IBM did not understand their product and the changing market. They threw away the'PC' branding for instance and indeed thought the original PC just a toy.
The sad death of Don Estridge changed the PC industry forever. He was the father of the PC, and IBM simply could not take advantage without him. Their entire corporate attitude worked against it, as can be seen from the PC Junior debacle (though that happened whilst he was still alive, if sidelined).
I'm really keen on tech companies having small Skunkworks groups to develop new products and markets, and of management willing to run with what they develop.
Like Rank Xerox had at Palo Alto. It did not stop them giving away Windows Icon Mouse Pointer to guess who... Steve Jobs.
I still wonder why Jezza's ideal home would be in Bolivia. Assuming he's not a Butch & Sundance fan - what's the appeal? Apart from its Marxism and junta? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia
Amongst the public as a whole Clegg nay have a higher rating but amongst 2015 Labour voters Corbyn's rating us likely higher than Clegg'a was with 2010 LDs. The LDs problem was that they lost centre left LD voters en masse to Labour while moderate Tory voters, some of whom perhaps voted for Blair, stuck with Cameron so their base collapsed, Corbyn may not be attracting any moderate Tories either but he is holding most of the left-wing Labour base. A Tory majority at the moment looks likely but a change if Labour leader and a possible rise in the UKIP vote post EU ref could maybe lead to a hung parliament
The only hope Labour has is that a 1% swing away from the Tories produces a hung parliament. Not impossible considering many possibilities including the economy.
The usual stuff dished out that the DUP will support the Tories needs to be proven. UU will, of course.
I don't see and SNP decline. Can UKIP and LD snare those 2% from the Tories ? Not impossible.
There's little chance the DUP would support Jeremy Corbyn, eg:
Interesting that Trevor Kavanagh is calling the referendum for leave.
He claims to have called the tory majority and the collapse in oil prices this time last year.
It's not a stretch. Remain's poll leads, such as they are, are slight and the Remain campaign has been dreadful (early days, but still). Leave is running a better campaign for Remain than Remain itself.
I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.
OT.. but finally booked my IMAX tickets for Star Wars. Can I make it five more days without it being spoiled I wonder?
I should be seeing it this week. Unfortunately just before Christmas I was sat in a coffee shop and heard a young fan at the next table bewailing one of the key moments in the film. Kind of gave away what I suspect will be the big scene.
As I live the life of a solitary hermit, I have not had the necessary interactions for this to be a worry. Easy to avoid Facebook and other parts of the internet though!
The main point about the 4 times a year return issue is the extra burden of time put on both businesses and HMRC.
For HMRC if it's all automated then it should be less work not more.
For businesses it's a quarter of the work done four times as often, not much extra time and good practice to know sooner than later your results anyway.
Rather like the changes to dividend taxation, this is part of the drive to make it more difficult for small traders to operate as companies. My colleagues in private medical practice are getting cold feet about being incorporated for example. I am not sure whether this is a good thing or not, but it does seem to be policy.
Incorporating yourself as a company is a fiddle though isn't it. A company is a company and thus operates differently and on a different scale to an individual.
Why wouldn't large firms use their influence with the State apparatus to squeeze out newcomers? Entrepreneurs have never been "ordinary" people - I think that's a given.
That's one of my issues with Apple: they're a diseased wart on the tech sector.
But it's not just large firms. When the state's a competitor then they use their apparatus to squeeze out newcomers.
And I'd say entrepreneurs are ordinary people: they're just a subset of ordinary people.
If you think Jobs and Wozniak are ordinary, I'd like to know who you think is extraordinary
Gates is definitely extraordinary, even though I despise his company, he is off the scale clever, with a eidetic memory and an superlative talent for business, not a common combination at all.
There was a photo of Gates and Gerstner (then Chairman of IBM) on the back of Computing magazine years ago, the caption read "One of these man knows how to format a disk, the other wrote the format command"
Did it say which was which? Gates bought MS-DOS from a third party after he'd already sold it to IBM. He did not write it himself.
Gates was a very successful and ruthless businessman, and while his current philanthropy is admirable and extraordinary in its scale, it is perhaps also fire insurance in case St Peter takes a dim view of his early business practices.
Maybe the true story of the computing business is IBM giving stuff away: it allowed not only Microsoft's rise but also Oracle's, for relational databases and SQL came from IBM labs.
Well, IBM and successive British governments, since our desire to play at spies led us to throw away our lead in computers and later in cryptography. Ironically, our spooks were mainly working for Moscow anyway.
IBM did not understand their product and the changing market. They threw away the'PC' branding for instance and indeed thought the original PC just a toy.
One great risk that dominant market players run is missing or rejecting signs that their market is about to fundamentally change, preferring to carry on doing what they've previously been successful at, either because they see the risks in entering the new eerging marketas too high, or because they see the internal disruption involved as not worth it.
I think Earl Grey 'won' three elections, increasing his majority a each, though his 'win' in 1830 has to be defined in terms of forming a government as by any other measure, the Tories under Wellington won - but numerical measures are trumped by the political result. Besides, Cameron's position after his first election is not wholly dissimilar. Pitt the Younger might be another example though I haven't got detailed figures for 1790 to hand.
Grey was only Whig leader for two elections - 1831 and 1832. Moreover, as peers by convention did not campaign at the time of an election, technically the party leader at the election was Lord Althorp.
@Wanderer yes, John McDonnell is a poor choice as Shadow Chancellor. However, Diane Abbott would make that appointment look as inspired as Churchill's appointment of Bevin to the Ministry of Labour. She is known only for her rudeness, hypocrisy, stupidity and incompetence. She is totally unaware of any aspect of the international situation. She spends all of her time inveighing against racism and sexism, which is richly ironic when you consider that every promotion she has ever had has been due to positive affirmation for her race and gender (including this one, if the reports are to be believed that it's to get more women and ethnic minorities into prominent positions) and is even more ironic when you consider that many of her own statements are by any objective standard racist and sexist (let's start with the infamous one on 'divide and rule', which she later claimed had been quoted out of context - the last refuge of a scoundrel).
A top team of Corbyn, Macdonnell, Abbott and Watson, with Milne riding shotgun, would show three things (1) that Labour do not care about talent, only about right-on political opinions and token gestures (2) that bullying, lying (I picked that for Milne - he claims Stalin 'only' had 723000 people killed, which is not true although because Stalin destroyed so much documentation we don't have a reliable figure) and calls for violence are now considered acceptable by Britain's second largest party, and (3) that Labour have cravenly surrendered not merely the next election but any hope of ever returning to power - the Liberals of the 21st century.
What a mess that would be. I am still hoping that this was Corbyn having had a few too many whiskies over the holidays flying a kite so that everyone will be relieved when he appoints some random man (e.g. Clive Lewis - who might be quite a shrewd choice as SFO) instead.
Amongst the public as a whole Clegg nay have a higher rating but amongst 2015 Labour voters Corbyn's rating us likely higher than Clegg'a was with 2010 LDs. The LDs problem was that they lost centre left LD voters en masse to Labour while moderate Tory voters, some of whom perhaps voted for Blair, stuck with Cameron so their base collapsed, Corbyn may not be attracting any moderate Tories either but he is holding most of the left-wing Labour base. A Tory majority at the moment looks likely but a change if Labour leader and a possible rise in the UKIP vote post EU ref could maybe lead to a hung parliament
The only hope Labour has is that a 1% swing away from the Tories produces a hung parliament. Not impossible considering many possibilities including the economy.
The usual stuff dished out that the DUP will support the Tories needs to be proven. UU will, of course.
I don't see and SNP decline. Can UKIP and LD snare those 2% from the Tories ? Not impossible.
Even if UKIP and the LDs did see such an increase the Tories would still comfortably be the largest party and the DUP will obviously support the Tories over IRA loving Corbyn if he is still Labour leader and probably even if he is replaced too
To think that the Corbynistas are in denial is to misunderstand the hard left. They are not - and never have been - primarily interested in conventional electoral success; rather they want to secure party control and to use the party as a platform to articulate their politics. There will be no compromise with the voters.
The hard left was, is and will remain a rump. The people in denial are the useful idiots who still make up the majority of pro-Corbyn Labour's membership. They are kidding themselves he is electable, they are kidding themselves he wants and encourages a broad church, and they are kidding themselves Corbyn is not seeking to engineer a hard left land grab of their party.
The hard left sees Labour as a vehicle; but most members do want the party to govern. Currently, however, they are deluding themselves. Because, unlike the hard left, they are essentially good, well-meaning people, at some stage reality will bite. But not for a while yet.
The question for Mike, is why did the LDs stay with Nick Clegg and how can Labour avoid that fate.
By the end the LDs seemed a bit cultish.
I don't think, on the evidence we've seen (polling, local by-elections, Oldham) that Labour is facing an LD-esque wipeout, so one answer to your question could be "nothing". Ie, Labour will lose in 2020, sure, but it won't be vaporised.
That said, I think one should consider that Corbyn is uncharted territory. No mainstream party has ever had so unmainstream a leader. Perhaps he can confound the polls and achieve total annihilation of his party.
What to do? Replace him. OK, can't do that. Drink then.
