I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
I think he's only stating the obvious though. I mean, can anyone see him actually being kept in a Labour shadow cabinet? Really?
He was promoted in a panic because he was more or less the only economics spokesman who survived the election and Harman didn't want to do a drastic reshuffle in the middle of a leadership fight as the stand in leader (unlike Howard). Since then, he has done very little. Whoever wins would be wise to quietly reshuffle him away again. Shadow Minister of Sport looks about his level.
Chris Leslie is good.
Strawberry cheesecake is good but I wouldn't make it shadow chancellor.
So why did you make it chancellor?
You keep underestimating George. In retrospect, that Omnishambles budget was the best thing that happened to him. On the one hand, it knocked some sense into him and reduced his Brownite game-playing tactics; on the other, it made Labour think he was a useless toff.
Fraid not.
he's still a twat.
He concentrates, like Brown, on giving bigger bits of the cake to his homies instead of making the cake bigger for all.
It's very reminiscent of those who left Parly knowing that Gordon wouldn't be PM after GE2010.
Opposition wasn't appealing. Now we've got the ambitious looking at a distant horizon. If you're not satisfied with bumbling along as an MP/maybe getting on a Select Committee - it's bleak.
All the good stock will go elsewhere and more deadwood will pile up. If Corbyn is elected, I can't see many bright sparks on the other side sticking around.
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
When a speak-the-party-line robot such as Leslie attacks his own party, then we know that things are very very desperate. The prospect of no govt jobs for 10 - 15 years is focusing minds within the party's leading lights. For many they have toiled away aiming for high office only to see the ladder pulled away for ever.
The left vs Blairites thing is overdone, imo. A large part of Corbyn's appeal is that at least he appears to stand for something -- at least he says something, unlike Cooper and Burnham who seem to concentrating on not offending anyone for fear of losing transfer votes.
I agree. Let us not forget there is pretty decent polling support in the country for stuff - like nationalisation - that Labour now seem to run in fear of.....while those of us with longer memories (and experience of State run utilities......) may have less enthusiasm than those who do not.....
The Left might fall even further out of love with the EU when they find out that there is next to no chance of the EU allowing renationalisation of utilities, and very shortly of the railways either, on competition grounds.
Corbyn has made it clear he will be campaigning for In. In particular he wants to use the EU to control transnational financial companies and to enhance workers rights:
Against Frau Merkel (and TTIP), good luck with that one! He's and idiot anyway, they are transnational companies, if you make their life difficult they will be in Hong Kong or Singapore before you can say "economic collapse".
Most people don't understand TTIP and ISDS. Of those that do, many people of all political persuasions oppose it.
The three main parties support it (freer trade). The Green Party and UKIP vigorously oppose it (undermines national democracy in favour of multinationals with their private international court to resolve disputes.) Zac Goldsmith leads Parliament's opposition to it. But not many people know about it.
In Germany, where people do know about it, there is an enormous backlash. This is why the EU has had to delay progress on it.
If Corbyn can articulate the case against it, he can gain support across the political spectrum.
56 percent of SNP voters did indeed say they thought falling oil prices neither good nor bad for Scotland whereas 63 percent of Tory voters, 52 percent of Labour voters and 75 percent of the diminished band of Liberal Democrats were pretty sure falling oil prices were bad for Scotland......
....Lower oil revenues mean Scotland would be poorer as an independent country than it is within the UK (at least in the short to medium term) but, quite evidently, not too poor to be independent.
But since the Yes campaign spent years telling us we’d all be richer after independence and asking us to vote for ‘Scotland’s Future’ on that basis there is a certain amount of chutzpah required to then turn round and tell us, once it has been demonstrated that this would not be the case, that it’s all irrelevant anyway.
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
I think he's only stating the obvious though. I mean, can anyone see him actually being kept in a Labour shadow cabinet? Really?
He was promoted in a panic because he was more or less the only economics spokesman who survived the election and Harman didn't want to do a drastic reshuffle in the middle of a leadership fight as the stand in leader (unlike Howard). Since then, he has done very little. Whoever wins would be wise to quietly reshuffle him Sensible away again. Shadow Minister of Sport looks about his level.
Chris Leslie is good.
Chris Leslie is an embarrassment..
"The shadow chancellor Chris Leslie said Corbyn’s plans to fund infrastructure investment by printing money would “push up inflation, lending rates, squeeze out money for schools and hospitals and mean spending more on debt servicing”."
The Labour Party policy was to balance the books over a cycle on current spending and borrow for investment. Sensible economics. Now Leslie is coming out with all this emotional stuff about squeezing out money for hospitals! He sounds hysterical.
Except that the UK has been printing money for that last few years - QE by bank of england is technical money printing.
The last lump of QE was in July 12. I very much hope that there is no more of it.
Oh I don't know. Corbyn will probably print 1.5 trillion pounds and clear the national debt.. its simple really. at the stroke of a pen its sorted.
It's very reminiscent of those who left Parly knowing that Gordon wouldn't be PM after GE2010.
Opposition wasn't appealing. Now we've got the ambitious looking at a distant horizon. If you're not satisfied with bumbling along as an MP/maybe getting on a Select Committee - it's bleak.
All the good stock will go elsewhere and more deadwood will pile up. If Corbyn is elected, I can't see many bright sparks on the other side sticking around.
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
When a speak-the-party-line robot such as Leslie attacks his own party, then we know that things are very very desperate. The prospect of no govt jobs for 10 - 15 years is focusing minds within the party's leading lights. For many they have toiled away aiming for high office only to see the ladder pulled away for ever.
Is that true? Plenty of talented people stayed with or joined Labour through the 1980s.
The left vs Blairites thing is overdone, imo. A large part of Corbyn's appeal is that at least he appears to stand for something -- at least he says something, unlike Cooper and Burnham who seem to concentrating on not offending anyone for fear of losing transfer votes.
I agree. Let us not forget there is pretty decent polling support in the country for stuff - like nationalisation - that Labour now seem to run in fear of.....while those of us with longer memories (and experience of State run utilities......) may have less enthusiasm than those who do not.....
The Left might fall even further out of love with the EU when they find out that there is next to no chance of the EU allowing renationalisation of utilities, and very shortly of the railways either, on competition grounds.
Corbyn has made it clear he will be campaigning for In. In particular he wants to use the EU to control transnational financial companies and to enhance workers rights:
Against Frau Merkel (and TTIP), good luck with that one! He's and idiot anyway, they are transnational companies, if you make their life difficult they will be in Hong Kong or Singapore before you can say "economic collapse".
Sure, his economic policies are dodgy, but he is no BOOer.
It's very reminiscent of those who left Parly knowing that Gordon wouldn't be PM after GE2010.
Opposition wasn't appealing. Now we've got the ambitious looking at a distant horizon. If you're not satisfied with bumbling along as an MP/maybe getting on a Select Committee - it's bleak.
All the good stock will go elsewhere and more deadwood will pile up. If Corbyn is elected, I can't see many bright sparks on the other side sticking around.
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
When a speak-the-party-line robot such as Leslie attacks his own party, then we know that things are very very desperate. The prospect of no govt jobs for 10 - 15 years is focusing minds within the party's leading lights. For many they have toiled away aiming for high office only to see the ladder pulled away for ever.
Is that true? Plenty of talented people stayed with or joined Labour through the 1980s.
The difference is that the Labour people today can reflect on what happened to the Conservatives from 97-2010 and the example in Labour of 18 years of opposition from 1979. We are also in an era where getting to the top jobs in your 40s is the expectation. Whereas in the 80s it was 10 years or so later.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
"The power held by trade unions over Labour and its policies should be reduced after the party’s leadership race, an influential peer has said. Lord Liddle, a former adviser to Tony Blair, said the party’s union link should be recast because so few union members had signed up to vote in the party’s leadership contest."
Had to look him up and he is married to the Hon. Caroline Thomson – daughter of Lord Thomson of Monifieth, former Labour Member of Parliament for Dundee East. She was chief operating officer of the BBC, until made redundant in 2011.....
