Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
Full disclosure - I was fortunate enough to spend 10 years at one of the best public schools in the north of England.
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I agree with you on the Right, though you appear to think not many in politics want to deal with inequality.
Do you? I mean really deal with it?
Where was Labour's outrage at the cut of Inheritance Tax supporting vested interests in the same budget that cut WTC for the working poor? Why did so many Conservatives think it was acceptable to use taxpayers money to bribe wealthy pensioners with artificially high rates of return on their investments shortly before the election?
Why is tax relief of £35bn a year on the pensions of the wealthy justified when benefits need to be cut? The Coalition cut these entitlements substantially so why did Gordon Brown leave them alone if he was so focussed on child poverty?
How can it be that the school my wife went to, where far more of her class went to prison than University is still a failing school condemning its pupils to a life of poverty 40 odd years after she left, the only one in her entire year to graduate?
What I see on both sides of the spectrum is a protection of vested interests, whether inherited wealth or the producer interests of the public sector unions. I see lots of fine words and damn few actions. If actions do indeed speak louder than words the evidence indicates that inequality is simply not a priority for our political establishment.
As far as I'm aware it was Labour who changed how poverty was defined, so the figures shouldn't be relative poverty.
I'm not an expert on this - you'd have to quote which particular figures you're using to show whether you're looking at a relative or absolute stat - but the use of "relative poverty" figures is not new.
This IFS paper from 1999 uses "income below half the mean" (which if you remember your high school statistics, will clearly be more affected by changes in inequality than one based on the median) with various adjustments, for instance. It does show a steep rise in the 1980s, which the authors largely attribute to the rise in unemployment.
1999 is when Labour were in power though, which would tie in with what I was saying about Labour changing how poverty is defined.
I'm using IFS numbers incidentally:
The number of children in poverty almost doubled under Thatcher, from 1.7 million in 1979 to 3.3 million in 1990. Pensioner poverty in the same period increased too, from 3.1 million to 4.1 million. Those numbers rise still further if housing costs are factored in.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
@TimT- I think you are right, Gove is an exception. But he is blinkered and blinded by his own intelligence and outlook and is possibly borderline high level Aspergers which makes him quite flawed (like Gordon Brown).
I actually am quite intrigued by Jeremy Hunt. He has remarkable qualities- and unlike Cameron and Osborne may (and its a big may) have something of substance about him.
As to why we should desire a reduction in inequality, that's actually a hard question. What makes inequality so distasteful? Why aren't we more concerned about absolute poverty? And if we care about inequality for fiercely moral reasons, then why aren't we devoting, say, 20% of the national income towards the improvement of conditions in the poorest parts of Africa and South Asia, where a pound would go far further than it does here? After all, a lass growing up in a council estate in Burnley is in one of the richest percentiles in the world, particularly if you throw in the market value of free primary/secondary/further education plus free healthcare for life plus the NPV of future benefits including pension. Why shouldn't we splash some of it out on orphans in Africa instead? If we hate inequality because we are lovely caring righteous people, then the state of the world outside our shores should be a crushing moral burden.
There is a "fairness" argument - that in many cases the rich don't "deserve" their wealth, particularly inherited. Even professionals who worked hard for their money may have had an "unfair" headstart in life - parents who gave them a good upbringing, taught them the value of hard work and education etc. I don't think is a particularly strong argument, but it's probably the single biggest reason I'm uncomfortable with inequality. But how far do you go to level things out: should we ensure that highly-qualified people who work hard are only allowed to earn slightly more than people with basic skills? There's an argument for this. Roy Hattersley condemned the idea of meritocracy: that the talented should work hard and "get on" relative to others, yet Blair embraced the idea.
There are more sophisticated arguments. I didn't like the "veil of ignorance", myself. Rawls came up with a clever thought experiment. But I don't find the "original position" particularly convincing. And the argument itself is very abstract and to that end unhelpfully unrealistic: I find it as hard to buy as any "social contract" argument. (Who are these abstract non-people, and why should these figments of the imagination be signing a contract on my behalf?) There are epidemiological arguments: see "The Spirit Level", but it's difficult to tease correlation and causation apart with such studies, and harder still to derive a clear ethical argument from a regression line. Especially when the regression line looks rather different depending on what data you choose to sample.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
@TimT- I think you are right, Gove is an exception. But he is blinkered and blinded by his own intelligence and outlook and is possibly borderline high level Aspergers which makes him quite flawed (like Gordon Brown).
I actually am quite intrigued by Jeremy Hunt. He has remarkable qualities- and unlike Cameron and Osborne may (and its a big may) have something of substance about him.
Think you have been caught up with the snipping there. That was me about Gove. I do agree that his exceptional intelligence gives him a somewhat different outlook but he at least tries to address the problem. He'd make a great Chancellor if Osborne did move up.