Uncharted territory is the correct expression. What happens if Labout loses 3% with the conventional voting electorate but gains 5% from the 33% who do not vote.
Has anyone done any analysis on this at Oldham ? OK one by-election is not a proper sample.
The main point about the 4 times a year return issue is the extra burden of time put on both businesses and HMRC.
For HMRC if it's all automated then it should be less work not more.
For businesses it's a quarter of the work done four times as often, not much extra time and good practice to know sooner than later your results anyway.
Rather like the changes to dividend taxation, this is part of the drive to make it more difficult for small traders to operate as companies. My colleagues in private medical practice are getting cold feet about being incorporated for example. I am not sure whether this is a good thing or not, but it does seem to be policy.
Incorporating yourself as a company is a fiddle though isn't it. A company is a company and thus operates differently and on a different scale to an individual.
Not really. A lot of big companies refuse to deal with any individual who is not incorporated as a company. In many industries the only way to operate as a consultant is to be incorporated as a limited company.
The main point about the 4 times a year return issue is the extra burden of time put on both businesses and HMRC.
For HMRC if it's all automated then it should be less work not more.
For businesses it's a quarter of the work done four times as often, not much extra time and good practice to know sooner than later your results anyway.
Rather like the changes to dividend taxation, this is part of the drive to make it more difficult for small traders to operate as companies. My colleagues in private medical practice are getting cold feet about being incorporated for example. I am not sure whether this is a good thing or not, but it does seem to be policy.
Incorporating yourself as a company is a fiddle though isn't it. A company is a company and thus operates differently and on a different scale to an individual.
Not really. A lot of big companies refuse to deal with any individual who is not incorporated as a company. In many industries the only way to operate as a consultant is to be incorporated as a limited company.
OT.. but finally booked my IMAX tickets for Star Wars. Can I make it five more days without it being spoiled I wonder?
I should be seeing it this week. Unfortunately just before Christmas I was sat in a coffee shop and heard a young fan at the next table bewailing one of the key moments in the film. Kind of gave away what I suspect will be the big scene.
As I live the life of a solitary hermit, I have not had the necessary interactions for this to be a worry. Easy to avoid Facebook and other parts of the internet though!
I have actually been very impressed within my FB community at how well people have avoided posting spoilers. As I say with the exception of the unfortunate coffee shop incident I have managed to avoid any spoilers online.
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
More than 9,000 people in the UK still watch black and white TV – nearly 50 years after the first colour broadcast.
Half a century after David Attenborough raced to broadcast colour TV in the UK ahead of German TV bosses, thousands of people still live in the technological dark ages.
And yet black and white photos can be some of the most evocative and beautiful photographs around.
Wasn't it Chris Mullins MP who only claimed expenses for a black and white TV set?
Portraits are often better in black and white. The tonal quality is far superior and colour is often incorrect for flesh tones.
Some great filmmakers too. Mike Powell shot parts of A Matter of Life and Death in BW because of the artistic representation for his message - that Heaven was inside David Niven's head, and not fully fleshed out. I gather Jack Cardiff actually used technicolor film that had been bleached, and certainly it's one of the most hauntingly beautiful of all cinematographic performances. Laurence Olivier turned down technicolor film for Hamlet because he felt artistically BW was the way to go given the difficulties and ambiguities of the script - a path followed later by Steven Spielberg with dazzling effect in Schindler's List.
IBM did not understand their product and the changing market. They threw away the'PC' branding for instance and indeed thought the original PC just a toy.
The sad death of Don Estridge changed the PC industry forever. He was the father of the PC, and IBM simply could not take advantage without him. Their entire corporate attitude worked against it, as can be seen from the PC Junior debacle (though that happened whilst he was still alive, if sidelined).
I'm really keen on tech companies having small Skunkworks groups to develop new products and markets, and of management willing to run with what they develop.
Like Rank Xerox had at Palo Alto. It did not stop them giving away Windows Icon Mouse Pointer to guess who... Steve Jobs.
Pedant alert: that acronym's wrong. It's Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers. They are all software constructs, whilst 'mouse' is hardware.
I miss 'WIMP', which no-one ever says any more. It's a bit like micon, WYSIWYG and RISC: terms that dominated the industry two decades ago and are now so common as to not need their own terms.
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Well, I'm not looking forward to it, but it's what I expect to happen.
To think that the Corbynistas are in denial is to misunderstand the hard left. They are not - and never have been - primarily interested in conventional electoral success; rather they want to secure party control and to use the party as a platform to articulate their politics. There will be no compromise with the voters.
The hard left was, is and will remain a rump. The people in denial are the useful idiots who still make up the majority of pro-Corbyn Labour's membership. They are kidding themselves he is electable, they are kidding themselves he wants and encourages a broad church, and they are kidding themselves Corbyn is not seeking to engineer a hard left land grab of their party.
The hard left sees Labour as a vehicle; but most members do want the party to govern. Currently, however, they are deluding themselves. Because, unlike the hard left, they are essentially good, well-meaning people, at some stage reality will bite. But not for a while yet.
Genuine question SO, from a potential Labour voter. What would it take to get reality to bite? Would it take mass expulsions, a civil war, coming second in Wales and London, third in Scotland, the removal of all remaining spokespeople of genuine talent from the Shadow Cabinet in favour of token representatives and dinosaurs of the hard left who think that Brezhnev's mistake was that he was too right wing?
All of which are of course possible next year. But if so, do you see a way back for the party from such a nadir?
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Watching Farage's nuremburg rallies will be quite fun.
The question for Mike, is why did the LDs stay with Nick Clegg and how can Labour avoid that fate.
By the end the LDs seemed a bit cultish.
I don't think, on the evidence we've seen (polling, local by-elections, Oldham) that Labour is facing an LD-esque wipeout, so one answer to your question could be "nothing". Ie, Labour will lose in 2020, sure, but it won't be vaporised.
That said, I think one should consider that Corbyn is uncharted territory. No mainstream party has ever had so unmainstream a leader. Perhaps he can confound the polls and achieve total annihilation of his party.
What to do? Replace him. OK, can't do that. Drink then.
Uncharted territory is the correct expression. What happens if Labout loses 3% with the conventional voting electorate but gains 5% from the 33% who do not vote.
Has anyone done any analysis on this at Oldham ? OK one by-election is not a proper sample.
We'll see what happens, but it seems to me more likely that Corbyn will depress rather than raise turnout. That's to say, anti-Tory voters who find him unpalatable will abstain. (Some will vote WEP or LD or whatever but many will abstain.)
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Watching Farage's nuremburg rallies will be quite fun.
Oooooh good I thought Godwin's law had gone out of fashion
To think that the Corbynistas are in denial is to misunderstand the hard left. They are not - and never have been - primarily interested in conventional electoral success; rather they want to secure party control and to use the party as a platform to articulate their politics. There will be no compromise with the voters.
The hard left was, is and will remain a rump. The people in denial are the useful idiots who still make up the majority of pro-Corbyn Labour's membership. They are kidding themselves he is electable, they are kidding themselves he wants and encourages a broad church, and they are kidding themselves Corbyn is not seeking to engineer a hard left land grab of their party.
The hard left sees Labour as a vehicle; but most members do want the party to govern. Currently, however, they are deluding themselves. Because, unlike the hard left, they are essentially good, well-meaning people, at some stage reality will bite. But not for a while yet.
Genuine question SO, from a potential Labour voter. What would it take to get reality to bite? Would it take mass expulsions, a civil war, coming second in Wales and London, third in Scotland, the removal of all remaining spokespeople of genuine talent from the Shadow Cabinet in favour of token representatives and dinosaurs of the hard left who think that Brezhnev's mistake was that he was too right wing?
All of which are of course possible next year. But if so, do you see a way back for the party from such a nadir?
As an outsider looking in I would suggest that SO is underestimating the hard left and associated left element in Labour. But I do not see Corbyn going before the election. He will have to at some stage because of age. Just where the Labour Party will be then is anybody's guess - but its mechanisms are likely to be being run by the hard left. Who would be the next Corbynista in line?
To think that the Corbynistas are in denial is to misunderstand the hard left. They are not - and never have been - primarily interested in conventional electoral success; rather they want to secure party control and to use the party as a platform to articulate their politics. There will be no compromise with the voters.
The hard left was, is and will remain a rump. The people in denial are the useful idiots who still make up the majority of pro-Corbyn Labour's membership. They are kidding themselves he is electable, they are kidding themselves he wants and encourages a broad church, and they are kidding themselves Corbyn is not seeking to engineer a hard left land grab of their party.
The hard left sees Labour as a vehicle; but most members do want the party to govern. Currently, however, they are deluding themselves. Because, unlike the hard left, they are essentially good, well-meaning people, at some stage reality will bite. But not for a while yet.
Genuine question SO, from a potential Labour voter. What would it take to get reality to bite? Would it take mass expulsions, a civil war, coming second in Wales and London, third in Scotland, the removal of all remaining spokespeople of genuine talent from the Shadow Cabinet in favour of token representatives and dinosaurs of the hard left who think that Brezhnev's mistake was that he was too right wing?
All of which are of course possible next year. But if so, do you see a way back for the party from such a nadir?