"The power held by trade unions over Labour and its policies should be reduced after the party’s leadership race, an influential peer has said. Lord Liddle, a former adviser to Tony Blair, said the party’s union link should be recast because so few union members had signed up to vote in the party’s leadership contest."
Had to look him up and he is married to the Hon. Caroline Thomson – daughter of Lord Thomson of Monifieth, former Labour Member of Parliament for Dundee East. She was chief operating officer of the BBC, until made redundant in 2011.....
It's very reminiscent of those who left Parly knowing that Gordon wouldn't be PM after GE2010.
Opposition wasn't appealing. Now we've got the ambitious looking at a distant horizon. If you're not satisfied with bumbling along as an MP/maybe getting on a Select Committee - it's bleak.
All the good stock will go elsewhere and more deadwood will pile up. If Corbyn is elected, I can't see many bright sparks on the other side sticking around.
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
When a speak-the-party-line robot such as Leslie attacks his own party, then we know that things are very very desperate. The prospect of no govt jobs for 10 - 15 years is focusing minds within the party's leading lights. For many they have toiled away aiming for high office only to see the ladder pulled away for ever.
Is that true? Plenty of talented people stayed with or joined Labour through the 1980s.
Times have changed. Many who come into politics take their stint in government and when it's over go on to pastures new, outside parliament or on the backbevches. Few have the stomach for a lengthy period in opposition. This blighted the Tories post 1997 and is blighting Labour now. Think of all the experienced Labour ex-ministers who have stood down since 2005 - Reid, Blunkett, Johnson, Milburn, Darling, Straw, Beckett, Purnell, Hutton, Miliband Snr .... to name but a few. None is ancient and all have worthwhile experience. If they were still around there would be the makings of a credible alternative government.
We are not going to agree on whether neoliberalism exists or who espouses it, but what is interesting about Mason's book is his analysis of how information technology is going to lead to the abolition of the market – and what he calls the "supersession" of capitalism by a new form of economic organisation.
Oh dear, but at least he's not running in the Labour leadership
He says that the internet is already allowing a "human revolution" in lifestyles – "We are preparing ourselves to be able to live this life that is now possible." I think it sounds like early Marx writings about what the communist life would be like – "Hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner" – and Mason is enthusiastic: "It is exactly early Marx. Exactly that."
Brown, who made such a decisive intervention in the Scottish referendum campaign
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Yes was going to lose as the SNP had spectacularly failed to address simple economic fundamentals such as 'currency' - and their riposte of 'they're lying!' was only believed by those of true faith.
The facts of the matter are that of the three Unionist parties it was Labour that failed to carry their supporters for the Union...so lets not rewrite history....
I went and applauded a speech of his in Dundee. I still feel dirty for doing that.
I share the belief that the Vow saved the Union in the same way that Brown claimed to have saved the world, that is not at all. A truly dreadful man and the idea that he can make anything better for Labour is a real stretch. He is in fact mainly responsible for the state Labour is currently in, if only because Ed did so little to repair the party during his 5 years in charge.
Appealing to Brown is an extreme of desperation that shows what a mess Labour are in.
Hmm. By the same token, was appealing to (& applauding) Brown an extreme act of desperation that showed what a mess Better Together was in?
Better Together won. Nuff said!
I applaud your decision to say no more on the subject.
You could learn something from that.
I daresay we all could. Some more than others, mind.
The Athens Stock Exchange has fallen by 22.87% on Monday as trading resumed after a five-week closure.
The country's top four lenders - Piraeus Bank, National Bank, Alpha Bank, and Eurobank - were all down by 30%. Banks account for about a fifth of the main Athens index.
"The power held by trade unions over Labour and its policies should be reduced after the party’s leadership race, an influential peer has said. Lord Liddle, a former adviser to Tony Blair, said the party’s union link should be recast because so few union members had signed up to vote in the party’s leadership contest."
Had to look him up and he is married to the Hon. Caroline Thomson – daughter of Lord Thomson of Monifieth, former Labour Member of Parliament for Dundee East. She was chief operating officer of the BBC, until made redundant in 2011.....
Another unbiased member of the BBC hierachy.
I did not say that this 68 year old was in touch with reality....
'False consciousness' is a posh, Marxist phrase for 'we think people who disagree with us are stupid'.
There are Labour supporters who believe the voters betrayed them. Don't they even know what's good for them? So Labour may as well be pure as pander to these ignorant people.
And if they get a Tory government - serves them right.
They are the young idealists and the older militants; Jezza suits their mindset. Add in the frustrated activists who see AB and YC spinning platitude after platitude and Jezza will come close. But he will never be LOTO.
The Athens Stock Exchange has fallen by 22.87% on Monday as trading resumed after a five-week closure.
The country's top four lenders - Piraeus Bank, National Bank, Alpha Bank, and Eurobank - were all down by 30%. Banks account for about a fifth of the main Athens index.
I can think of someone on here who uses that form of *argument*.
When I first heard the phrase *false consciousness* I thought it was a joke/a parody of the pop psychology. I really did. Then I discovered where it originated, and seriously wondered who on Earth would think this was a sensible theory. And try to implement it.
Marxism is the most bizarre idealism - ignore human nature and reset the whole thing the way you'd like it to be... and no one will try to become top dog, or subvert it or fiddle the figures... It's clearly stupid idealism - and not my idea of Ideal either.
I don't think it's noble to believe this twaddle, it's dangerous - just look at the poor souls who've been subjected to it.
'False consciousness' is a posh, Marxist phrase for 'we think people who disagree with us are stupid'.
There are Labour supporters who believe the voters betrayed them. Don't they even know what's good for them? So Labour may as well be pure as pander to these ignorant people.
And if they get a Tory government - serves them right.
They are the young idealists and the older militants; Jezza suits their mindset. Add in the frustrated activists who see AB and YC spinning platitude after platitude and Jezza will come close. But he will never be LOTO.
Brown, who made such a decisive intervention in the Scottish referendum campaign
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Yes was going to lose as the SNP had spectacularly failed to address simple economic fundamentals such as 'currency' - and their riposte of 'they're lying!' was only believed by those of true faith.
The facts of the matter are that of the three Unionist parties it was Labour that failed to carry their supporters for the Union...so lets not rewrite history....
I went and applauded a speech of his in Dundee. I still feel dirty for doing that.
I share the belief that the Vow saved the Union in the same way that Brown claimed to have saved the world, that is not at all. A truly dreadful man and the idea that he can make anything better for Labour is a real stretch. He is in fact mainly responsible for the state Labour is currently in, if only because Ed did so little to repair the party during his 5 years in charge.
Appealing to Brown is an extreme of desperation that shows what a mess Labour are in.
Hmm. By the same token, was appealing to (& applauding) Brown an extreme act of desperation that showed what a mess Better Together was in?
Better Together won. Nuff said!
I applaud your decision to say no more on the subject.
You could learn something from that.
I daresay we all could. Some more than others, mind.
Theuniondivvie Posts: 3,794 Joined March 2013
Casino_Royale Posts: 5,266 Joined January 2014
Indeed. And some of us could learn that there is more than one subject of interest to the PB community.
France's controversial far-Right political party Front National has sparked outrage after announcing plans to make artists earn their government subsidies by looking after schoolchildren.
David Rachline, a member of the anti-immigrant, Eurosceptic party Front National, said the community chores proposal would see them looking after primary school children for free in the evenings.
He wants the 15 artists in the Mediterranean port of Fréjus, who benefit from generous subsidies from local authorities for their work spaces, to 'give something back' by taking part in educational activities.
Brown, who made such a decisive intervention in the Scottish referendum campaign
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Yes was going to lose as the SNP had spectacularly failed to address simple economic fundamentals such as 'currency' - and their riposte of 'they're lying!' was only believed by those of true faith.
The facts of the matter are that of the three Unionist parties it was Labour that failed to carry their supporters for the Union...so lets not rewrite history....
I went and applauded a speech of his in Dundee. I still feel dirty for doing that.