I also agree about Hunt. He seems to have an unusual combination of intelligence, compassion and normality. He is my bet for the next leader if Osborne decides he doesn't want it and, just maybe, even if he does.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I agree with you on the Right, though you appear to think not many in politics want to deal with inequality.
Do you? I mean really deal with it?
Where was Labour's outrage at the cut of Inheritance Tax supporting vested interests in the same budget that cut WTC for the working poor? Why did so many Conservatives think it was acceptable to use taxpayers money to bribe wealthy pensioners with artificially high rates of return on their investments shortly before the election?
Why is tax relief of £35bn a year on the pensions of the wealthy justified when benefits need to be cut? The Coalition cut these entitlements substantially so why did Gordon Brown leave them alone if he was so focussed on child poverty?
How can it be that the school my wife went to, where far more of her class went to prison than University is still a failing school condemning its pupils to a life of poverty 40 odd years after she left, the only one in her entire year to graduate?
What I see on both sides of the spectrum is a protection of vested interests, whether inherited wealth or the producer interests of the public sector unions. I see lots of fine words and damn few actions. If actions do indeed speak louder than words the evidence indicates that inequality is simply not a priority for our political establishment.
There were many in the Labour party who opposed the tax credit changes - enough to vote against the entire welfare bill (48 of them). The Conservatives' stance on pensioners, alike Brown's is purely about getting into power. Osborne, and Brown before him are far more interested in consolidating power, than finding solutions to poverty.
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
HYUFD -- '' It is not a done deal, but Osborne and Hammond start at the front of the pack''
Unless you are talking about Richard Hammond (45), Hammond is 59, ie 64 at next election. Clearly this gives him a big edge on Corbyn, but other than that the Tory Party may be looking for somebody a bit younger. However if Hammond thinks he should stand to ensure a proper spectrum of views are considered then he will not be scaring the animals...
A couple of days ago someone here on pb.com suggested that if Osborne became PM then Cameron might become CoE. I think Cameron would be better suited to the FCO, he has the smoothness required for diplomacy. For CoE I might choose Hammond who was known as "Mtr Spreadsheet" at the MOD.
it was me i think. Only half serious but he may indeed decide to stay in Parliament. probably not. FCO seems OK.
Hattersley's argument against meritocracy is interesting enough to merit a brief quote, I think: Meritocracy removes the barriers to progress which block the path of the clever and industrious. But the notion of social mobility on which it is based is, to most of the children of the inner cities, a cruel joke. A Labour government should not be talking about escape routes from poverty and deprivation. By their nature they are only available to a highly-motivated minority. The Labour Party was created to change society in such a way that there is no poverty and deprivation from which to escape. Meritocracy only offers shifting patterns of inequality.
Even if we start from a beginning in which everyone has an "equal" childhood (presumably we shall raise them all communally in the council kibbutz), there will presumably be kids with more ambition or dedication or talent than others, who will end up being disproportionately likely to grab the top jobs. What are we to do about this "highly motivated minority", as Hattersley puts it? Congratulate them? Use their example as a spur to others? Or grab on to their coat-tails to stop them racing off ahead of the rest of the pack?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
An OECD report came out recently that showed that rich children actually did better in state schools than they did in private schools in the UK.
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
Bring back grammar schools and give bright working class kids a chance, should be the first thing on the Labour manifesto, but like the Lib Dems they prefer a race to the bottom
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I agree with you on the Right, though you appear to think not many in politics want to deal with inequality.
Do you? I mean really deal with it?
Where was Labour's outrage at the cut of Inheritance Tax supporting vested interests in the same budget that cut WTC for the working poor? Why did so many Conservatives think it was acceptable to use taxpayers money to bribe wealthy pensioners with artificially high rates of return on their investments shortly before the election?
Why is tax relief of £35bn a year on the pensions of the wealthy justified when benefits need to be cut? The Coalition cut these entitlements substantially so why did Gordon Brown leave them alone if he was so focussed on child poverty?
How can it be that the school my wife went to, where far more of her class went to prison than University is still a failing school condemning its pupils to a life of poverty 40 odd years after she left, the only one in her entire year to graduate?
What I see on both sides of the spectrum is a protection of vested interests, whether inherited wealth or the producer interests of the public sector unions. I see lots of fine words and damn few actions. If actions do indeed speak louder than words the evidence indicates that inequality is simply not a priority for our political establishment.
There were many in the Labour party who opposed the tax credit changes - enough to vote against the entire welfare bill (48 of them). The Conservatives' stance on pensioners, alike Brown's is purely about getting into power. Osborne, and Brown before him are far more interested in consolidating power, than finding solutions to poverty.