I suspect that is a bit of an unfair question for SO. He has already made it clear that the Labour party under Corbyn is something he is very unhappy with and wants to see changed. He strikes me very much as a realist already. It would be like asking me what I think it would take to make more people vote to leave the EU. I don't know as we are already far past the point where I want us to leave so find it difficult to understand why people should want to stay.
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Watching Farage's nuremburg rallies will be quite fun.
Oooooh good I thought Godwin's law had gone out of fashion
Nope. We will have to invent a new law for Corbyn whose events come from the stalinist era. I prefer Churchillian tories.
"Vince Cable, the former Liberal Democrat business secretary, has admitted that he had to learn how to send emails after losing his seat, while other former MPs described how they went from being “somebody to nobody”. Mr Cable, 72, said that while in office he had an “army of people”, but following his defeat he has had to learn to live without that support. “I had never sent emails, never,” he told The Sunday Times. “Somebody always did it for me, so I had to learn that.”
Several former MPs compared losing their seat at the general election to grieving. Chris Williamson, the former Labour MP for Derby North, who lost his seat by just 41 votes, said that after the result was announced “all I could see was blackness”. After leaving the count he drove to his constituency office, walked into the lavatory and started vomiting. He said: “I was in a very bad way. I’d never experienced anything like it. I felt fear, all I could see was blackness, all I could think was ‘Oh my God, how am I going to keep a roof over my head?’ “I had been an elected member [as an MP and councillor] for 25 years. I went from being a somebody to nobody. Building a new life is hard to do.”
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Watching Farage's nuremburg rallies will be quite fun.
Oooooh good I thought Godwin's law had gone out of fashion
@ydoethur That Diane when to Oxbridge just demonstrates that it's no yardstick for common or garden intelligence. Ditto David Mastermind Lammy.
Plato, I'll admit to confused impressions of Oxbridge at the moment, particularly of Oxford. There is no doubt that in certain subjects they continue to be world-leading universities; I'm thinking here of the sciences. However, their humanities sections (PPE, History etc) appear to me to be increasingly skewed towards the right sort of people rather than a genuine meritocracy. David Miliband is the classic example - two Bs and a D at A-level, put into an Oxford college because he was in an inner-city school (in reality, rather a nice inner-city school where the upper sets were dominated by middle-class lefties). It should be noted I did far better than Miliband at A-level in a far tougher school, but my grades wouldn't have got me into Oxbridge. Did the fact his father was a well-known Marxist lecturer have any bearing on the result? It's hard to come to the conclusion it didn't.
Tristram Hunt's work veers from the derivative to the utterly incompetent. He would not have got a doctorate at Aberystwyth, because the quality control process we went through was too rigorous for his mistakes to be overlooked (I was given a list of punctuation changes I would have to make before they would pass my thesis - the idea I would have got away with saying the Seven Years' War was in the 1730s is not even a starter). It is not as though Aberystwyth is a world-beating university - yet Cambridge let these sort of things through.
Diane Abbott is a different case as she was at a grammar school, but it's hard to escape the feeling that both her degree course and her job were due to affirmative action programmes being promoted at the time to show how right-on people were. After all, she has displayed no great intellectual talents and has no significant achievements to her name since leaving Cambridge.
Let's be fair and consider the other side too. Osborne was at Oxford, and he's hardly the brain of Britain - on the other hand, he is very rich and his family are definitely well-connected. Richard Graham, my former MP, who was at Eton and did not realise the choir of Gloucester Cathedral is a professional organisation, might be mentioned in this context too. And of course Jacob Rees-Mogg somehow scraped his way in to Trinity College. He may have some disguised intellectual merits, but if he does it has to be said he hides them rather well. He comes as the archetypical well-meaning but rather stupid and narrow-minded type.
I have sometimes thought it would be most interesting to let OFSTED loose on Oxbridge and see what they made of them. The thing is, OFSTED are a bit useless as well and their ratings appear to be based on reputations and results as much as the reality on the ground.
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Watching Farage's nuremburg rallies will be quite fun.
Oooooh good I thought Godwin's law had gone out of fashion
Nope. We will have to invent a new law for Corbyn whose events come from the stalinist era. I prefer Churchillian tories.
So you're comparing Farage with Hitler and Corbyn with Stalin. I'm reasonably certain neither has been responsible for the death of millions but ho hum, I see where you're coming from.
''I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.''
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Watching Farage's nuremburg rallies will be quite fun.
Oooooh good I thought Godwin's law had gone out of fashion
I suspect that is a bit of an unfair question for SO. He has already made it clear that the Labour party under Corbyn is something he is very unhappy with and wants to see changed. He strikes me very much as a realist already. It would be like asking me what I think it would take to make more people vote to leave the EU. I don't know as we are already far past the point where I want us to leave so find it difficult to understand why people should want to stay.
I haven't forgotten that Richard - SO's posts on the disaster that has befallen Labour have been very informative. The reason I asked is because I am assuming he knows the views of the membership of the Labour party rather better than I do, and I was wondering if any of Corbyn's supporters (or better, erstwhile supporters) have suggested what it will take to make them act.
Interesting that Trevor Kavanagh is calling the referendum for leave.
He claims to have called the tory majority and the collapse in oil prices this time last year.
It's not a stretch. Remain's poll leads, such as they are, are slight and the Remain campaign has been dreadful (early days, but still). Leave is running a better campaign for Remain than Remain itself.
I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.
Hardly a surprise that Kavanagh will back Out as almost certainly will The Sun
Since South Africa scored 421 v West Indies on January 3rd/4th, their totals are: 124-2, 248, 61-0, 184, 109, 214, 79, 185, 121, 143, 214. Any betting that if England get 180 in their 2nd innings, South Africa will feel confident of chasing them?
The no. 1 side in the world not getting over 250 in a calendar year? That's not very impressive. Do I get the feeling that Jacques Kallis is becoming more appreciated for his adhesive qualities the longer the Saffers are without him?
England surely hot favourites to win the match from here - 100 would probably be enough to put it out of SA's reach.
@ydoethur That Diane when to Oxbridge just demonstrates that it's no yardstick for common or garden intelligence. Ditto David Mastermind Lammy.
Plato, I'll ad Tristram Hunt's work veers from the derivative to the utterly incompetent. He would not have got a doctorate at Aberystwyth, because the quality control process we went through was too rigorous for his mistakes to be overlooked (I was given a list of punctuation changes I would have to make before they would pass my thesis - the idea I would have got away with saying the Seven Years' War was in the 1730s is not even a starter). It is not as though Aberystwyth is a world-beating university - yet Cambridge let these sort of things through.
Diane Abbott is a different case as she was at a grammar school, but it's hard to escape the feeling that both her degree course and her job were due to affirmative action programmes being promoted at the time to show how right-on people were. After all, she has displayed no great intellectual talents and has no significant achievements to her name since leaving Cambridge.
Let's be fair and consider the other side too. Osborne was at Oxford, and he's hardly the brain of Britain - on the other hand, he is very rich and his family are definitely well-connected. Richard Graham, my former MP, who was at Eton and did not realise the choir of Gloucester Cathedral is a professional organisation, might be mentioned in this context too. And of course Jacob Rees-Mogg somehow scraped his way in to Trinity College. He may have some disguised intellectual merits, but if he does it has to be said he hides them rather well. He comes as the archetypical well-meaning but rather stupid and narrow-minded type.
I have sometimes thought it would be most interesting to let OFSTED loose on Oxbridge and see what they made of them. The thing is, OFSTED are a bit useless as well and their ratings appear to be based on reputations and results as much as the reality on the ground.
I don't think anyone could say Rees-Mogg is stupid and he also worked in the City before setting up his own Fund. Oxbridge has the highest A Level grades required for entry so it tends, on average, to have the brightest students that does not mean some bright students may decide to study elsewhere who are probably brighter than those who scraped into Oxbridge eg Cherie Blair decided to go to LSE despite having higher A Level grades than Tony who got into St John's Oxford, his second choice college
@ydoethur That Diane when to Oxbridge just demonstrates that it's no yardstick for common or garden intelligence. Ditto David Mastermind Lammy.
Plato, I'll admit to confused impressions of Oxbridge at the moment, particularly of Oxford. There is no doubt that in certain subjects they continue to be world-leading universities; I'm thinking here of the sciences. However, their humanities sections (PPE, History etc) appear to me to be increasingly ......snipped.....
Let's be fair and consider the other side too. Osborne was at Oxford, and he's hardly the brain of Britain - on the other hand, he is very rich and his family are definitely well-connected. Richard Graham, my former MP, who was at Eton and did not realise the choir of Gloucester Cathedral is a professional organisation, might be mentioned in this context too. And of course Jacob Rees-Mogg somehow scraped his way in to Trinity College. He may have some disguised intellectual merits, but if he does it has to be said he hides them rather well. He comes as the archetypical well-meaning but rather stupid and narrow-minded type.
I have sometimes thought it would be most interesting to let OFSTED loose on Oxbridge and see what they made of them. The thing is, OFSTED are a bit useless as well and their ratings appear to be based on reputations and results as much as the reality on the ground.
Oxbridge difference, at least in history, is about the level of preparation work required, writing 2-3k words a week, and contact time.