I share the belief that the Vow saved the Union in the same way that Brown claimed to have saved the world, that is not at all. A truly dreadful man and the idea that he can make anything better for Labour is a real stretch. He is in fact mainly responsible for the state Labour is currently in, if only because Ed did so little to repair the party during his 5 years in charge.
Appealing to Brown is an extreme of desperation that shows what a mess Labour are in.
Hmm. By the same token, was appealing to (& applauding) Brown an extreme act of desperation that showed what a mess Better Together was in?
Better Together won. Nuff said!
I applaud your decision to say no more on the subject.
You could learn something from that.
I daresay we all could. Some more than others, mind.
Theuniondivvie Posts: 3,794 Joined March 2013
Casino_Royale Posts: 5,266 Joined January 2014
Indeed. And some of us could learn that there is more than one subject of interest to the PB community.
Yeah, the mono whine on the evils of pinko, Marxist leftism can get a bit tedious.
My experience in the USSR and East Germany most certainly did not follow the 'belief' "that no one will try to become top dog". As far as I could see, there was a viscous fight to be top dog and when you got there, you eliminated your rivals and kept all the rest of the population in a servile state controlled by your favoured henchmen.
Is that where GB got his idea from of getting rid of rivals?
I can think of someone on here who uses that form of *argument*.
When I first heard the phrase *false consciousness* I thought it was a joke/a parody of the pop psychology. I really did. Then I discovered where it originated, and seriously wondered who on Earth would think this was a sensible theory. And try to implement it.
Marxism is the most bizarre idealism - ignore human nature and reset the whole thing the way you'd like it to be... and no one will try to become top dog, or subvert it or fiddle the figures... It's clearly stupid idealism - and not my idea of Ideal either.
I don't think it's noble to believe this twaddle, it's dangerous - just look at the poor souls who've been subjected to it.
'False consciousness' is a posh, Marxist phrase for 'we think people who disagree with us are stupid'.
There are Labour supporters who believe the voters betrayed them. Don't they even know what's good for them? So Labour may as well be pure as pander to these ignorant people.
And if they get a Tory government - serves them right.
They are the young idealists and the older militants; Jezza suits their mindset. Add in the frustrated activists who see AB and YC spinning platitude after platitude and Jezza will come close. But he will never be LOTO.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Signpost or weathercock. Thatcher or Cooper.
If Labour are serious? Given what's on the table, I'd go for Cooper now and try and claw back some credibility.
Give up on SNP and the Greens, focus on the Tories in E&W. Stay true to aspirational working class and support self-employed and home ownership. Go for knocking 30 seats off the Tories in GE2020. Let a limp and weak Tory Minority govern for a couple of years, pick a credible PM -like Jarvis - in 2020/2021, and then go for the outright win in 2025. Or before if it collapses.
Not easy, but do-able and probably the only realistic path Labour have open to them IMHO.
Instead your party seems to want to turn to the bottle and slap each other silly whilst wailing about the injustice of it all together in a quiet, dark room somewhere. Your choice, but it's a losing one.
Fascinating watching Labour tear itself apart on Twitter
Blairites "We won 3 elections"
Lefties "Doesn't matter cos you implemented 'Tory' policies..."
Which shows the depths of the left's bizarre Blair/Brown hatred. Minimum wage, devolution for Scotland, SureStart centres, tax credits for working poor, school rebuilding programme, constructive engagement with EU etc etc. These weren't remotely Tory policies in late 90s.
Brown, who made such a decisive intervention in the Scottish referendum campaign
Up to a point, Lord Copper. Yes was going to lose as the SNP had spectacularly failed to address simple economic fundamentals such as 'currency' - and their riposte of 'they're lying!' was only believed by those of true faith.
The facts of the matter are that of the three Unionist parties it was Labour that failed to carry their supporters for the Union...so lets not rewrite history....
I went and applauded a speech of his in Dundee. I still feel dirty for doing that.
I share the belief that the Vow saved the Union in the same way that Brown claimed to have saved the world, that is not at all. A truly dreadful man and the idea that he can make anything better for Labour is a real stretch. He is in fact mainly responsible for the state Labour is currently in, if only because Ed did so little to repair the party during his 5 years in charge.
Appealing to Brown is an extreme of desperation that shows what a mess Labour are in.
Hmm. By the same token, was appealing to (& applauding) Brown an extreme act of desperation that showed what a mess Better Together was in?
Better Together won. Nuff said!
I applaud your decision to say no more on the subject.
You could learn something from that.
I daresay we all could. Some more than others, mind.
Theuniondivvie Posts: 3,794 Joined March 2013
Casino_Royale Posts: 5,266 Joined January 2014
Indeed. And some of us could learn that there is more than one subject of interest to the PB community.
Yeah, the mono whine on the evils of pinko, Marxist leftism can get a bit tedious.
And yet your contributions are always a 'must-read'.
Mr. J2, depends whether the union ends in the short term.
Given the cowardice, stupidity and short-sighted tomfoolery of the political class refusing to have either proper English votes for English laws or the vital English Parliament, I suspect you may end up being proved correct.
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
My experience in the USSR and East Germany most certainly did not follow the 'belief' "that no one will try to become top dog". As far as I could see, there was a viscous fight to be top dog and when you got there, you eliminated your rivals and kept all the rest of the population in a servile state controlled by your favoured henchmen.
Is that where GB got his idea from of getting rid of rivals?
The ideal vs the implmentation of the ideal. Marxism may try and ignore human nature but human nature is present whether Marxism ignores it or not. It always seemed to me that all Marxism did was establish a different kind of royalty. After a couple of generations, being the child of a party member was almost as good as going to Eton or Harrow or being the Crown Prince.
"Test Cricket was invented, and is watched and played, by people with FAR too much time on their hands"
When you add up the amount of time played by both cricketers and footballers during the average season, it probably adds up to the same amount of time in the end since there are a lot more football matches played compared to cricket matches.
I have to say that when I read this thread I was wondering if it was a comedy thread. KGB Jack a hero? Gordon to give advice? Gordon???
It matters little whether they elect Corbyn or not. The comedy show has commenced. All the election will do is decide which comedian gets prime billing for the next few years because none of them are PM material.
Oh - and as for Gordon, based on past performance I would expect him to deeply contemplate the issues and arrive at a decision about 2 months after the new leader is in place.
I saw a clip of Harry Enfield doing Loadsamoney, over the weekend. All gobby and brash and proud.
Lampooning the WWC as Yuppies in shellsuits, with Del Boy in the background - then his parody taken up by the City boys who flashed their wads of £50s, just as Loadsa did.
It really was a strange period to live through. IIRC the Porsche dealer in Newcastle was the most successful in the UK, and my FiL was unemployed for three years at the same time. We were swilling with cash where I lived - it really was the bubble before the crash.
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
As I understand it, Marxism is not a political theory, it is a way of interpreting history that states in the end the workers will inherit the earth. You are a Marxist if you believe in that interpretation. What you then do with that belief can vary - Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Menshivikism and so on. There are so many left-wing groupings precisely because Marxism does not proscribe solutions.
The genius of the British ruling class has always been to adapt, to accept and move on. In the end, it does not matter who is in control, it is what they do with that control that matters. If there is no major impact on entrenched elites then there is no problem.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Rubbish.
Both sides and the different shades within have visions of the world they'd like to live in, the degree to which they appear realist or pragmatic depends on how close to their vision the status quo is, and the pace at which they attempt to bring about that vision. Thatcher was more radical than Brown, Miliband, maybe even Blair.
Edited extra bit: but Thatcher would have been seen as moderate in some US states
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Sweden is an example that is often cited. They have had plenty of left wing governments and are more 'to the left' than most. Eastern Europe has largely followed a pro-market path over the last 25 years.
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
I think he's only stating the obvious though. I mean, can anyone see him actually being kept in a Labour shadow cabinet? Really?
He was promoted in a panic because he was more or less the only economics spokesman who survived the election and Harman didn't want to do a drastic reshuffle in the middle of a leadership fight as the stand in leader (unlike Howard). Since then, he has done very little. Whoever wins would be wise to quietly reshuffle him away again. Shadow Minister of Sport looks about his level.