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
An OECD report came out recently that showed that rich children actually did better in state schools than they did in private schools in the UK.
Most private schools do offer scholarships and bursaries and Scandinavia has recently pioneered free schools
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
Bring back grammar schools and give bright working class kids a chance, should be the first thing on the Labour manifesto, but like the Lib Dems they prefer a race to the bottom
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
@TimT- I think you are right, Gove is an exception. But he is blinkered and blinded by his own intelligence and outlook and is possibly borderline high level Aspergers which makes him quite flawed (like Gordon Brown).
I actually am quite intrigued by Jeremy Hunt. He has remarkable qualities- and unlike Cameron and Osborne may (and its a big may) have something of substance about him.
Think you have been caught up with the snipping there. That was me about Gove. I do agree that his exceptional intelligence gives him a somewhat different outlook but he at least tries to address the problem. He'd make a great Chancellor if Osborne did move up.
I also agree about Hunt. He seems to have an unusual combination of intelligence, compassion and normality. He is my bet for the next leader if Osborne decides he doesn't want it and, just maybe, even if he does.
What are we to do about this "highly motivated minority", as Hattersley puts it? Congratulate them? Use their example as a spur to others? Or grab on to their coat-tails to stop them racing off ahead of the rest of the pack?
As Kolakowski* among others observed, equality of outcome can only be achieved by such a system of tyranny that it is self-defeating, since those enforcing the system are placed above those against whom it is enforced.
Hattersley's argument against meritocracy is interesting enough to merit a brief quote, I think: Meritocracy removes the barriers to progress which block the path of the clever and industrious. But the notion of social mobility on which it is based is, to most of the children of the inner cities, a cruel joke. A Labour government should not be talking about escape routes from poverty and deprivation. By their nature they are only available to a highly-motivated minority. The Labour Party was created to change society in such a way that there is no poverty and deprivation from which to escape. Meritocracy only offers shifting patterns of inequality.
Even if we start from a beginning in which everyone has an "equal" childhood (presumably we shall raise them all communally in the council kibbutz), there will presumably be kids with more ambition or dedication or talent than others, who will end up being disproportionately likely to grab the top jobs. What are we to do about this "highly motivated minority", as Hattersley puts it? Congratulate them? Use their example as a spur to others? Or grab on to their coat-tails to stop them racing off ahead of the rest of the pack?
I don't think there's a problem that the highly motivated and talented do better than others. I do think there's a problem when they do so much better that a tiny minority own the vast majority of the wealth.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
@TimT- I think you are right, Gove is an exception. But he is blinkered and blinded by his own intelligence and outlook and is possibly borderline high level Aspergers which makes him quite flawed (like Gordon Brown).
I actually am quite intrigued by Jeremy Hunt. He has remarkable qualities- and unlike Cameron and Osborne may (and its a big may) have something of substance about him.
Think you have been caught up with the snipping there. That was me about Gove. I do agree that his exceptional intelligence gives him a somewhat different outlook but he at least tries to address the problem. He'd make a great Chancellor if Osborne did move up.
I also agree about Hunt. He seems to have an unusual combination of intelligence, compassion and normality. He is my bet for the next leader if Osborne decides he doesn't want it and, just maybe, even if he does.
Actually I like having someone like Gove putting his considerable intellect to addressing social problems. He is a borderline narcissist, but there again so are many others in politics. It attracts them.
As I mentioned before, Hunt has authenticity. Cameron is superficial and Osborne calculating. Authenticity is something that you cannot learn
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
Your understanding of the reality of economics is reminiscent of Corbyn, Miliband et al. Blair understood until he had a brain fart in 2000 followed by an illegal war and an unaffordable splurge on the NHS.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
An OECD report came out recently that showed that rich children actually did better in state schools than they did in private schools in the UK.
Most private schools do offer scholarships and bursaries and Scandinavia has recently pioneered free schools
Caution needed here, as our resident scandiphiles would no doubt alert you - the free schools experiment has been controversial there. There are also fears that the previously highly competitive (in international standings exercises at least - though there are also doubts about how seriously we should take these) education system is no longer delivering results and that the social problems including inequality are on the rise. Scandinavian lefties think that the rise of free schools and fragmentation of the education system may be substantially to blame.
(Fans of Scandinavian arts/literature will no doubt be aware that the likes of Stieg Larsson or Henning Mankell have long thought that something is very rotten in Sweden, and it's not how left-wing everything is. Lefties who think of Scandinavia as some kind of socialist paradise might be surprised at how [neo]liberal the whole economic setup is, with a large layer of transfer payments added on top.)
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
An OECD report came out recently that showed that rich children actually did better in state schools than they did in private schools in the UK.