I don't think I went to more than 1 hour of lectures in most weeks, but had consistently between 3 and 5 hours a fortnight discursive access, at BA level and mostly 1:1, with some of the leading experts in modern history. One of my highlights was a term with Martin Conway, who is editor of the EHR.
My contemporaries who studied the same subject at other universities wrote 2000 words a term, and had 15/20:1 seminars......
Oxbridge difference, at least in history, is about the level of preparation work required, writing 2-3k words a week, and contact time.
I don't think I went to more than 1 hour of lectures in most weeks, but had consistently between 3 and 5 hours a fortnight discursive access, at BA level and mostly 1:1, with some of the leading experts in modern history. One of my highlights was a term with Martin Conway, who is editor of the EHR.
My contemporaries who studied the same subject at other universities wrote 2000 words a term, and had 15/20:1 seminars......
Mortimer, I hate to disillusion you but I had to write a minimum one essay a week at BA level - it varied from 2,500 words for a short one to 4,000 words for a long one. That, again, was at Aberystwyth (although they have reduced the requirements now).
Contact time I will agree about - but from my own experience as a lecturer, teacher and private tutor I would have thought that would make it easier, not more difficult, to get good grades. You get the opportunity to discuss and clarify matters with the experts. I had to get it right on my own first time.
"Diane Abbott is a different case as she was at a grammar school, but it's hard to escape the feeling that both her degree course and her job were due to affirmative action programmes being promoted at the time to show how right-on people were. After all, she has displayed no great intellectual talents and has no significant achievements to her name since leaving Cambridge"
Have you got any proof ? Just because you do not like her does not make her thick. Andrew Neil seemed to think she has something to offer.
For example, I think you are a class a***hole but I have no proof !
Apart from the fact that her opinions are facile, her analysis is superficial and usually wrong and every job she has ever done has been a disaster (including the one she has done in the Shadow Cabinet this time around - bullying her fellow ministers and writing Christmas cards during a fraught parliamentary meeting)? Well, none of those are proof. However, they are pretty telling indications.
She may appear to have something to offer to Andrew Neil, or she may not. However, it is worth pointing out she is only up against Michael Portillo, who makes excellent train documentaries but whose political career was studded with quite spectacular misjudgements and failures and seemed to owe more to the prevailing political wind than to any intellectual coherence of his own. I would suggest his programme is about talking heads who are considered fashionable rather than serious analysis. I personally find it isn't worth watching, although you are free to disagree if you wish.
I don't know her personally, of course. However, when I look at her record I can't see a single indication of talent or ability of any sort, other than her degree course. She also comes across as rude, arrogant and lazy. Therefore, I think it is more likely - not certain, but more likely - that she got in on affirmative action rather than merit.
I don't think anyone could say Rees-Mogg is stupid and he also worked in the City before setting up his own Fund. Oxbridge has the highest A Level grades required for entry so it tends, on average, to have the brightest students that does not mean some bright students may decide to study elsewhere who are probably brighter than those who scraped into Oxbridge eg Cherie Blair decided to go to LSE despite having higher A Level grades than Tony who got into St John's Oxford, his second choice college
I don't know much about JRM - he struck me as a decent type but with no depth to his opinions. Of course, financial ability and political ability are two different things, so he may be a complete genius at numbers and not so hot at politics.
I think your point about other universities has merit, although I've never thought about it before. That may be why most of the really interesting historical stuff in my field the last few years has been coming out of the wider Russell Group, particularly places like York and St Andrews. One complaint I did hear quite a lot was how stifling Oxbridge could be to the wrong person, which may also be a factor.
Oh that's right, polls don't matter any more (despite favourability being a very good way of predicting election outcomes). It's all about Oldham. Wonder how many years you can use Oldham for before it gets old?
I thought Imperial College was by far the best university in the UK? - at least for Sciences and Engineering
Doesn't offer the Humanities so must be rubbish
It would probably be the best for those subjects, yes, although that doesn't make Oxbridge any the less world leading in those fields too - in fact, I think we're pretty lucky to have three such good institutions in one country. I think I am right in saying that we have more universities in the top 100 in the world according to reputable lists than any other country in the world save America, which is five times our size.
In fact, even allowing for a fair amount of deadweight (the University of Gloucestershire springs to mind) our university sector is pretty impressive on the whole, particularly at the top end, which is why lots of people want to come from abroad to study here.
Following on from yesterday's discussion about flooding it is worth posting this article from George Monbiot last year. The Moonbat remains an enigma to me. Whilst he can often write some of the most stupid things imaginable, at times he can also write some very astute articles and I believe this is one of them.
In view of the devastating floods throughout the North and also here in North Wales (ignored by the media) does the UK government have access to European funds to aid in the recovery.
Is Oxford really top drawer when it comes to science and mathematics? I may be out of date but I thought its reputation in those fields had become that of a place you went to if you couldn't get into to one of the better institutions e.g. Cambridge, Imperial, Warwick (the last for maths).
On wider note do the two Oxbridge universities still receive a "pupil premium" because of their unique teaching methods? If, as has been suggested on here this morning, other places are getting better results (and doing better research) without that advantage, I wonder if such extra funding can continue to be justified.
Following on from yesterday's discussion about flooding it is worth posting this article from George Monbiot last year. The Moonbat remains an enigma to me. Whilst he can often write some of the most stupid things imaginable, at times he can also write some very astute articles and I believe this is one of them.
A very interesting article I hadn't seen before, thank you. With regard to Monbiot, I think the key point is that it was a useful stick to beat his favourite bete noire - Paterson - with. Unlike most of his sticks, it happened to be correct. Planting trees reduces flooding. No sh1t, Sherlock...
One of the things Cameron should really be hammering with his renegotiation is the CAP, which continues after years to be the great blot on the EU. It was set up as a well-meaning exercise in resource management in a crucial but economically fragile industry (because of the vagaries of the weather) but it has turned into a monster. If Lisbon, which centralized it, were reversed on this point and local schemes of land husbandry were worked out, it would be ecologically and environmentally more sensible - we could have treed uplands, and the French could have olive yards, and we could pay them both from our own pockets to our benefit.
But also, think of the totemic blow it would strike at the ideal of a European superstate by splitting the French and the Germans!
(PS - Monbiot is of course wrong about dredging. It does reduce flooding if done in the right way and if done consistently so the channels are kept clear all year round. However, it would not have stopped the floods we saw this year, because there wasn't anywhere for the water to go anyway.)
Following on from yesterday's discussion about flooding it is worth posting this article from George Monbiot last year. The Moonbat remains an enigma to me. Whilst he can often write some of the most stupid things imaginable, at times he can also write some very astute articles and I believe this is one of them.
A very interesting article I hadn't seen before, thank you. With regard to Monbiot, I think the key point is that it was a useful stick to beat his favourite bete noire - Paterson - with. Unlike most of his sticks, it happened to be correct. Planting trees reduces flooding. No sh1t, Sherlock...
One of the things Cameron should really be hammering with his renegotiation is the CAP, which continues after years to be the great blot on the EU. It was set up as a well-meaning exercise in resource management in a crucial but economically fragile industry (because of the vagaries of the weather) but it has turned into a monster. If Lisbon, which centralized it, were reversed on this point and local schemes of land husbandry were worked out, it would be ecologically and environmentally more sensible - we could have treed uplands, and the French could have olive yards, and we could pay them both from our own pockets to our benefit.
But also, think of the totemic blow it would strike at the ideal of a European superstate by splitting the French and the Germans!
(PS - Monbiot is of course wrong about dredging. It does reduce flooding if done in the right way and if done consistently so the channels are kept clear all year round. However, it would not have stopped the floods we saw this year, because there wasn't anywhere for the water to go anyway.)
Yep. I think I agree with all of that. Unfortunately it won't happen in a month of Sundays, not least because we have made absolutely no demands concerning CAP as part of our renegotiation stance.
Is Oxford really top drawer when it comes to science and mathematics? I may be out of date but I thought its reputation in those fields had become that of a place you went to if you couldn't get into to one of the better institutions e.g. Cambridge, Imperial, Warwick (the last for maths).
On wider note do the two Oxbridge universities still receive a "pupil premium" because of their unique teaching methods? If, as has been suggested on here this morning, other places are getting better results (and doing better research) without that advantage, I wonder if such extra funding can continue to be justified.
I don't know about mathematics, HL (because very few people of my acquaintance have done it). Science I would have said yes.
I thought, on the second point that they funded it out of endowments. If not, I certainly agree it is ridiculous that they are being given more public money for such a system. Why should they be treated differently from any other university? They have all had to adapt to higher numbers and lower budgets, and most of them have very limited endowments.
Although, of course, Oxbridge are more equal than others - see here:
I thought Imperial College was by far the best university in the UK? - at least for Sciences and Engineering
Doesn't offer the Humanities so must be rubbish
It would probably be the best for those subjects, yes, although that doesn't make Oxbridge any the less world leading in those fields too - in fact, I think we're pretty lucky to have three such good institutions in one country. I think I am right in saying that we have more universities in the top 100 in the world according to reputable lists than any other country in the world save America, which is five times our size.