Chris Leslie is good.
Strawberry cheesecake is good but I wouldn't make it shadow chancellor.
So why did you make it chancellor?
You keep underestimating George. In retrospect, that Omnishambles budget was the best thing that happened to him. On the one hand, it knocked some sense into him and reduced his Brownite game-playing tactics; on the other, it made Labour think he was a useless toff.
I don't underestimate him for a second, quite the opposite. But neither do I think he walks on water, which is roughly the current state of Tory thinking. He is beatable.
Maybe. But who in Labour is going to lead the elephants over the Alps?
Sweden is an example that is often cited. They have had plenty of left wing governments and are more 'to the left' than most. Eastern Europe has largely followed a pro-market path over the last 25 years.
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
And many swedes do what they call "working black" with an undeclared cash economy to escape many taxes. It is all very well holding up the Swedish social model as a success but it has its own failures quietly looming under the carpet.
I have to say that when I read this thread I was wondering if it was a comedy thread. KGB Jack a hero? Gordon to give advice? Gordon???
Entirely legitimate for lefties such as Mr Brind to look up to Brown. I can also have the opinion that Brown did damage to this country albeit excusable because of his misguided understanding of economics and public finance. But KGB Jack is beyond the pale. A traitor to this country.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Rubbish.
Both sides and the different shades within have visions of the world they'd like to live in, the degree to which they appear realist or pragmatic depends on how close to their vision the status quo is, and the pace at which they attempt to bring about that vision. Thatcher was more radical than Brown, Miliband, maybe even Blair.
Edited extra bit: but Thatcher would have been seen as moderate in some US states
Thatcher dismantled that raft of industries that the Left tried to throw money at, in the forlorn hope they would show public ownership worked. Hers was the pragmatism of the Right, showing up the general wankiness of leftist thinking.
A social worker’s report for a family court hearing was so riddled with jargon it ‘might as well have been written in a foreign language’, a judge said.
Tina Pugh’s paper, about a woman seeking to care for two young children, included phrases such as ‘imbued with ambivalence’ and ‘having many commonalities emanating from their histories’.
Judge Jeremy Lea said that while he thought he knew what the social worker was trying to say, her report would probably be baffling to the woman it was actually about.
He added: ‘Reports by experts are not written solely for the benefit of other professionals, the advocates and the judge.
‘The parents and other litigants need to understand what is being said and why.’
Probably the social worker did not know what the phrases used meant as well - too many people use 'technical' jargon to impress others and make the worst mistake of assuming knowledge by the reader.
I have spoken to five of my acquaintances who are Labour party members or supporters who can vote in this election. All of them say that they will be voting for Corbyn, they all think that it is possible that he could win the 2020 election. When I point out that he will not win any votes from the right and would lose many votes on his own right flank to the Lib/Dems, some of them point out the 35% of people who didn't vote this year. One of them says that it is better to be a 'good' opposition than to be in government with Blairite policies. They can't see what every independent minded analyst can see, that a Corbyn led Labour party can't possibly win a General Election, of those who didn't vote, there is no evidence to suggest that there are many who are just waiting for a more left wing Labour party. The vast majority of non-voters obviously couldn't care less who wins or have no interest in political matters, so if forced to vote, which of cause they won't be, many would simply opt for the status quo or vote for someone different, which is a divided opposition.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Rubbish.
Both sides and the different shades within have visions of the world they'd like to live in, the degree to which they appear realist or pragmatic depends on how close to their vision the status quo is, and the pace at which they attempt to bring about that vision. Thatcher was more radical than Brown, Miliband, maybe even Blair.
Edited extra bit: but Thatcher would have been seen as moderate in some US states
Thatcher dismantled that raft of industries that the Left tried to throw money at, in the forlorn hope they would show public ownership worked. Hers was the pragmatism of the Right, showing up the general wankiness of leftist thinking.
So you are wrong.
Both political parties threw money at a variety of industries. It was not a left/right thing before Mrs T.
A social worker’s report for a family court hearing was so riddled with jargon it ‘might as well have been written in a foreign language’, a judge said.
Tina Pugh’s paper, about a woman seeking to care for two young children, included phrases such as ‘imbued with ambivalence’ and ‘having many commonalities emanating from their histories’.
Judge Jeremy Lea said that while he thought he knew what the social worker was trying to say, her report would probably be baffling to the woman it was actually about.
He added: ‘Reports by experts are not written solely for the benefit of other professionals, the advocates and the judge.
‘The parents and other litigants need to understand what is being said and why.’
Probably the social worker did not know what the phrases used meant as well - too many people use 'technical' jargon to impress others and make the worst mistake of assuming knowledge by the reader.
Often when challenged people (including me) can't explain what they meant by a particular phrase, or which of two options they meant. I had my work copyedited professionally once - a real eye opener.
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Sweden is an example that is often cited. They have had plenty of left wing governments and are more 'to the left' than most. Eastern Europe has largely followed a pro-market path over the last 25 years.
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
I guess mass emigration from eastern Europe is a testament to the success of the pro-market path countries there have chosen to follow.
"Test Cricket was invented, and is watched and played, by people with FAR too much time on their hands"
When you add up the amount of time played by both cricketers and footballers during the average season, it probably adds up to the same amount of time in the end since there are a lot more football matches played compared to cricket matches.
I think your maths is wrong on that, at least for county stalwarts. Assume one session of play takes about as long as a football match - albeit not as draining! Assume a typical county championship match lasts nine sessions. Then just six CC matches would equate to 54 football matches. Depending on the stage in the league pyramid you're comparing to, that's enough for a full season plus cup run. But cricketers can play far more than six CC games in a season - throw in T20 and List A matches too and the cricketer doesn't play that many fewer matches, let alone hours.
Admittedly the comparison would be closer if we only counted time the player was actually out on the field of play... And spare a thought for baseball players.
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Sweden is an example that is often cited. They have had plenty of left wing governments and are more 'to the left' than most. Eastern Europe has largely followed a pro-market path over the last 25 years.
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
Sweden is an interesting example since the redistributive system is built on top of an economy that is quite "neoliberal" in many ways - even Thatcher didn't try privatising the roads. Or doing a Denmark and privatising the fire services...
I see Chris Leslie is the current 'virus' within the labour party this morning.
I think he's only stating the obvious though. I mean, can anyone see him actually being kept in a Labour shadow cabinet? Really?
He was promoted in a panic because he was more or less the only economics spokesman who survived the election and Harman didn't want to do a drastic reshuffle in the middle of a leadership fight as the stand in leader (unlike Howard). Since then, he has done very little. Whoever wins would be wise to quietly reshuffle him away again. Shadow Minister of Sport looks about his level.
Chris Leslie is good.
Strawberry cheesecake is good but I wouldn't make it shadow chancellor.
So why did you make it chancellor?
You keep underestimating George. In retrospect, that Omnishambles budget was the best thing that happened to him. On the one hand, it knocked some sense into him and reduced his Brownite game-playing tactics; on the other, it made Labour think he was a useless toff.
I don't underestimate him for a second, quite the opposite. But neither do I think he walks on water, which is roughly the current state of Tory thinking. He is beatable.
Maybe. But who in Labour is going to lead the elephants over the Alps?
It should not be beyond the next Labour leader (Corbyn excepted) to deny the Tories a majority in 2020. That has to be the first task. Then Labour will need to take it from there, perhaps with a new leader.
As I understand it, Marxism is not a political theory, it is a way of interpreting history that states in the end the workers will inherit the earth. You are a Marxist if you believe in that interpretation. What you then do with that belief can vary - Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Menshivikism and so on. There are so many left-wing groupings precisely because Marxism does not proscribe solutions.
The genius of the British ruling class has always been to adapt, to accept and move on. In the end, it does not matter who is in control, it is what they do with that control that matters. If there is no major impact on entrenched elites then there is no problem.
I hear a lot about this British ruling class.
Who are they?
I imagine most people mean the monarchy and aristocracy, but last time I checked the monarchy was restricted to ceremony and writing the odd letter, and the aristocracy largely excluded from the Lords.