OK- so why do rich people spend their money on private education if their kids do better in state schools?
I know the answer- because some state schools are better than others and are full of rich kids whose parents have moved house, hell and high water to get them there.
Hattersley's argument against meritocracy is interesting enough to merit a brief quote, I think: Meritocracy removes the barriers to progress which block the path of the clever and industrious. But the notion of social mobility on which it is based is, to most of the children of the inner cities, a cruel joke. A Labour government should not be talking about escape routes from poverty and deprivation. By their nature they are only available to a highly-motivated minority. The Labour Party was created to change society in such a way that there is no poverty and deprivation from which to escape. Meritocracy only offers shifting patterns of inequality.
Even if we start from a beginning in which everyone has an "equal" childhood (presumably we shall raise them all communally in the council kibbutz), there will presumably be kids with more ambition or dedication or talent than others, who will end up being disproportionately likely to grab the top jobs. What are we to do about this "highly motivated minority", as Hattersley puts it? Congratulate them? Use their example as a spur to others? Or grab on to their coat-tails to stop them racing off ahead of the rest of the pack?
That is interesting in that it highlights the dilemma. Ladders out of poverty through grammar schools or otherwise does provide a more efficient economy in that it makes better use of the talent available to it from whatever background. That is a good thing and should make us all better off ultimately but it does nothing to address the question of what is a morally acceptable standard of living for the less talented.
That is a more difficult question. Is it enough that the poor have a relatively good standard of living (as of course they do on any historical or worldwide basis) and is it irrelevant how much the skilled and the lucky make from our society with their talent?
My own view is that we must focus on what works. Rewarding the talented or skilled for their extra efforts is economically sensible and productive of the maximum effort. So equality of outcomes is stupid. Allowing talent from every source to maximise its potential by rewarding it makes sense because that is how we are all enriched. But a society that is profoundly unequal is less cohesive and the demotivating effect on the less able should not be under estimated. We should, in my view aim for as much redistribution as we can manage without damaging the first principle.
Yep...and every Tory Government hammers the poorest in society...without fail
.
I dislike Labour as much as you clearly do...In 1979 the percentage of children living in households with income less than 60 per cent. of median was 14% - when the Tories left office in 1997 it was 33%
That's a distributional effect.
It was, as Thatcher famously argued, her primary purpose to make everyone richer. Not to worry about how one group ranked to another. Poverty is bad; telling why a family with a 15-year-ld should be better off than a stay at home daughter who looks after her 87 year old mum, much less so.
ha...you're in denial
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
Indeed. I don't know why some on the Right aren't bothered by inequality. Under Thatcher children and pensioners in poverty increased, so it certainly doesn't seem that these groups got richer. I also have no idea why anyone would be passionate about wanting the rich to be richer. They are already rich, after all.
It depends on how you define 'inequality'.
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
Truly tribal
I'm surrounded by quite a few wealthy people. And redistribution and helping the poor don't feature high up in their priorities. On the contrary they rather blame poor people for being poor.
Gove was a full-on policy wonk. Unsure to what extent that is a good or bad thing - it probably increases the tendency for micromanagement, policy hyperactivity, pet projects and overreach - but he definitely cared passionately about education, and not just for the better off (in fact that wasn't the centre of his attention at all). He took on The Blob, as any reforming education minister would have to do. I think a popular-with-teachers education minister would be a failure almost by definition - like a charity fundraiser who still had lots of friends. But unpopularity is no guarantee of success, and can signify someone who has lost touch.
Hattersley's argument against meritocracy is interesting enough to merit a brief quote, I think: Meritocracy removes the barriers to progress which block the path of the clever and industrious. But the notion of social mobility on which it is based is, to most of the children of the inner cities, a cruel joke. A Labour government should not be talking about escape routes from poverty and deprivation. By their nature they are only available to a highly-motivated minority. The Labour Party was created to change society in such a way that there is no poverty and deprivation from which to escape. Meritocracy only offers shifting patterns of inequality. ...
That is interesting in that it highlights the dilemma. Ladders out of poverty through grammar schools or otherwise does provide a more efficient economy in that it makes better use of the talent available to it from whatever background. That is a good thing and should make us all better off ultimately but it does nothing to address the question of what is a morally acceptable standard of living for the less talented.
That is a more difficult question. Is it enough that the poor have a relatively good standard of living (as of course they do on any historical or worldwide basis) and is it irrelevant how much the skilled and the lucky make from our society with their talent?
My own view is that we must focus on what works. Rewarding the talented or skilled for their extra efforts is economically sensible and productive of the maximum effort. So equality of outcomes is stupid. Allowing talent from every source to maximise its potential by rewarding it makes sense because that is how we are all enriched. But a society that is profoundly unequal is less cohesive and the demotivating effect on the less able should not be under estimated. We should, in my view aim for as much redistribution as we can manage without damaging the first principle.