In fact, even allowing for a fair amount of deadweight (the University of Gloucestershire springs to mind) our university sector is pretty impressive on the whole, particularly at the top end, which is why lots of people want to come from abroad to study here.
Yes. If you look at populations we are 22nd (always assuming we include Cornwall !) but really only the USA can be said to rate above us in the respect of higher education. Indeed not many others if any can rate above us in regards anything - thats not to say we are better in any clear way but we are comparable at least. But when you look at the size of many of those countries and the weight of their internal markets they offer tremendous potential for growth if they would only offer their people democratic intellectual and economic freedom. India has a sound scientific tradition and huge population and will become increasingly important, but really only America offers not only all of that but the potential for real population growth to fuel its economy. That's one reason why only a fool would write them off as the worlds leading economic powerhouse. Russia? It has a declining ageing sickening and ignorant population. It desperately needs a fair and democratic release.
Is Oxford really top drawer when it comes to science and mathematics? I may be out of date but I thought its reputation in those fields had become that of a place you went to if you couldn't get into to one of the better institutions e.g. Cambridge, Imperial, Warwick (the last for maths).
On wider note do the two Oxbridge universities still receive a "pupil premium" because of their unique teaching methods? If, as has been suggested on here this morning, other places are getting better results (and doing better research) without that advantage, I wonder if such extra funding can continue to be justified.
I think it is more a case of subject by subject. At least this was the case in the past. In the 1980s neither Oxford nor Cambridge were considered good universities for Geology for example. The leaders back then were Leeds, Liverpool and some of the London Universities. No idea if it is still the case.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Is Oxford really top drawer when it comes to science and mathematics? I may be out of date but I thought its reputation in those fields had become that of a place you went to if you couldn't get into to one of the better institutions e.g. Cambridge, Imperial, Warwick (the last for maths).
On wider note do the two Oxbridge universities still receive a "pupil premium" because of their unique teaching methods? If, as has been suggested on here this morning, other places are getting better results (and doing better research) without that advantage, I wonder if such extra funding can continue to be justified.
I don't know about mathematics, HL (because very few people of my acquaintance have done it). Science I would have said yes.
I thought, on the second point that they funded it out of endowments. If not, I certainly agree it is ridiculous that they are being given more public money for such a system. Why should they be treated differently from any other university? They have all had to adapt to higher numbers and lower budgets, and most of them have very limited endowments.
Although, of course, Oxbridge are more equal than others - see here:
Someone on here will know about the "pupil premium" that certainly was in place some years ago. Oxbridge can keep doing things it way, as per the article you quoted, because the top tier of government (both elected and permanent branches) is dominated by its alumni. The Vampire Squid of Goldman Sachs is trivial in comparison.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
A neat riposte Francis, which is in itself more than a bit of a scandal.
Mind you, I can hardly talk as I used to teach in Wales, then the south west, now the West Midlands - so it's clearly all my fault!
I believe one reason (above and beyond the obvious) why Oxford and Cambridge score so highly in the various overall ranking, nationally and internationally, is that they are basically the only universities in the country that offer degrees in every subject area that is used in the metrics i.e. they do everything from theology to nuclear physics, while also not offering degrees in Mickey Mouse studies.
You will find that all the other top universities offer a very wide range of subjects, but for instance won't offer say theology.
You can look up their rankings on subject by subject basis and of course they are still ranked in the top handful for everything, but yes you will find particular subjects where a Imperial or Warwick etc will have nabbed the 2nd spot.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
A neat riposte Francis, which is in itself more than a bit of a scandal.
Mind you, I can hardly talk as I used to teach in Wales, then the south west, now the West Midlands - so it's clearly all my fault!
It is a scandal. I don't believe for a second kids in the North East are 40% "thicker" than those in London. In fact, a huge % of those kids in London doing so well are from poor and immigrant families, whose first language isn't English.
They had a women on the radio last week about this, who worked in educational services in the North East and she a) wouldn't accept it and b) then started to try and BS about how jobs in the North East required didn't skills etc. With such a closed minded attitude it is no wonder it doesn't improve. It is the same as the scandal of far too many state schools telling their kids that Oxbridge isn't for people like them and so not to apply / not giving them the required assistant in prepping.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Why would that be ?
Perhaps because schools in London receive more resources than, say, schools in Wales of the North of England.
Or, do you think the pupils in London are just more intelligent than, say, pupils in Wales or the North of England ?
Statistically, over reasonable periods of time, students should be represented in proportion to the fraction of population in that region. One might expect Poisson fluctuations, but this should be very small given the numbers involved.
This is accepted in terms of gender or ethnicity. We expect them to be represented at our top universities in proportionate to the contribution to the general population.
I believe one reason (above and beyond the obvious) why Oxford and Cambridge score so highly in the various overall ranking, nationally and internationally, is that they are basically the only universities in the country that offer degrees in every subject area that is used in the metrics i.e. they do everything from theology to nuclear physics, while also not offering degrees in Mickey Mouse studies.
You will find that all the other top universities offer a very wide range of subjects, but for instance won't offer say theology.
You can look up their rankings on subject by subject basis and of course they are still ranked in the top handful for everything, but yes you will find particular subjects where a Imperial or Warwick etc will have nabbed the 2nd spot.
Straight off the top of my head Nottingham and Bristol offer an identical or near-identical spread of subjects. Admittedly both of them are also very high in the rankings!
I don't think anyone could say Rees-Mogg is stupid and he also worked in the City before setting up his own Fund. Oxbridge has the highest A Level grades required for entry so it tends, on average, to have the brightest students that does not mean some bright students may decide to study elsewhere who are probably brighter than those who scraped into Oxbridge eg Cherie Blair decided to go to LSE despite having higher A Level grades than Tony who got into St John's Oxford, his second choice college
I don't know much about JRM - he struck me as a decent type but with no depth to his opinions. Of course, financial ability and political ability are two different things, so he may be a complete genius at numbers and not so hot at politics.
I think your point about other universities has merit, although I've never thought about it before. That may be why most of the really interesting historical stuff in my field the last few years has been coming out of the wider Russell Group, particularly places like York and St Andrews. One complaint I did hear quite a lot was how stifling Oxbridge could be to the wrong person, which may also be a factor.
Rees Mogg is by far the best and most knowledgeable speaker in Parliament, even Mhairi Black says 'she could listen to him for hours.'
Oxbridge does not suit everyone and there are plenty of intelligent people who decide to study elsewhere, but as a Warwick and Aberystwyth graduate myself I would still say Oxford and Cambridge are the best universities in the UK and the, with the possible addition of Imperial, the only ones consistently in the world's top ten
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
I believe one reason (above and beyond the obvious) why Oxford and Cambridge score so highly in the various overall ranking, nationally and internationally, is that they are basically the only universities in the country that offer degrees in every subject area that is used in the metrics i.e. they do everything from theology to nuclear physics, while also not offering degrees in Mickey Mouse studies.
You will find that all the other top universities offer a very wide range of subjects, but for instance won't offer say theology.
You can look up their rankings on subject by subject basis and of course they are still ranked in the top handful for everything, but yes you will find particular subjects where a Imperial or Warwick etc will have nabbed the 2nd spot.
Straight off the top of my head Nottingham and Bristol offer an identical or near-identical spread of subjects. Admittedly both of them are also very high in the rankings!
I think you will find they will be lacking one or two subject areas and / or are very poor at at something. Also, you have to consider both undergrad and postgrad.
It is the breadth, as well as the quality, in the measured subject areas that keeps Oxbridge in #1 and #2 in the rankings every year.
I just assumed it was God's way of saying that being Anglican was the way to go
Hah! I spend a lot of time with qualified DVMs and the stories that the Canadian field vets tell are the worst.
Like the time that the head of R&D at a big global company told me about the time he was suffering frostbitten fingers in a storm in Northern Ontario. So he stripped off the sleeves from his overcoat (Canadian jackets are made with shoulder zips) and plunged both arms past the elbow into a cow's rear end...
Or the time when another explained to me (over supper!) the consequences of standing directly behind a cow with a cough...
Can't really compete on the low end of the temperature spectrum. But on the high end ... Djibouti, 56 celsius, near 100% humidity. Definitely four-showers-a-day weather. Or the Empty Quarter, 55 Celsius, below 10% humidity so no visible sweating, just your arms going white with residue salt. Then 0 Celsius that night.
Every August a load of British tourists turn up at Dubai's beach hotels without thinking why it it so much cheaper in the summer than the winter! Not quite as bad as Djibouti, but let's call it three showers a day weather. The temperature is usually 49 officially for a few weeks, as 50 leads to a temporary state of emergency that prevents anyone working outside. Humidity around 80%, sunglasses steam up in seconds as you walk outside and within a couple of minutes your shirt is soaking wet. Worse is that 35C is a cold night, 40 is more usual.
I thought Dubai was in the desert? I really enjoyed living in Phoenix, 40+C and very dry. Lovely!
In the desert but also on the coast. Hot and humid and generally horrible from May to September.
Lovely today though, 21C at 9am, clear blue sky with a few fluffy cumulus, rising to about 26'in the early afternoon. Like a nice British Summer's day
I can recommend southern India at this time of year. Dubai was damp and overcast when we flew through.