There is a more of a case for the public schools dominating the legal, arts, political and financial professions but you can find just as many examples of those from the left as from the right.
If there is a group that predominates it is one that went to Oxbridge, lives in London, is financially comfortable and mixes socially in the capital.
That's a failing of our state education system and a reflection of how London now inhabits a totally different planet to the rest of the country.
F1: Vergne, Gutierrez and Hulkenberg are apparently on Haas' shortlist.
Odd group. Vergne, quick but out of F1. Gutierrez is equipped with mighty eyebrows and perhaps financial backing. Hulkenberg's very good but won't bring much money.
As I understand it, Marxism is not a political theory, it is a way of interpreting history that states in the end the workers will inherit the earth. You are a Marxist if you believe in that interpretation. What you then do with that belief can vary - Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Menshivikism and so on. There are so many left-wing groupings precisely because Marxism does not proscribe solutions.
The genius of the British ruling class has always been to adapt, to accept and move on. In the end, it does not matter who is in control, it is what they do with that control that matters. If there is no major impact on entrenched elites then there is no problem.
I hear a lot about this British ruling class.
Who are they?
I imagine most people mean the monarchy and aristocracy, but last time I checked the monarchy was restricted to ceremony and writing the odd letter, and the aristocracy largely excluded from the Lords.
There is a more of a case for the public schools dominating the legal, arts, political and financial professions but you can find just as many examples of those from the left as from the right.
If there is a group that predominates it is one that went to Oxbridge, lives in London, is financially comfortable and mixes socially in the capital.
That's a failing of our state education system and a reflection of how London now inhabits a totally different planet to the rest of the country.
Yep, all our political leaders are part of the same elite, along with senior media folk, lawyers, CEOs of big public companies, investors and so on. What state schools cannot offer is the network of contacts and opportunities that you get from private education (except, as you say, in certain parts of London). As we know, on a like for like basis state schools outperform private schools.
I can also have the opinion that Brown did damage to this country albeit excusable because of his misguided understanding of economics and public finance.
I think that Gordon had the opportunity to test the socialist theory about the Eternal Money Tree to death. The Greeks seems to be trying the same experiment and with a similar outcome. There is no Money Tree.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Rubbish.
Both sides and the different shades within have visions of the world they'd like to live in, the degree to which they appear realist or pragmatic depends on how close to their vision the status quo is, and the pace at which they attempt to bring about that vision. Thatcher was more radical than Brown, Miliband, maybe even Blair.
Edited extra bit: but Thatcher would have been seen as moderate in some US states
Thatcher dismantled that raft of industries that the Left tried to throw money at, in the forlorn hope they would show public ownership worked. Hers was the pragmatism of the Right, showing up the general wankiness of leftist thinking.
So you are wrong.
Your argument seems to be that there is some "natural" state of government which happens to coincide with your ideological leanings (even though Tory policies of 2015 are of course different to those of the 1980s)
It is strangely reminiscent of the attitude of those Green-leaning people who shop at Holland and Barretts and think if only we could all live in caves all 'natural' like we would never get ill. Or people who think they "don't have an accent", but everyone else does.
You have no evidence that a political 'default' or 'natural' pragmatic option exists or has ever existed, conservatism is a choice and it's just as ideological as social democracy
It seem's very strange that the future of the Labour Party seem's to hang on the words of voter repellent losers like Kinnock and Brown.
What a strange Party...
Managing decline is a tricky business.
There is no reason for the Labour party other than a pressure group for the Unions - I think that will be the outcome after this election - the pretence that they aren't a union party will be over.
Whether the LDs or anyone else can fill the void is the interesting part.
Much more of a ring than the dull old "ites" we've had for years.
You can't patent a word. You can try to get a trademark, but you'd struggle with that one as ones based on surnames are generally not protectable unless the mark is already well-known.
I think the commentators and Labour grandees are spending too much time studying the past when trying to get their minds round Corbynmania.
I know that there's a few folks who think Corbyn may help revive Scottish Labour's fortunes in Scotland. However, in true SLAB fashion, Kezia Dugdale the bookies favourite to win the SLAB leadership, has come out and said she isn't endorsing any of the Labour leadership candidates and then proceeded to get stuck in to Corbyn:
The SLAB leadership winner is due to be announced on 20th August - Kezia is still 1/50 and Ken is 12/1. Ken is indicating the result will be close, Kezia is keeping very quiet.
Anyway I think Corbyn seems to have more in common with the SNP than the shattered rump of SLAB - the commentators on the right and the left are despairing:
Yep, all our political leaders are part of the same elite, along with senior media folk, lawyers, CEOs of big public companies, investors and so on. What state schools cannot offer is the network of contacts and opportunities that you get from private education (except, as you say, in certain parts of London). As we know, on a like for like basis state schools outperform private schools.
You bang this drum with monotonous regularity, but its nonsense. Its like saying the Moon's gravity is the same as the Earth's on a like for like basis, true, but not very useful. Public schools do better because they attract more able children (able parents will on average do well, and on average have more able children), because they attract more able staff, because they have better facilities. Hardly a shock is it. Introduce more mediocre staff, confiscate half the facilities, enrol random students, the school will do less well, I am shocked I tell you, shocked.
As I understand it, Marxism is not a political theory, it is a way of interpreting history that states in the end the workers will inherit the earth. You are a Marxist if you believe in that interpretation. What you then do with that belief can vary - Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Menshivikism and so on. There are so many left-wing groupings precisely because Marxism does not proscribe solutions.
The genius of the British ruling class has always been to adapt, to accept and move on. In the end, it does not matter who is in control, it is what they do with that control that matters. If there is no major impact on entrenched elites then there is no problem.
I hear a lot about this British ruling class.
Who are they?
I imagine most people mean the monarchy and aristocracy, but last time I checked the monarchy was restricted to ceremony and writing the odd letter, and the aristocracy largely excluded from the Lords.
There is a more of a case for the public schools dominating the legal, arts, political and financial professions but you can find just as many examples of those from the left as from the right.
If there is a group that predominates it is one that went to Oxbridge, lives in London, is financially comfortable and mixes socially in the capital.
That's a failing of our state education system and a reflection of how London now inhabits a totally different planet to the rest of the country.
Yep, all our political leaders are part of the same elite, along with senior media folk, lawyers, CEOs of big public companies, investors and so on. What state schools cannot offer is the network of contacts and opportunities that you get from private education (except, as you say, in certain parts of London). As we know, on a like for like basis state schools outperform private schools.
You have regularly cited this report. I remain to be totally convinced by such a big adjustment in the score spread based upon socio-economic data.
Are we really saying that poor bright pupils would do better in their local comp than Eton or Harrow?
The report also says that some of the difference is accounted for by private schools having greater autonomy and freedoms.
Personally, I think a school with a strong ethos, good discipline, greater focus on the individual and high expectations for its pupils is always going to do better for its pupils than one that does not.
Section 28 in retrospect doesn't seem to have been very controversial outside the Loony Left, but nowadays we don't discuss it in polite company. In particular, it is bad for the Thatcher Freedom meme, and perhaps it also reminds Labour that they weren't the ones who got gay marriage through. To the extent that people look back at it now, even a Conservative-leaning discussion group like this one would not support it.
I would like to think that 28-day detention and internet eavesdropping will one day be viewed as the Section 28 of the last decade, but I'm realistic. I wonder what this decade's Section 28 is?
More evidence that the possibility of Biden entering the Dem nomination race is becoming very real. The draft Biden group has just recruited a serious money man very close to the Biden family:
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Sweden is an example that is often cited. They have had plenty of left wing governments and are more 'to the left' than most. Eastern Europe has largely followed a pro-market path over the last 25 years.
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
I guess mass emigration from eastern Europe is a testament to the success of the pro-market path countries there have chosen to follow.
But they were starting from a position so far back. Poland is actually doing really well now.
Countries like Bulgaria still suffer from endemic corruption.
You're right about Sweden. At the airport, you can find yourself haggling with taxi drivers, because they liberalised the taxi business.
Amazingly, Sweden is now the only Nordic country with a left-wing government.