Call me a Commie (I tend to vote for them, after all) or a raging neo-liberal free-marketer (since this proposal is popular with them too) but there's a lot to be said for a universal basic income, or Friedmanite negative income tax. That at least would address some of the issues of minimum living standard, and benefit withdrawal rates (effectively equivalent to massive marginal tax rates on the poor).
You're showing your wet side (ex-SD?) - very interesting and considered post.
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
Bring back grammar schools and give bright working class kids a chance, should be the first thing on the Labour manifesto, but like the Lib Dems they prefer a race to the bottom
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
Bring back grammar schools and give bright working class kids a chance, should be the first thing on the Labour manifesto, but like the Lib Dems they prefer a race to the bottom
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
An OECD report came out recently that showed that rich children actually did better in state schools than they did in private schools in the UK.
Most private schools do offer scholarships and bursaries and Scandinavia has recently pioneered free schools
Caution needed here, as our resident scandiphiles would no doubt alert you - the free schools experiment has been controversial there. There are also fears that the previously highly competitive (in international standings exercises at least - though there are also doubts about how seriously we should take these) education system is no longer delivering results and that the social problems including inequality are on the rise. Scandinavian lefties think that the rise of free schools and fragmentation of the education system may be substantially to blame.
(Fans of Scandinavian arts/literature will no doubt be aware that the likes of Stieg Larsson or Henning Mankell have long thought that something is very rotten in Sweden, and it's not how left-wing everything is. Lefties who think of Scandinavia as some kind of socialist paradise might be surprised at how [neo]liberal the whole economic setup is, with a large layer of transfer payments added on top.)
There are arguments either way, but if a free school gets good results let it continue, night
Does it really Tim? It seems to me that the right want the façade of equality of opportunity without recognising or acknowledging that we don't all start from the same place. Far too many on the right who subscribe to that mantra really want to protect the vested interests of their own families which have such a substantial head start in the race that they can never be caught.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
I am equally unconvinced that those of the left really want equality of outcomes. What they really seem to want is power over the lives of others because they genuinely believe that they know best. Again there are honourable exceptions but they are in the minority.
I agree with you on the Right, though you appear to think not many in politics want to deal with inequality.
Do you? I mean really deal with it?
Where was Labour's outrage at the cut of Inheritance Tax supporting vested interests in the same budget that cut WTC for the working poor? Why did so many Conservatives think it was acceptable to use taxpayers money to bribe wealthy pensioners with artificially high rates of return on their investments shortly before the election?
Why is tax relief of £35bn a year on the pensions of the wealthy justified when benefits need to be cut? The Coalition cut these entitlements substantially so why did Gordon Brown leave them alone if he was so focussed on child poverty?
How can it be that the school my wife went to, where far more of her class went to prison than University is still a failing school condemning its pupils to a life of poverty 40 odd years after she left, the only one in her entire year to graduate?
What I see on both sides of the spectrum is a protection of vested interests, whether inherited wealth or the producer interests of the public sector unions. I see lots of fine words and damn few actions. If actions do indeed speak louder than words the evidence indicates that inequality is simply not a priority for our political establishment.
There were many in the Labour party who opposed the tax credit changes - enough to vote against the entire welfare bill (48 of them). The Conservatives' stance on pensioners, alike Brown's is purely about getting into power. Osborne, and Brown before him are far more interested in consolidating power, than finding solutions to poverty.
How do you implement solutions without being in power? Simples
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
Bring back grammar schools and give bright working class kids a chance, should be the first thing on the Labour manifesto, but like the Lib Dems they prefer a race to the bottom
Bring back grammar schools - great idea.
It is in UKIP's manifesto
Formatting seems to be adrift this evening - all I said was Bring back grammar schools - great idea.
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
An OECD report came out recently that showed that rich children actually did better in state schools than they did in private schools in the UK.
Most private schools do offer scholarships and bursaries and Scandinavia has recently pioneered free schools
Caution needed here, as our resident scandiphiles would no doubt alert you - the free schools experiment has been controversial there. There are also fears that the previously highly competitive (in international standings exercises at least - though there are also doubts about how seriously we should take these) education system is no longer delivering results and that the social problems including inequality are on the rise. Scandinavian lefties think that the rise of free schools and fragmentation of the education system may be substantially to blame.
(Fans of Scandinavian arts/literature will no doubt be aware that the likes of Stieg Larsson or Henning Mankell have long thought that something is very rotten in Sweden, and it's not how left-wing everything is. Lefties who think of Scandinavia as some kind of socialist paradise might be surprised at how [neo]liberal the whole economic setup is, with a large layer of transfer payments added on top.)