Afternoon of Boxing Day by any chance? That was wet and windy, it does happen a handful of days a year. Usually when you've booked a table outside for lunch!
BTW an open invitation to any PBers passing through the sandpit who would like a drink or several during their stay, PM me a few days before.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Why would that be ?
Perhaps because schools in London receive more resources than, say, schools in Wales of the North of England.
Or, do you think the pupils in London are just more intelligent than, say, pupils in Wales or the North of England ?
Statistically, over reasonable periods of time, students should be represented in proportion to the fraction of population in that region. One might expect Poisson fluctuations, but this should be very small given the numbers involved.
This is accepted in terms of gender or ethnicity. We expect them to be represented at our top universities in proportionate to the contribution to the general population.
I think Francis' earlier post is a response to your own point on his views, so I won't bother with that. However, there are some other factors to consider:
1) The school system. I went to the North-East last year, and it was a real eye-opener. I was absolutely appalled at what I found. Lots of money has been slung at these places - literally tens of millions in some schools - but that doesn't make any difference, because they simply cannot recruit teachers. One infant school teacher had a class size of 34, which is ridiculous (20 would be more like it). And of course, once you have such a huge load, you have every incentive to quit the profession to get your life back - making the problem still worse.
2) Aspirations. Do people growing up in a grim street in Bury or Llantrisant really think about going to Oxbridge, however bright they are? Probably not. And if they don't apply, Oxbridge won't offer places, which in fairness you can hardly blame them for. In my time in a poor part of Monmouthshire, it took a hell of a lot of coaxing to get a girl with straight A*s to have a dart at Oxbridge. She shouldn't even have been hesitating. The interview alone would have been a great experience for her.
3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting.
I fully agree this is wrong. I think however it is a problem that could do with sorting from the bottom up.
Other ways could include special postgraduate bursaries perhaps for those from disadvantaged backgrounds or particular regions to do an extra year of study after going to a different university at the start.
I don't think anyone could say Rees-Mogg is stupid and he also worked in the City before setting up his own Fund. Oxbridge has the highest A Level grades required for entry so it tends, on average, to have the brightest students that does not mean some bright students may decide to study elsewhere who are probably brighter than those who scraped into Oxbridge eg Cherie Blair decided to go to LSE despite having higher A Level grades than Tony who got into St John's Oxford, his second choice college
I don't know much about JRM - he struck me as a decent type but with no depth to his opinions. Of course, financial ability and political ability are two different things, so he may be a complete genius at numbers and not so hot at politics.
I think your point about other universities has merit, although I've never thought about it before. That may be why most of the really interesting historical stuff in my field the last few years has been coming out of the wider Russell Group, particularly places like York and St Andrews. One complaint I did hear quite a lot was how stifling Oxbridge could be to the wrong person, which may also be a factor.
I almost always never watch HIGNFY but when Mogg was on he seemed pretty teflon to the usual crass attempts to embarrass him. He seemed to have a rare talent, charm, together with self depreciation. On their own terms (admittedly rather shallow) he won the audience over. This sets him somewhat apart from the usual thick rightwing tory backbencher. He is a bit silly however but there is always a chance he might just realise it. Of course, having been to Eton himself and oozing a patrician stance, then if he does happen to dislike the PM it will not be because of his background.
Unless the Tories manage to eat themselves over the EU referendum, then they could put up any Tom, Dick or Boris in 2020 and still win a majority against Corbyn. He's absolute poison to those who aren't the 20% of his fanatical support.
As someone suggested on the last thread, I wonder if Dave is having second thoughts about wanting to step down before the election, no PM has ever won three successive elections with increasing majorities.
I think Earl Grey 'won' three elections, increasing his majority a each, though his 'win' in 1830 has to be defined in terms of forming a government as by any other measure, the Tories under Wellington won - but numerical measures are trumped by the political result. Besides, Cameron's position after his first election is not wholly dissimilar. Pitt the Younger might be another example though I haven't got detailed figures for 1790 to hand.
Your history knowledge is somewhat more extensive than mine, I was thinking back only about 100 years!
The comment about Oxford not so good for science is partially shown in the rankings e.g. Engineering and Computer Science they are not 2nd. Engineering is more top 5 and Computer Science they bounce around within the top 5. Obviously Imperial is the big competitor in those categories.
I just assumed it was God's way of saying that being Anglican was the way to go
Hah! I spend a lot of time with qualified DVMs and the stories that the Canadian field vets tell are the worst.
Like the time that the head of R&D at a big global company told me about the time he was suffering frostbitten fingers in a storm in Northern Ontario. So he stripped off the sleeves from his overcoat (Canadian jackets are made with shoulder zips) and plunged both arms past the elbow into a cow's rear end...
Or the time when another explained to me (over supper!) the consequences of standing directly behind a cow with a cough...
Can't really compete on the low end of the temperature spectrum. But on the high end ... Djibouti, 56 celsius, near 100% humidity. Definitely four-showers-a-day weather. Or the Empty Quarter, 55 Celsius, below 10% humidity so no visible sweating, just your arms going white with residue salt. Then 0 Celsius that night.
Every August a load of British tourists turn up at Dubai's beach hotels without thinking why it it so much cheaper in the summer than the winter! Not quite as bad as Djibouti, but let's call it three showers a day weather. The temperature is usually 49 officially for a few weeks, as 50 leads to a temporary state of emergency that prevents anyone working outside. Humidity around 80%, sunglasses steam up in seconds as you walk outside and within a couple of minutes your shirt is soaking wet. Worse is that 35C is a cold night, 40 is more usual.
I thought Dubai was in the desert? I really enjoyed living in Phoenix, 40+C and very dry. Lovely!
In the desert but also on the coast. Hot and humid and generally horrible from May to September.
Lovely today though, 21C at 9am, clear blue sky with a few fluffy cumulus, rising to about 26'in the early afternoon. Like a nice British Summer's day
I can recommend southern India at this time of year. Dubai was damp and overcast when we flew through.
Afternoon of Boxing Day by any chance? That was wet and windy, it does happen a handful of days a year. Usually when you've booked a table outside for lunch!
BTW an open invitation to any PBers passing through the sandpit who would like a drink or several during their stay, PM me a few days before.
It was indeed Boxing Day early afternoon! Not sure we'd have had time to meet up - we only had time for a quick coffee and even then made the gate just as the final call was going out. At least the luggage arrived with us in Manchester, unlike on the way out!
"3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting."
The last government bottled a great chance to change this. Gove was on to something, but backed down when the universities kicked up a stink.
The biggest change would be to apply to uni once you have got your results. Yes it would require exam being taken a bit earlier and universities to process application during the summer, but it is certainly possible if the will was there.
Unfortunately, unis like to spend their summers raking it in from the conference seasons and academics to go off attending them (and vacations).
It is a total nonsense that basically people put down predicted grades when only half the course has been completed and those are used as gospel.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
"3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting."
The last government bottled a great chance to change this. Gove was on to something, but backed down when the universities kicked up a stink.
The biggest change would be to apply to uni once you have got your results. Yes it would require exam being taken a bit earlier and universities to process application during the summer, but it is certainly possible if the will was there.
Unfortunately, unis like to spend their summers raking it in from the conference seasons and academics to go off attending them (and vacations).
There would have been an even easier way to do it - put the start of the university year back to January, or November, which it already is for some postgraduate courses. Then have the long vacation from the start of August to the start of November, which would be ample for research/family holidays/exam boards etc. It would also have allowed prospective students to spend time working, earning money, or travelling if they could afford it.
But that was bottled as well. As you say, a great opportunity missed, and I look forward to the day a government has another go at it.
I don't think anyone could say Rees-Mogg is stupid and he also worked in the City before setting up his own Fund. Oxbridge has the highest A Level grades required for entry so it tends, on average, to have the brightest students that does not mean some bright students may decide to study elsewhere who are probably brighter than those who scraped into Oxbridge eg Cherie Blair decided to go to LSE despite having higher A Level grades than Tony who got into St John's Oxford, his second choice college
I don't know much about JRM - he struck me as a decent type but with no depth to his opinions. Of course, financial ability and political ability are two different things, so he may be a complete genius at numbers and not so hot at politics.
I think your point about other universities has merit, although I've never thought about it before. That may be why most of the really interesting historical stuff in my field the last few years has been coming out of the wider Russell Group, particularly places like York and St Andrews. One complaint I did hear quite a lot was how stifling Oxbridge could be to the wrong person, which may also be a factor.
RM is one of the brighter and deeper-thinking MPs. Despite being portrayed as the member for the eighteenth-century, I'm told he is actually very good at connecting with crowds and individuals both.
I think Francis' earlier post is a response to your own point on his views, so I won't bother with that. However, there are some other factors to consider:
1) The school system. I went to the North-East last year, and it was a real eye-opener. I was absolutely appalled at what I found. Lots of money has been slung at these places - literally tens of millions in some schools - but that doesn't make any difference, because they simply cannot recruit teachers. One infant school teacher had a class size of 34, which is ridiculous (20 would be more like it). And of course, once you have such a huge load, you have every incentive to quit the profession to get your life back - making the problem still worse.
