? Whatever Labour MPs have been doing + 1 day?
Mansion House speech about to start.
James Chapman (Mail) @jameschappers 8m
Osborne declares 'Britain has left intensive care'; confirms share sale in Lloyds likely within months, review of RBS break-up
On Gove
"I think he will be an excellent LOTO"
I don't agree. He's good at what he's doing. He wouldn't be a good LOTO. Too EdMillibandish.
I am not convinced that he would be a good prime minister, but it may well be that Conservative members decide to back him rather than the dull but competent Hammond, or the "nasty party" May.
I have a few quid on him as next Tory leader.
BUBBLE !
If there are any non-US candidates for Fed Chair, surely Gordon Brown is one. We need someone who grasps how serious things are becoming.
Hopeless.