There are arguments either way, but if a free school gets good results let it continue, night
The problem with applying such a simplistic argument to something as organic as a school system, is that the success of one component in the system in isolation may well be undermining the whole in some ways: it may draw in staff or resources or "well-engaged" parents/students from other schools, or make the system as a whole less cohesive. On the other hand competition is a powerful force for improvement in many aspects of life, and heterogeneity of a system often improves resilience (if all schools follow the same methodologies, for instance, the damage done by a faddish but inefficacious teaching or management strategy will be more widespread than if schools are not so uniform, and the lack of comparators will make the flaw harder to spot and therefore more pernicious).
I'm not saying free schools will never work, but I don't think we can say "if school X gets good results then the whole project has been a success for all". There are second-order consequences which at least merit investigation.
He could have been, but the way he was given special treatment led to an oversized ego which meant he did not listen to his coaches as he knew he could go around them to the owner. That hampered the development of his undoubted talent and potential. Now, I'd say 98% probability of bust.
He could have been, but the way he was given special treatment led to an oversized ego which meant he did not listen to his coaches as he knew he could go around them to the owner. That hampered the development of his undoubted talent and potential. Now, I'd say 98% probability of bust.
He could have been, but the way he was given special treatment led to an oversized ego which meant he did not listen to his coaches as he knew he could go around them to the owner. That hampered the development of his undoubted talent and potential. Now, I'd say 98% probability of bust.
Would it help if he went to another team?
I sincerely doubt it. His confidence is shot, the confidence of his teammates in him is shot, no defence fears him and, in trying to get his game back, he has lost all his fundamentals. Chris Cooley did a devastating analysis of one of RG3s last games last season. Devastating.
Totally O/T - but if there are any legal bods around - anyone able to point me to a definition of "food stuffs regulated by food health and safety legislation"?
This is in regard to a planned "Legal High" prohibition by a local council, but I think that they are in danger of inadvertently banning public coffee consumption borough-wide...
Ouch! "My ultimate evaluation is: he is gun-shy in the pocket. He is so so concerned about anyone putting a hand on him in the pocket…he doesn’t feel what’s going on around him, he doesn’t see what’s going on down the field. He’s not capable of moving and scrambling to make a good throw, he’s inaccurate when he’s on the move, and he’s really inefficient,” Cooley said." The Redskins are in even worse shape than my favourite team - the D****mumble** ******s
Totally O/T - but if there are any legal bods around - anyone able to point me to a definition of "food stuffs regulated by food health and safety legislation"?
This is in regard to a planned "Legal High" prohibition by a local council, but I think that they are in danger of inadvertently banning public coffee consumption borough-wide...
Not a legal bod, but a quick Google revealed this from EU regs, to which the UK law has to comply (REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety):
Article 2 Definition of ‘food’ For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘food’ (or ‘foodstuff’) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. ‘Food’ includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC. ‘Food’ shall not include: (a) feed; (b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption; (c) plants prior to harvesting; (d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Direct- ives 65/65/EEC (1) and 92/73/EEC (2); (e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/ 768/EEC (3); (f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC (4); (g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; (h) residues and contaminants.
Totally O/T - but if there are any legal bods around - anyone able to point me to a definition of "food stuffs regulated by food health and safety legislation"?
This is in regard to a planned "Legal High" prohibition by a local council, but I think that they are in danger of inadvertently banning public coffee consumption borough-wide...
Not a legal bod, but a quick Google revealed this from EU regs, to which the UK law has to comply (REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety):
Article 2 Definition of ‘food’ For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘food’ (or ‘foodstuff’) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. ‘Food’ includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC. ‘Food’ shall not include: (a) feed; (b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption; (c) plants prior to harvesting; (d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Direct- ives 65/65/EEC (1) and 92/73/EEC (2); (e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/ 768/EEC (3); (f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC (4); (g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; (h) residues and contaminants.
Thanks - I was trying to search the Food Agency website... So it seems that coffee would count as 'food' under that definition.
Totally O/T - but if there are any legal bods around - anyone able to point me to a definition of "food stuffs regulated by food health and safety legislation"?
This is in regard to a planned "Legal High" prohibition by a local council, but I think that they are in danger of inadvertently banning public coffee consumption borough-wide...
Not a legal bod, but a quick Google revealed this from EU regs, to which the UK law has to comply (REGULATION (EC) No 178/2002 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety):
Article 2 Definition of ‘food’ For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘food’ (or ‘foodstuff’) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans. ‘Food’ includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC. ‘Food’ shall not include: (a) feed; (b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption; (c) plants prior to harvesting; (d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Direct- ives 65/65/EEC (1) and 92/73/EEC (2); (e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/ 768/EEC (3); (f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC (4); (g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971; (h) residues and contaminants.