2) Aspirations. Do people growing up in a grim street in Bury or Llantrisant really think about going to Oxbridge, however bright they are? Probably not. And if they don't apply, Oxbridge won't offer places, which in fairness you can hardly blame them for. In my time in a poor part of Monmouthshire, it took a hell of a lot of coaxing to get a girl with straight A*s to have a dart at Oxbridge. She shouldn't even have been hesitating. The interview alone would have been a great experience for her.
3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting.
I fully agree this is wrong. I think however it is a problem that could do with sorting from the bottom up.
Other ways could include special postgraduate bursaries perhaps for those from disadvantaged backgrounds or particular regions to do an extra year of study after going to a different university at the start.
In some ways, the US system of being able to transfer between colleges part way through a degree helps to level the playing field. For example, in my county in MD, the local community college is good. Thus people with no money, or from lower performing high schools can get a year or two under their belt at Montgomery College, and then transfer to an Ivy League school if they have the grades to do so.
Of course, this does not help out so much in poorer areas were the community college is not so excellent as Montgomery College, but the same principle of getting into somewhere within the aspiration range, doing well, getting broader horizons and trading up is a model that is very widely followed here.
The great scandal of Oxbridge entrance is rarely mentioned.
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
But the results from schools in the South East are better than other areas of England e.g. South West and North East have significantly worse results and kids from there are 40% less likely to go to university than in London.
Now that is a real scandal. Cameron made some big speeches before the last election about improving the UK's dreadful social mobility, I wonder what he is doing about it. As far as I can remember he has not even set up an inter-departmental working party with fairly broad terms of reference to think through the issues so that future decisions can be based on mature reflection.
Plenty of Welsh pupils got into Oxbridge or top careers when we had more grammars, Roy Jenkins and Michael Howard and Anthony Hopkins to name just three
You are perfectly right to point to the abolition of the grammars.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
I'm lucky enough to be resident in an area where state grammar schools still exist. Of my school pals, most are now, in their late 20s, earning the same or more than their parents (excepting the business-owning parents).
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
I think Earl Grey 'won' three elections, increasing his majority a each, though his 'win' in 1830 has to be defined in terms of forming a government as by any other measure, the Tories under Wellington won - but numerical measures are trumped by the political result. Besides, Cameron's position after his first election is not wholly dissimilar. Pitt the Younger might be another example though I haven't got detailed figures for 1790 to hand.
Grey was only Whig leader for two elections - 1831 and 1832. Moreover, as peers by convention did not campaign at the time of an election, technically the party leader at the election was Lord Althorp.
...
The 1830 election was a weird one. It is possible to claim - and I am claiming - that Grey won it, as he became PM two months after the election after Wellington resigned on an issue that was key to the election, and after which Grey held office to the next election (albeit one that was held sooner rather than later). This despite Wellington winning more seats and the Tories overall winning still more (though that division in the Tory ranks was not unimportant), and - as you say - Grey not being party leader at the time of the election; he still emerged the winner all the same.
Either way, and having now had more chance to check the figures, Pitt won the 1784, 1790 and 1796 with increases in his majority in each.
Comments
http://www.mydup.com/news/article/corbyn-learns-lessons-from-republicans-on-re-writing-the-past
Kavanagh's premise seems to be that Europe will get worse in 2016 and will become Unstayable In.
I think opinion will move towards Remain when Cameron declares victory in his negotiations (that will the moment to back Leave). Then things will drift towards Leave as the moment approaches.
A sort of politically correct rewrite of the original...
@Wanderer yes, John McDonnell is a poor choice as Shadow Chancellor. However, Diane Abbott would make that appointment look as inspired as Churchill's appointment of Bevin to the Ministry of Labour. She is known only for her rudeness, hypocrisy, stupidity and incompetence. She is totally unaware of any aspect of the international situation. She spends all of her time inveighing against racism and sexism, which is richly ironic when you consider that every promotion she has ever had has been due to positive affirmation for her race and gender (including this one, if the reports are to be believed that it's to get more women and ethnic minorities into prominent positions) and is even more ironic when you consider that many of her own statements are by any objective standard racist and sexist (let's start with the infamous one on 'divide and rule', which she later claimed had been quoted out of context - the last refuge of a scoundrel).
A top team of Corbyn, Macdonnell, Abbott and Watson, with Milne riding shotgun, would show three things (1) that Labour do not care about talent, only about right-on political opinions and token gestures (2) that bullying, lying (I picked that for Milne - he claims Stalin 'only' had 723000 people killed, which is not true although because Stalin destroyed so much documentation we don't have a reliable figure) and calls for violence are now considered acceptable by Britain's second largest party, and (3) that Labour have cravenly surrendered not merely the next election but any hope of ever returning to power - the Liberals of the 21st century.
What a mess that would be. I am still hoping that this was Corbyn having had a few too many whiskies over the holidays flying a kite so that everyone will be relieved when he appoints some random man (e.g. Clive Lewis - who might be quite a shrewd choice as SFO) instead.
The hard left sees Labour as a vehicle; but most members do want the party to govern. Currently, however, they are deluding themselves. Because, unlike the hard left, they are essentially good, well-meaning people, at some stage reality will bite. But not for a while yet.
Has anyone done any analysis on this at Oldham ? OK one by-election is not a proper sample.
I agree. watching the establishment panic as the polls creep towards out near the vote will be wonderful.
Some great filmmakers too. Mike Powell shot parts of A Matter of Life and Death in BW because of the artistic representation for his message - that Heaven was inside David Niven's head, and not fully fleshed out. I gather Jack Cardiff actually used technicolor film that had been bleached, and certainly it's one of the most hauntingly beautiful of all cinematographic performances. Laurence Olivier turned down technicolor film for Hamlet because he felt artistically BW was the way to go given the difficulties and ambiguities of the script - a path followed later by Steven Spielberg with dazzling effect in Schindler's List.
I miss 'WIMP', which no-one ever says any more. It's a bit like micon, WYSIWYG and RISC: terms that dominated the industry two decades ago and are now so common as to not need their own terms.
Certainly, looking at the Lib Dem Leader ratings makes a complete mess of the supposed superior predictive qualities of this measure.
All of which are of course possible next year. But if so, do you see a way back for the party from such a nadir?
I am looking forward to it because I think there will be extra last minute concessions from desperate Eurocrats and we will stay in on better terms.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12071064/Former-MPs-describe-the-grief-of-life-after-defeat.html
"Vince Cable, the former Liberal Democrat business secretary, has admitted that he had to learn how to send emails after losing his seat, while other former MPs described how they went from being “somebody to nobody”.
Mr Cable, 72, said that while in office he had an “army of people”, but following his defeat he has had to learn to live without that support. “I had never sent emails, never,” he told The Sunday Times. “Somebody always did it for me, so I had to learn that.”
Several former MPs compared losing their seat at the general election to grieving. Chris Williamson, the former Labour MP for Derby North, who lost his seat by just 41 votes, said that after the result was announced “all I could see was blackness”.
After leaving the count he drove to his constituency office, walked into the lavatory and started vomiting. He said: “I was in a very bad way. I’d never experienced anything like it. I felt fear, all I could see was blackness, all I could think was ‘Oh my God, how am I going to keep a roof over my head?’
“I had been an elected member [as an MP and councillor] for 25 years. I went from being a somebody to nobody. Building a new life is hard to do.”
Tristram Hunt's work veers from the derivative to the utterly incompetent. He would not have got a doctorate at Aberystwyth, because the quality control process we went through was too rigorous for his mistakes to be overlooked (I was given a list of punctuation changes I would have to make before they would pass my thesis - the idea I would have got away with saying the Seven Years' War was in the 1730s is not even a starter). It is not as though Aberystwyth is a world-beating university - yet Cambridge let these sort of things through.
Diane Abbott is a different case as she was at a grammar school, but it's hard to escape the feeling that both her degree course and her job were due to affirmative action programmes being promoted at the time to show how right-on people were. After all, she has displayed no great intellectual talents and has no significant achievements to her name since leaving Cambridge.
Let's be fair and consider the other side too. Osborne was at Oxford, and he's hardly the brain of Britain - on the other hand, he is very rich and his family are definitely well-connected. Richard Graham, my former MP, who was at Eton and did not realise the choir of Gloucester Cathedral is a professional organisation, might be mentioned in this context too. And of course Jacob Rees-Mogg somehow scraped his way in to Trinity College. He may have some disguised intellectual merits, but if he does it has to be said he hides them rather well. He comes as the archetypical well-meaning but rather stupid and narrow-minded type.
I have sometimes thought it would be most interesting to let OFSTED loose on Oxbridge and see what they made of them. The thing is, OFSTED are a bit useless as well and their ratings appear to be based on reputations and results as much as the reality on the ground.
https://twitter.com/KulganofCrydee/status/681412155216949249
The Times today! Spot on? https://t.co/GrkmxN4LEA
What dire ratings!!
England surely hot favourites to win the match from here - 100 would probably be enough to put it out of SA's reach.
Oxbridge difference, at least in history, is about the level of preparation work required, writing 2-3k words a week, and contact time.
I don't think I went to more than 1 hour of lectures in most weeks, but had consistently between 3 and 5 hours a fortnight discursive access, at BA level and mostly 1:1, with some of the leading experts in modern history. One of my highlights was a term with Martin Conway, who is editor of the EHR.