The Sweden Democrats are on about 20% in the polls at present compared to 12% at the last election, so the next election could be a repeat of what just happened in Denmark.
You're right about Sweden. At the airport, you can find yourself haggling with taxi drivers, because they liberalised the taxi business.
Amazingly, Sweden is now the only Nordic country with a left-wing government.
The Sweden Democrats are on about 20% in the polls at present compared to 12% at the last election, so the next election could be a repeat of what just happened in Denmark.
Still, a right-wing government in Sweden or Denmark is more left-wing than a Burnham/Cooper/Kendall government in the UK would be.
Yep, all our political leaders are part of the same elite, along with senior media folk, lawyers, CEOs of big public companies, investors and so on. What state schools cannot offer is the network of contacts and opportunities that you get from private education (except, as you say, in certain parts of London). As we know, on a like for like basis state schools outperform private schools.
You bang this drum with monotonous regularity, but its nonsense. Its like saying the Moon's gravity is the same as the Earth's on a like for like basis, true, but not very useful. Public schools do better because they attract more able children (able parents will on average do well, and on average have more able children), because they attract more able staff, because they have better facilities. Hardly a shock is it. Introduce more mediocre staff, confiscate half the facilities, enrol random students, the school will do less well, I am shocked I tell you, shocked.
I am not disputing they do better - of course they do, for the reasons you cite. But that does not make state schools poor. It just means that the state cannot compete with all the resources that private schools enjoy. The average spend per pupil in a state school is around £4,600 in England (http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-much-per-pupil-funding-will-your-school-get). The average school fees charged in a private school are around £12,000 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/average-private-school-fees-now-4168150). But what the OECD study shows is that despite these advantages state schools do still compete. That is actually a remarkable achievement; or, perhaps, it is more about a lot of private schools coasting ion the back of being able to select bright pupils form relatively stable family backgrounds and then put them in small classes with the very best facilities.
An interesting discussion. As a counterpoint: Britain has been an economic, political and social architecture that is more appealing to right than left in the first place, so it is unsurprising they are more likely to deal with "the world as it is" than radical transformation thereof. In a country that has been financially and culturally terraformed by generations of left-wing or socialist rule, a pro- market party occupies a more transformative position. Think eastern Europe, or Thatcher.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Sweden is an example that is often cited. They have had plenty of left wing governments and are more 'to the left' than most. Eastern Europe has largely followed a pro-market path over the last 25 years.
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
I guess mass emigration from eastern Europe is a testament to the success of the pro-market path countries there have chosen to follow.
But they were starting from a position so far back. Poland is actually doing really well now.
Countries like Bulgaria still suffer from endemic corruption.
In a global world, corruption is a disaster. It's one of the major reasons Greece is such a basket case.
It seem's very strange that the future of the Labour Party seem's to hang on the words of voter repellent losers like Kinnock and Brown.
What a strange Party...
Who was your Foreign Secretary? Who is in charge of your fabled £12 billion welfare cuts?
Eh ? Hague was an MP - Gordon isn't. GO isn't a voter repellent.
I have to admit I'd dispute the second, but I think it was a reference to IDS.
It should also be pointed out though that IDS never lost an election (admittedly because he was so bad he never got the chance to) while Kinnock and Brown lost one each with a lower share of the vote than Major in 1997, and Kinnock lost a second one for good measure.
As I understand it, Marxism is not a political theory, it is a way of interpreting history that states in the end the workers will inherit the earth. You are a Marxist if you believe in that interpretation. What you then do with that belief can vary - Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Anarcho-syndicalism, democratic socialism, Trotskyism, Menshivikism and so on. There are so many left-wing groupings precisely because Marxism does not proscribe solutions.
The genius of the British ruling class has always been to adapt, to accept and move on. In the end, it does not matter who is in control, it is what they do with that control that matters. If there is no major impact on entrenched elites then there is no problem.
I hear a lot about this British ruling class.
Who are they?
I imagine most people mean the monarchy and aristocracy, but last time I checked the monarchy was restricted to ceremony and writing the odd letter, and the aristocracy largely excluded from the Lords.
There is a more of a case for the public schools dominating the legal, arts, political and financial professions but you can find just as many examples of those from the left as from the right.
If there is a group that predominates it is one that went to Oxbridge, lives in London, is financially comfortable and mixes socially in the capital.
That's a failing of our state education system and a reflection of how London now inhabits a totally different planet to the rest of the country.
Even in London this group is to be found predominately in 5 of London's 32 boroughs - this was an interesting read:
You're right about Sweden. At the airport, you can find yourself haggling with taxi drivers, because they liberalised the taxi business.
Amazingly, Sweden is now the only Nordic country with a left-wing government.
The Sweden Democrats are on about 20% in the polls at present compared to 12% at the last election, so the next election could be a repeat of what just happened in Denmark.
The Left in Sweden have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
Their policy of open-door encouragement of anyone who wishes to migrate or claim asylum in Sweden is behind that. They accepted 30,000 last year - three time the level the UK did - and now have problems with open begging on the streets of Stockholm and low level public order offences and criminal assaults.
Their response? To criticise David Cameron for his 'language' last week. Ably reported by the BBC as headline news.
"Test Cricket was invented, and is watched and played, by people with FAR too much time on their hands"
When you add up the amount of time played by both cricketers and footballers during the average season, it probably adds up to the same amount of time in the end since there are a lot more football matches played compared to cricket matches.
I think your maths is wrong on that, at least for county stalwarts. Assume one session of play takes about as long as a football match - albeit not as draining! Assume a typical county championship match lasts nine sessions. Then just six CC matches would equate to 54 football matches. Depending on the stage in the league pyramid you're comparing to, that's enough for a full season plus cup run. But cricketers can play far more than six CC games in a season - throw in T20 and List A matches too and the cricketer doesn't play that many fewer matches, let alone hours.
Admittedly the comparison would be closer if we only counted time the player was actually out on the field of play... And spare a thought for baseball players.
162 games a season, plus up to another 19 for the 'World' Series finalists (or even more it there's a play off for the Wild Card slot and the winner of that goes all the way). Games average 3 hours, i.e. two football matches. So up to the equivalent of 360 football matches.
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Signpost or weathercock. Thatcher or Cooper.
If Labour are serious? Given what's on the table, I'd go for Cooper now and try and claw back some credibility.
Give up on SNP and the Greens, focus on the Tories in E&W. Stay true to aspirational working class and support self-employed and home ownership. Go for knocking 30 seats off the Tories in GE2020. Let a limp and weak Tory Minority govern for a couple of years, pick a credible PM -like Jarvis - in 2020/2021, and then go for the outright win in 2025. Or before if it collapses.
Not easy, but do-able and probably the only realistic path Labour have open to them IMHO.
Instead your party seems to want to turn to the bottle and slap each other silly whilst wailing about the injustice of it all together in a quiet, dark room somewhere. Your choice, but it's a losing one.
Hey-ho.
It's not my party. I don't have a vote in it. I haven't paid my £3.
I'm just an interested observer trying to balance the discussion on Corbyn which is rather one-sided.
I am not disputing they do better - of course they do, for the reasons you cite. But that does not make state schools poor. It just means that the state cannot compete with all the resources that private schools enjoy. The average spend per pupil in a state school is around £4,600 in England (http://www.sec-ed.co.uk/news/how-much-per-pupil-funding-will-your-school-get). The average school fees charged in a private school are around £12,000 (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/average-private-school-fees-now-4168150). But what the OECD study shows is that despite these advantages state schools do still compete. That is actually a remarkable achievement; or, perhaps, it is more about a lot of private schools coasting ion the back of being able to select bright pupils form relatively stable family backgrounds and then put them in small classes with the very best facilities.
I'm doubtful about the state school figure. I've never worked in a local authority where it was below £6k. Admittedly, it varies widely, but the suggestion it's below £5000 on average is one that caused me to raise my eyebrows. I think they may just have got their sums wrong by excluding some of the extra material that's not included in the official headline budget (e.g. some local authorities budget for back office costs separately, and technology is often paid for out of separate budgets on a pupil ratio).