Thanks - I was trying to search the Food Agency website... So it seems that coffee would count as 'food' under that definition.
That's my reading - 'intended to be ... ingested by humans' ... 'includes drink'
Comments
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse
The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
Full disclosure - I was fortunate enough to spend 10 years at one of the best public schools in the north of England.
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
Where was Labour's outrage at the cut of Inheritance Tax supporting vested interests in the same budget that cut WTC for the working poor? Why did so many Conservatives think it was acceptable to use taxpayers money to bribe wealthy pensioners with artificially high rates of return on their investments shortly before the election?
Why is tax relief of £35bn a year on the pensions of the wealthy justified when benefits need to be cut? The Coalition cut these entitlements substantially so why did Gordon Brown leave them alone if he was so focussed on child poverty?
How can it be that the school my wife went to, where far more of her class went to prison than University is still a failing school condemning its pupils to a life of poverty 40 odd years after she left, the only one in her entire year to graduate?
What I see on both sides of the spectrum is a protection of vested interests, whether inherited wealth or the producer interests of the public sector unions. I see lots of fine words and damn few actions. If actions do indeed speak louder than words the evidence indicates that inequality is simply not a priority for our political establishment.
I'm using IFS numbers incidentally:
The number of children in poverty almost doubled under Thatcher, from 1.7 million in 1979 to 3.3 million in 1990. Pensioner poverty in the same period increased too, from 3.1 million to 4.1 million. Those numbers rise still further if housing costs are factored in.
There are honourable exceptions, such as Michael Gove, who are clearly focussed on the inequality created by poor schooling or social depravation, but they are a relatively small minority.
@TimT- I think you are right, Gove is an exception. But he is blinkered and blinded by his own intelligence and outlook and is possibly borderline high level Aspergers which makes him quite flawed (like Gordon Brown).
I actually am quite intrigued by Jeremy Hunt. He has remarkable qualities- and unlike Cameron and Osborne may (and its a big may) have something of substance about him.
There is a "fairness" argument - that in many cases the rich don't "deserve" their wealth, particularly inherited. Even professionals who worked hard for their money may have had an "unfair" headstart in life - parents who gave them a good upbringing, taught them the value of hard work and education etc. I don't think is a particularly strong argument, but it's probably the single biggest reason I'm uncomfortable with inequality. But how far do you go to level things out: should we ensure that highly-qualified people who work hard are only allowed to earn slightly more than people with basic skills? There's an argument for this. Roy Hattersley condemned the idea of meritocracy: that the talented should work hard and "get on" relative to others, yet Blair embraced the idea.
There are more sophisticated arguments. I didn't like the "veil of ignorance", myself. Rawls came up with a clever thought experiment. But I don't find the "original position" particularly convincing. And the argument itself is very abstract and to that end unhelpfully unrealistic: I find it as hard to buy as any "social contract" argument. (Who are these abstract non-people, and why should these figments of the imagination be signing a contract on my behalf?) There are epidemiological arguments: see "The Spirit Level", but it's difficult to tease correlation and causation apart with such studies, and harder still to derive a clear ethical argument from a regression line. Especially when the regression line looks rather different depending on what data you choose to sample.
I also agree about Hunt. He seems to have an unusual combination of intelligence, compassion and normality. He is my bet for the next leader if Osborne decides he doesn't want it and, just maybe, even if he does.
Keith Joseph
One of the things which has always intrigued me is that instead of taking what works in public schools and applying it to government schools in an attempt to raise the bar for everyone, they try to hobble the public schools.
Why is that?
@TimB- sadly, only unless you get the pointy elbowed middle and upper classes having to put their kids in the same schools as poor kids will you raise standards.
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
FCO seems OK.
Even if we start from a beginning in which everyone has an "equal" childhood (presumably we shall raise them all communally in the council kibbutz), there will presumably be kids with more ambition or dedication or talent than others, who will end up being disproportionately likely to grab the top jobs. What are we to do about this "highly motivated minority", as Hattersley puts it? Congratulate them? Use their example as a spur to others? Or grab on to their coat-tails to stop them racing off ahead of the rest of the pack?
State schools will always fail whilst the rich and privileged are allowed to cherry pick the best education by paying for it.
Bring back grammar schools and give bright working class kids a chance, should be the first thing on the Labour manifesto, but like the Lib Dems they prefer a race to the bottom
Bring back grammar schools - great idea.
*I will find a reference if desired.
This graph demonstrates quite well:
http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/business/moneybox/2014/09/140926_$BOX_PercentWealthOwned.png.CROP.original-original.png
We're comfortable with inequailty, it's just a matter of how much.