My contemporaries who studied the same subject at other universities wrote 2000 words a term, and had 15/20:1 seminars......
Contact time I will agree about - but from my own experience as a lecturer, teacher and private tutor I would have thought that would make it easier, not more difficult, to get good grades. You get the opportunity to discuss and clarify matters with the experts. I had to get it right on my own first time.
She may appear to have something to offer to Andrew Neil, or she may not. However, it is worth pointing out she is only up against Michael Portillo, who makes excellent train documentaries but whose political career was studded with quite spectacular misjudgements and failures and seemed to owe more to the prevailing political wind than to any intellectual coherence of his own. I would suggest his programme is about talking heads who are considered fashionable rather than serious analysis. I personally find it isn't worth watching, although you are free to disagree if you wish.
I don't know her personally, of course. However, when I look at her record I can't see a single indication of talent or ability of any sort, other than her degree course. She also comes across as rude, arrogant and lazy. Therefore, I think it is more likely - not certain, but more likely - that she got in on affirmative action rather than merit.
I think your point about other universities has merit, although I've never thought about it before. That may be why most of the really interesting historical stuff in my field the last few years has been coming out of the wider Russell Group, particularly places like York and St Andrews. One complaint I did hear quite a lot was how stifling Oxbridge could be to the wrong person, which may also be a factor.
It would probably be the best for those subjects, yes, although that doesn't make Oxbridge any the less world leading in those fields too - in fact, I think we're pretty lucky to have three such good institutions in one country. I think I am right in saying that we have more universities in the top 100 in the world according to reputable lists than any other country in the world save America, which is five times our size.
In fact, even allowing for a fair amount of deadweight (the University of Gloucestershire springs to mind) our university sector is pretty impressive on the whole, particularly at the top end, which is why lots of people want to come from abroad to study here.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/flooding-public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes?CMP=share_btn_tw
Interesting article on how it was actually a pesky IRS employee was the real person who managed to crack the case of the silk road founder.
On wider note do the two Oxbridge universities still receive a "pupil premium" because of their unique teaching methods? If, as has been suggested on here this morning, other places are getting better results (and doing better research) without that advantage, I wonder if such extra funding can continue to be justified.
One of the things Cameron should really be hammering with his renegotiation is the CAP, which continues after years to be the great blot on the EU. It was set up as a well-meaning exercise in resource management in a crucial but economically fragile industry (because of the vagaries of the weather) but it has turned into a monster. If Lisbon, which centralized it, were reversed on this point and local schemes of land husbandry were worked out, it would be ecologically and environmentally more sensible - we could have treed uplands, and the French could have olive yards, and we could pay them both from our own pockets to our benefit.
But also, think of the totemic blow it would strike at the ideal of a European superstate by splitting the French and the Germans!
(PS - Monbiot is of course wrong about dredging. It does reduce flooding if done in the right way and if done consistently so the channels are kept clear all year round. However, it would not have stopped the floods we saw this year, because there wasn't anywhere for the water to go anyway.)
Between 40 and 45 per cent of successful applications come from London and the South East.
All other geographical locations (especially Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and the North of England) are under-represented. Sometimes massively so.
This is of no interest to our London-dominated media and political classes. So it is never mentioned.
Abbott and Miliband are fools. But they are London fools. That is why they went to Oxbridge.
The fact a 38-year old was described as "young" fills me with hope for the future.
I thought, on the second point that they funded it out of endowments. If not, I certainly agree it is ridiculous that they are being given more public money for such a system. Why should they be treated differently from any other university? They have all had to adapt to higher numbers and lower budgets, and most of them have very limited endowments.
Although, of course, Oxbridge are more equal than others - see here:
https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/oxford-and-cambridge-teacher-training-courses-saved-last-minute-dfe
If you look at populations we are 22nd (always assuming we include Cornwall !) but really only the USA can be said to rate above us in the respect of higher education. Indeed not many others if any can rate above us in regards anything - thats not to say we are better in any clear way but we are comparable at least.
But when you look at the size of many of those countries and the weight of their internal markets they offer tremendous potential for growth if they would only offer their people democratic intellectual and economic freedom. India has a sound scientific tradition and huge population and will become increasingly important, but really only America offers not only all of that but the potential for real population growth to fuel its economy. That's one reason why only a fool would write them off as the worlds leading economic powerhouse.
Russia? It has a declining ageing sickening and ignorant population. It desperately needs a fair and democratic release.
Mind you, I can hardly talk as I used to teach in Wales, then the south west, now the West Midlands - so it's clearly all my fault!
You will find that all the other top universities offer a very wide range of subjects, but for instance won't offer say theology.
You can look up their rankings on subject by subject basis and of course they are still ranked in the top handful for everything, but yes you will find particular subjects where a Imperial or Warwick etc will have nabbed the 2nd spot.
They had a women on the radio last week about this, who worked in educational services in the North East and she a) wouldn't accept it and b) then started to try and BS about how jobs in the North East required didn't skills etc. With such a closed minded attitude it is no wonder it doesn't improve. It is the same as the scandal of far too many state schools telling their kids that Oxbridge isn't for people like them and so not to apply / not giving them the required assistant in prepping.
Perhaps because schools in London receive more resources than, say, schools in Wales of the North of England.
Or, do you think the pupils in London are just more intelligent than, say, pupils in Wales or the North of England ?
Statistically, over reasonable periods of time, students should be represented in proportion to the fraction of population in that region. One might expect Poisson fluctuations, but this should be very small given the numbers involved.
This is accepted in terms of gender or ethnicity. We expect them to be represented at our top universities in proportionate to the contribution to the general population.
Oxbridge does not suit everyone and there are plenty of intelligent people who decide to study elsewhere, but as a Warwick and Aberystwyth graduate myself I would still say Oxford and Cambridge are the best universities in the UK and the, with the possible addition of Imperial, the only ones consistently in the world's top ten
It is the breadth, as well as the quality, in the measured subject areas that keeps Oxbridge in #1 and #2 in the rankings every year.
BTW an open invitation to any PBers passing through the sandpit who would like a drink or several during their stay, PM me a few days before.
1) The school system. I went to the North-East last year, and it was a real eye-opener. I was absolutely appalled at what I found. Lots of money has been slung at these places - literally tens of millions in some schools - but that doesn't make any difference, because they simply cannot recruit teachers. One infant school teacher had a class size of 34, which is ridiculous (20 would be more like it). And of course, once you have such a huge load, you have every incentive to quit the profession to get your life back - making the problem still worse.
2) Aspirations. Do people growing up in a grim street in Bury or Llantrisant really think about going to Oxbridge, however bright they are? Probably not. And if they don't apply, Oxbridge won't offer places, which in fairness you can hardly blame them for. In my time in a poor part of Monmouthshire, it took a hell of a lot of coaxing to get a girl with straight A*s to have a dart at Oxbridge. She shouldn't even have been hesitating. The interview alone would have been a great experience for her.
3) The applications system itself, which is archaic and badly run, and therefore favours the most articulate students in the best-organised and most experienced schools (e.g. private schools). That in itself needs sorting.
I fully agree this is wrong. I think however it is a problem that could do with sorting from the bottom up.
Other ways could include special postgraduate bursaries perhaps for those from disadvantaged backgrounds or particular regions to do an extra year of study after going to a different university at the start.
This sets him somewhat apart from the usual thick rightwing tory backbencher. He is a bit silly however but there is always a chance he might just realise it.
Of course, having been to Eton himself and oozing a patrician stance, then if he does happen to dislike the PM it will not be because of his background.
The last government bottled a great chance to change this. Gove was on to something, but backed down when the universities kicked up a stink.
The biggest change would be to apply to uni once you have got your results. Yes it would require exam being taken a bit earlier and universities to process application during the summer, but it is certainly possible if the will was there.
Unfortunately, unis like to spend their summers raking it in from the conference seasons and academics to go off attending them (and vacations).
It is a total nonsense that basically people put down predicted grades when only half the course has been completed and those are used as gospel.
Here's Peter Lampl:
On his return from America Lampl was appalled to discover that nowadays "a kid like me had little to no chance of making it to Oxbridge or another Russell Group university", noting that his old grammar school was now "all fee-paying" and his old Oxford college "used to have lots of ordinary Welsh kids, but they're not coming through any more" [Wiki]
It was specifically the fate of Welsh Students that caused Lampl to set the Sutton Trust up in the first place.
The number of Welsh students at Oxbridge is very low. Way out of kilter with the proportion expected on the grounds of population.
Ditto North East, Scotland & N. Ireland.
But that was bottled as well. As you say, a great opportunity missed, and I look forward to the day a government has another go at it.
Of course, this does not help out so much in poorer areas were the community college is not so excellent as Montgomery College, but the same principle of getting into somewhere within the aspiration range, doing well, getting broader horizons and trading up is a model that is very widely followed here.
It is to our enduring shame as a national that selective education was generally abolished. I would campaign on it's reintroduction if I were ever to stand as an MP.
Either way, and having now had more chance to check the figures, Pitt won the 1784, 1790 and 1796 with increases in his majority in each.