It's also worth pausing for a moment on private school fees. That needs to be broken down much more carefully. Apart from anything else the Mirror (rather typically) has included boarding fees in that average, which is inevitably going to inflate the price (by 150%, in case anyone asks). On a like for like basis, the average private school spends about £9000 a year on education (again in my experience). This is easily accounted for by (1) higher salaries for staff, to get the best teachers and (2) much smaller class sizes (anywhere from 7 to 20) so the individual students get more attention. In fact, a lot of private schools tend to be quite poorly resourced in terms of capital equipment, classrooms and technology compared to state school counterparts. But because of smaller class sizes, above all, they still do better.
(Before anyone wastes time trying to prove smaller class sizes are irrelevant, I have looked at the studies that "prove" it and they are based on statistical fraud. The authors, unbelievably, forgot to consider that the smallest class sizes are bottom sets and groups with high-level SEND. Of course they make less progress than a top set with 34 children in it. That doesn't mean large class sizes are the way to go!)
If you're on the left, power is a means to an end. If you're on the right, it's an end in itself. That's why it's only possible to govern from the right.
Not sure I'd be quite so deterministic but there's an essence of truth there in that in the balance between power and policy, the centre-right tends to be more willing to concede purity for power (though it is still a means to an end, or at least, a direction of travel), and the centre left, power for purity. Of course, once you move away from the centre, whether right or left, the policy becomes all.
Yes, and a large part of that is becaus the centre-right has realism at the core of its political approach, particularly on economic matters.
The Left is usually trying to reshape the world into what it's like to be, rather than recognising you have to work with how it is.
Rubbish.
Both sides and the different shades within have visions of the world they'd like to live in, the degree to which they appear realist or pragmatic depends on how close to their vision the status quo is, and the pace at which they attempt to bring about that vision. Thatcher was more radical than Brown, Miliband, maybe even Blair.
Edited extra bit: but Thatcher would have been seen as moderate in some US states
Thatcher dismantled that raft of industries that the Left tried to throw money at, in the forlorn hope they would show public ownership worked. Hers was the pragmatism of the Right, showing up the general wankiness of leftist thinking.
So you are wrong.
Both political parties threw money at a variety of industries. It was not a left/right thing before Mrs T.
"Test Cricket was invented, and is watched and played, by people with FAR too much time on their hands"
When you add up the amount of time played by both cricketers and footballers during the average season, it probably adds up to the same amount of time in the end since there are a lot more football matches played compared to cricket matches.
I think your maths is wrong on that, at least for county stalwarts. Assume one session of play takes about as long as a football match - albeit not as draining! Assume a typical county championship match lasts nine sessions. Then just six CC matches would equate to 54 football matches. Depending on the stage in the league pyramid you're comparing to, that's enough for a full season plus cup run. But cricketers can play far more than six CC games in a season - throw in T20 and List A matches too and the cricketer doesn't play that many fewer matches, let alone hours.
Admittedly the comparison would be closer if we only counted time the player was actually out on the field of play... And spare a thought for baseball players.
162 games a season, plus up to another 19 for the 'World' Series finalists (or even more it there's a play off for the Wild Card slot and the winner of that goes all the way). Games average 3 hours, i.e. two football matches. So up to the equivalent of 360 football matches.
A starting pitcher will only play one in four or five, though, won't he? And will throw maybe 100 pitches and will not bat either in one of the leagues.
For what it's worth, for all round physical exertion rugby (league and union), Aussie rules and the GAA games look the most knackering - a lot of running over pretty long distances and hard core physical contact. 80 minutes as a forward 30 times a season in top grade rugby union is enough for any sane human being. Not that it happens very often in these days of substitutions.
Comments
he's still a twat.
He concentrates, like Brown, on giving bigger bits of the cake to his homies instead of making the cake bigger for all.
Useless, the sooner he goes the better.
Opposition wasn't appealing. Now we've got the ambitious looking at a distant horizon. If you're not satisfied with bumbling along as an MP/maybe getting on a Select Committee - it's bleak.
All the good stock will go elsewhere and more deadwood will pile up. If Corbyn is elected, I can't see many bright sparks on the other side sticking around.
The three main parties support it (freer trade). The Green Party and UKIP vigorously oppose it (undermines national democracy in favour of multinationals with their private international court to resolve disputes.) Zac Goldsmith leads Parliament's opposition to it. But not many people know about it.
In Germany, where people do know about it, there is an enormous backlash. This is why the EU has had to delay progress on it.
If Corbyn can articulate the case against it, he can gain support across the political spectrum.
....Lower oil revenues mean Scotland would be poorer as an independent country than it is within the UK (at least in the short to medium term) but, quite evidently, not too poor to be independent.
But since the Yes campaign spent years telling us we’d all be richer after independence and asking us to vote for ‘Scotland’s Future’ on that basis there is a certain amount of chutzpah required to then turn round and tell us, once it has been demonstrated that this would not be the case, that it’s all irrelevant anyway.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/the-snp-are-masters-at-playing-heads-i-win-tails-you-lose/
We are also in an era where getting to the top jobs in your 40s is the expectation. Whereas in the 80s it was 10 years or so later.
Thatcher or Cooper.
Had to look him up and he is married to the Hon. Caroline Thomson – daughter of Lord Thomson of Monifieth, former Labour Member of Parliament for Dundee East. She was chief operating officer of the BBC, until made redundant in 2011.....
Another unbiased member of the BBC hierarchy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/paul-mason-interview-the-channel-4-firebrand-reveals-his-formula-for-a-gift-economy-10428398.html
Theuniondivvie Posts: 3,794 Joined March 2013
Casino_Royale Posts: 5,266 Joined January 2014
The country's top four lenders - Piraeus Bank, National Bank, Alpha Bank, and Eurobank - were all down by 30%. Banks account for about a fifth of the main Athens index.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33754005
Only 30%?
'False consciousness' is a posh, Marxist phrase for 'we think people who disagree with us are stupid'.
There are Labour supporters who believe the voters betrayed them. Don't they even know what's good for them? So Labour may as well be pure as pander to these ignorant people.
And if they get a Tory government - serves them right.
They are the young idealists and the older militants; Jezza suits their mindset. Add in the frustrated activists who see AB and YC spinning platitude after platitude and Jezza will come close. But he will never be LOTO.
Blairites "We won 3 elections"
Lefties "Doesn't matter cos you implemented 'Tory' policies..."
Vote Corbyn.
When I first heard the phrase *false consciousness* I thought it was a joke/a parody of the pop psychology. I really did. Then I discovered where it originated, and seriously wondered who on Earth would think this was a sensible theory. And try to implement it.
Marxism is the most bizarre idealism - ignore human nature and reset the whole thing the way you'd like it to be... and no one will try to become top dog, or subvert it or fiddle the figures... It's clearly stupid idealism - and not my idea of Ideal either.
I don't think it's noble to believe this twaddle, it's dangerous - just look at the poor souls who've been subjected to it.
Quite right, Mr. Royale. There's room for differential front end grip *and* wiffle sticks.
Miss Plato, that's the problem with certain political and religious doctrines. Any belief that requires men to act like angels is doomed to failure.
My experience in the USSR and East Germany most certainly did not follow the 'belief' "that no one will try to become top dog". As far as I could see, there was a viscous fight to be top dog and when you got there, you eliminated your rivals and kept all the rest of the population in a servile state controlled by your favoured henchmen.
Is that where GB got his idea from of getting rid of rivals?
Give up on SNP and the Greens, focus on the Tories in E&W. Stay true to aspirational working class and support self-employed and home ownership. Go for knocking 30 seats off the Tories in GE2020. Let a limp and weak Tory Minority govern for a couple of years, pick a credible PM -like Jarvis - in 2020/2021, and then go for the outright win in 2025. Or before if it collapses.
Not easy, but do-able and probably the only realistic path Labour have open to them IMHO.
Instead your party seems to want to turn to the bottle and slap each other silly whilst wailing about the injustice of it all together in a quiet, dark room somewhere. Your choice, but it's a losing one.