As I mentioned before, Hunt has authenticity. Cameron is superficial and Osborne calculating. Authenticity is something that you cannot learn
(Fans of Scandinavian arts/literature will no doubt be aware that the likes of Stieg Larsson or
Henning Mankell have long thought that something is very rotten in Sweden, and it's not how left-wing everything is. Lefties who think of Scandinavia as some kind of socialist paradise might be surprised at how [neo]liberal the whole economic setup is, with a large layer of transfer payments added on top.)
The right wants equality of opportunity.
The left wants equality of result.
@Tim and Apocalypse
The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
Truly tribal
I know the answer- because some state schools are better than others and are full of rich kids whose parents have moved house, hell and high water to get them there.
That is a more difficult question. Is it enough that the poor have a relatively good standard of living (as of course they do on any historical or worldwide basis) and is it irrelevant how much the skilled and the lucky make from our society with their talent?
My own view is that we must focus on what works. Rewarding the talented or skilled for their extra efforts is economically sensible and productive of the maximum effort. So equality of outcomes is stupid. Allowing talent from every source to maximise its potential by rewarding it makes sense because that is how we are all enriched. But a society that is profoundly unequal is less cohesive and the demotivating effect on the less able should not be under estimated. We should, in my view aim for as much redistribution as we can manage without damaging the first principle.
The right wants equality of opportunity- so how do public schools fit into that equation? If they wanted equality of opportunity they would put all the kids into the same system and look for the best to succeed.
The thing that I have noticed is that people with money are obsessed by money- accumulating it, and protecting it, looking at it, checking portfolios, getting their assets valued- and hating any minimal attempt to lose any. Thus the rich always get richer because they hold all the power.
And once they have money they have to be a complete idiot to lose it. Everything is stacked in their favour. Everything- and if there is a tiny bit of redistribution for a period- the door gets shut in the faces of the poor as the right come back and shift the pendulum full tilt.
Truly tribal
I'm surrounded by quite a few wealthy people. And redistribution and helping the poor don't feature high up in their priorities. On the contrary they rather blame poor people for being poor.
Gove was a full-on policy wonk. Unsure to what extent that is a good or bad thing - it probably increases the tendency for micromanagement, policy hyperactivity, pet projects and overreach - but he definitely cared passionately about education, and not just for the better off (in fact that wasn't the centre of his attention at all). He took on The Blob, as any reforming education minister would have to do. I think a popular-with-teachers education minister would be a failure almost by definition - like a charity fundraiser who still had lots of friends. But unpopularity is no guarantee of success, and can signify someone who has lost touch.
The city said it would not pay for any cost overruns, so the USOC yanked the bid.
Good for Boston. If you're not going to make money, why do it.
You're showing your wet side (ex-SD?) - very interesting and considered post.
It is in UKIP's manifesto
The main reason why I voted for them.
Formatting seems to be adrift this evening - all I said was Bring back grammar schools - great idea.
I'm not saying free schools will never work, but I don't think we can say "if school X gets good results then the whole project has been a success for all". There are second-order consequences which at least merit investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2014/11/19/chris-cooley-rgiii-was-so-bad-i-cant-assess-the-rest-of-the-redskins-offense/
This is in regard to a planned "Legal High" prohibition by a local council, but I think that they are in danger of inadvertently banning public coffee consumption borough-wide...
"My ultimate evaluation is: he is gun-shy in the pocket. He is so so concerned about anyone putting a hand on him in the pocket…he doesn’t feel what’s going on around him, he doesn’t see what’s going on down the field. He’s not capable of moving and scrambling to make a good throw, he’s inaccurate when he’s on the move, and he’s really inefficient,” Cooley said."
The Redskins are in even worse shape than my favourite team - the D****mumble** ******s
Article 2
Definition of ‘food’
For the purposes of this Regulation, ‘food’ (or ‘foodstuff’) means any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans.
‘Food’ includes drink, chewing gum and any substance, including water, intentionally incorporated into the food during its manufacture, preparation or treatment. It includes water after the point of compliance as defined in Article 6 of Directive 98/83/EC and without prejudice to the requirements of Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC.
‘Food’ shall not include:
(a) feed;
(b) live animals unless they are prepared for placing on the market for human consumption;
(c) plants prior to harvesting;
(d) medicinal products within the meaning of Council Direct- ives 65/65/EEC (1) and 92/73/EEC (2);
(e) cosmetics within the meaning of Council Directive 76/ 768/EEC (3);
(f) tobacco and tobacco products within the meaning of Council Directive 89/622/EEC (4);
(g) narcotic or psychotropic substances within the meaning of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971;
(h) residues and contaminants.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:031:0001:0024:EN:PDF