Hey-ho.
Once he decided to stand down as an MP, and become a mini(very)-Blair on the pontification circuit, he became a self designated yesterday figure.
As for the Referendum, surely no rational person can still dispute that the result would serve as the very definition of a pyrrhic victory
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/2015-mid-season-review.html
Given the cowardice, stupidity and short-sighted tomfoolery of the political class refusing to have either proper English votes for English laws or the vital English Parliament, I suspect you may end up being proved correct.
Admittedly we all rejoined in 2013 because Mike changed from Disqus to Vanilla.
Carry on Mr Divvie ....
Two words: Animal Farm.
When you add up the amount of time played by both cricketers and footballers during the average season, it probably adds up to the same amount of time in the end since there are a lot more football matches played compared to cricket matches.
It matters little whether they elect Corbyn or not. The comedy show has commenced. All the election will do is decide which comedian gets prime billing for the next few years because none of them are PM material.
Oh - and as for Gordon, based on past performance I would expect him to deeply contemplate the issues and arrive at a decision about 2 months after the new leader is in place.
Do they still make Nokias?
It was kicked off yesterday by Harper - and today is day one of the campaign - yet the ballot is not until 19th October.
Spare a thought for the poor electorate.
Mr. Royale, not as bonkers as in the US.
Lampooning the WWC as Yuppies in shellsuits, with Del Boy in the background - then his parody taken up by the City boys who flashed their wads of £50s, just as Loadsa did.
It really was a strange period to live through. IIRC the Porsche dealer in Newcastle was the most successful in the UK, and my FiL was unemployed for three years at the same time. We were swilling with cash where I lived - it really was the bubble before the crash.
The genius of the British ruling class has always been to adapt, to accept and move on. In the end, it does not matter who is in control, it is what they do with that control that matters. If there is no major impact on entrenched elites then there is no problem.
Both sides and the different shades within have visions of the world they'd like to live in, the degree to which they appear realist or pragmatic depends on how close to their vision the status quo is, and the pace at which they attempt to bring about that vision.
Thatcher was more radical than Brown, Miliband, maybe even Blair.
Edited extra bit: but Thatcher would have been seen as moderate in some US states
That high-welfare, high-tax model is under increasing pressure, exacerbated by the fact that a good chunk of the Swedish political class considers mass immigration a social good in and of itself.
So you are wrong.
Admittedly the comparison would be closer if we only counted time the player was actually out on the field of play... And spare a thought for baseball players.
Emigration is where you leave somewhere, immigration is when you arrive somewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falck_(Denmark)
Who are they?
I imagine most people mean the monarchy and aristocracy, but last time I checked the monarchy was restricted to ceremony and writing the odd letter, and the aristocracy largely excluded from the Lords.
There is a more of a case for the public schools dominating the legal, arts, political and financial professions but you can find just as many examples of those from the left as from the right.
If there is a group that predominates it is one that went to Oxbridge, lives in London, is financially comfortable and mixes socially in the capital.
That's a failing of our state education system and a reflection of how London now inhabits a totally different planet to the rest of the country.
Odd group. Vergne, quick but out of F1. Gutierrez is equipped with mighty eyebrows and perhaps financial backing. Hulkenberg's very good but won't bring much money.
http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48482894.pdf
You're right about Sweden. At the airport, you can find yourself haggling with taxi drivers, because they liberalised the taxi business.
Agreed.
If not I claim exclusive rights to Corbynista.
Much more of a ring than the dull old "ites" we've had for years.
It is strangely reminiscent of the attitude of those Green-leaning people who shop at Holland and Barretts and think if only we could all live in caves all 'natural' like we would never get ill. Or people who think they "don't have an accent", but everyone else does.
You have no evidence that a political 'default' or 'natural' pragmatic option exists or has ever existed, conservatism is a choice and it's just as ideological as social democracy
What a strange Party...
There is no reason for the Labour party other than a pressure group for the Unions - I think that will be the outcome after this election - the pretence that they aren't a union party will be over.
Whether the LDs or anyone else can fill the void is the interesting part.
I know that there's a few folks who think Corbyn may help revive Scottish Labour's fortunes in Scotland. However, in true SLAB fashion, Kezia Dugdale the bookies favourite to win the SLAB leadership, has come out and said she isn't endorsing any of the Labour leadership candidates and then proceeded to get stuck in to Corbyn:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/02/kezia-dugdale-corbyn-win-leave-labour-carping-sidelines-years
The SLAB leadership winner is due to be announced on 20th August - Kezia is still 1/50 and Ken is 12/1. Ken is indicating the result will be close, Kezia is keeping very quiet.
Anyway I think Corbyn seems to have more in common with the SNP than the shattered rump of SLAB - the commentators on the right and the left are despairing:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/jeremy-corbyn-backs-snp-bid-to-reform-or-axe-lords-1-3847265
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/13524571.Corbyn_mania__how_many_open_goals_can_Scottish_Labour_miss_/
Are we really saying that poor bright pupils would do better in their local comp than Eton or Harrow?
The report also says that some of the difference is accounted for by private schools having greater autonomy and freedoms.
Personally, I think a school with a strong ethos, good discipline, greater focus on the individual and high expectations for its pupils is always going to do better for its pupils than one that does not.
Section 28 in retrospect doesn't seem to have been very controversial outside the Loony Left, but nowadays we don't discuss it in polite company. In particular, it is bad for the Thatcher Freedom meme, and perhaps it also reminds Labour that they weren't the ones who got gay marriage through. To the extent that people look back at it now, even a Conservative-leaning discussion group like this one would not support it.
I would like to think that 28-day detention and internet eavesdropping will one day be viewed as the Section 28 of the last decade, but I'm realistic. I wonder what this decade's Section 28 is?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/draft-biden-just-got-real
Countries like Bulgaria still suffer from endemic corruption.
The Sweden Democrats are on about 20% in the polls at present compared to 12% at the last election, so the next election could be a repeat of what just happened in Denmark.
It should also be pointed out though that IDS never lost an election (admittedly because he was so bad he never got the chance to) while Kinnock and Brown lost one each with a lower share of the vote than Major in 1997, and Kinnock lost a second one for good measure.
http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Parliamentary-Privilege-The-MPs-2015-2.pdf
Their policy of open-door encouragement of anyone who wishes to migrate or claim asylum in Sweden is behind that. They accepted 30,000 last year - three time the level the UK did - and now have problems with open begging on the streets of Stockholm and low level public order offences and criminal assaults.
Their response? To criticise David Cameron for his 'language' last week. Ably reported by the BBC as headline news.
I'm just an interested observer trying to balance the discussion on Corbyn which is rather one-sided.
https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews/status/628145677424439296/photo/1
It's also worth pausing for a moment on private school fees. That needs to be broken down much more carefully. Apart from anything else the Mirror (rather typically) has included boarding fees in that average, which is inevitably going to inflate the price (by 150%, in case anyone asks). On a like for like basis, the average private school spends about £9000 a year on education (again in my experience). This is easily accounted for by (1) higher salaries for staff, to get the best teachers and (2) much smaller class sizes (anywhere from 7 to 20) so the individual students get more attention. In fact, a lot of private schools tend to be quite poorly resourced in terms of capital equipment, classrooms and technology compared to state school counterparts. But because of smaller class sizes, above all, they still do better.
(Before anyone wastes time trying to prove smaller class sizes are irrelevant, I have looked at the studies that "prove" it and they are based on statistical fraud. The authors, unbelievably, forgot to consider that the smallest class sizes are bottom sets and groups with high-level SEND. Of course they make less progress than a top set with 34 children in it. That doesn't mean large class sizes are the way to go!)
I look with concern at some of the latest measures on illegal immigrants and think they might create some pretty desperate people in our country.
For what it's worth, for all round physical exertion rugby (league and union), Aussie rules and the GAA games look the most knackering - a lot of running over pretty long distances and hard core physical contact. 80 minutes as a forward 30 times a season in top grade rugby union is enough for any sane human being. Not that it happens very often in these days of substitutions.