Very Private Eye. I thought for a very brief moment you were being serious about Nicky Morgan. It does remind us that while the government is imploding over the referendum it's still managing to wreak havoc esewhere
I liked the way you managed to slip 'Jeremy Hunt' in for comparative purposes though I think you could have moved him from the 'hapless' column to the 'beleaguered' one. I can only think his 1% support with Conservative Home was a rounding error?
To remind us that Labour have their own crackpots by introducing Lucy 'Edstone' 'Powell was smart. There has been some criticism of unbalanced headers lately.
Then back with Graham Brady (known even to his his footballer wife Hale constituents as 'Thicko') and on to the governments 'defeats and retreats' then ending with George and his "megashambles budget"..........
.......altogether an ejoyable and well rounded piece
Hunt has a serious chance. Taking on, and beating, the health unions always goes down well.
It's the way you tell 'em! According to DB Con Home gives him a 1% chance. I haven't disliked a Tory Minister more since Norman Tebbit.
You are not the target electorate.
Hunt is sly, manipulative, bullying, ruthless and in cahoots with the press barons. He also can be very elusive (not just the infamous hiding behind a tree when being sought over the BSkyB deal - he also has not appeared in the Commons on several occasions to answer questions on the strikes, leaving the hapless Gummer to field them). He has a certain superficial charm and feathers his own nest very nicely.
I can see him getting to the top of the Conservative party and is a worthwhile value punt.
Translation: I don't like his healthcare policy.
I think most of his healthcare policies are fine. Indeed I support better weekend services. What I dislike is his victimisation of junior doctors in a completely counterproductive way. It is a classic example of a metropolitan elite screwing the terms and conditions of the workers that we were discussing on the last thread.
Improving weekend care is a lot more complex than cutting payrates for junior doctors working Saturdays. Spreading a stretched workforce thinner is not going to do it, just push up vacancies and absenteeism.
Nicky Morgan has a very good reputation in Loughborough as a constituency MP. She turned a bellwether midlands marginal seat into a comfortable Tory majority. Without wanting to rub salt in NickP's wounds, much like Broxtowe.
I don't think she has the depth to be leader, but do not despise her politics. It wins elections, while Farage consistently loses.
You could say the same of MPs from all sorts of ideological backgrounds. Tim Farron has perhaps done more than anyone to build a local powerbase but it doesn't mean that the opportunist gobby so and so should be PM.
Did you read my post? I said she does not have the depth to be leader.
I did read your post. Besides your comments on Morgan's ability (which I agree with), you implied that her politics wins elections. I'm not sure I agree with that. What works locally can be very different from what works nationally, or from what works locally elsewhere.
Emm. Not sure about the analysis on Loughborough being a bell-weather. Steve Dorrell held it as a safe Tory seat for years until the New Labour years. It has returned to the tory fold, like many english southern/midlands seats, now that Tony Blair is a distant memory. So, I suppose you could argue it is a bell-weather example of TB's reach, much like Broxtowe (again reasonably safe Tory seat until New Labour).
In the early 70s L'borough was Labour, but then no doubt the seat's demographics were very different (I used to work there so know it a bit). Lots more industrial workers for a start.
When Stephen Dorrell held it the constituency had quite different boundaries, which is why he ditched it for the safe seat of Charnwood.
Loughborough, Broxtowe, Nuneaton etc are where Labour lost the election last year, and Scotland obviously!
Ok, I didn't know the boundary had changed. Still, I agree it is example of where Labour lost, as is Broxtowe, Amber Valley and a whole string of other Mids seats. This shows the Himalayan scale of the mountain that Labour under Corbyn has to climb.
The problem at the last election was that they lost seats they ought to be winning under pretty well any leader. Gloucester was a safe Labour seat for decades when the Prices held it. On its present boundaries, with a weak Conservative candidate and a strong Labour one, Labour should have hammered the Conservatives into the ground. But they weren't even close. And they're now going backwards.
Nicky Morgan has a very good reputation in Loughborough as a constituency MP. She turned a bellwether midlands marginal seat into a comfortable Tory majority. Without wanting to rub salt in NickP's wounds, much like Broxtowe.
I don't think she has the depth to be leader, but do not despise her politics. It wins elections, while Farage consistently loses.
You could say the same of MPs from all sorts of ideological backgrounds. Tim Farron has perhaps done more than anyone to build a local powerbase but it doesn't mean that the opportunist gobby so and so should be PM.
Did you read my post? I said she does not have the depth to be leader.
I did read your post. Besides your comments on Morgan's ability (which I agree with), you implied that her politics wins elections. I'm not sure I agree with that. What works locally can be very different from what works nationally, or from what works locally elsewhere.
Emm. Not sure about the analysis on Loughborough being a bell-weather. Steve Dorrell held it as a safe Tory seat for years until the New Labour years. It has returned to the tory fold, like many english southern/midlands seats, now that Tony Blair is a distant memory. So, I suppose you could argue it is a bell-weather example of TB's reach, much like Broxtowe (again reasonably safe Tory seat until New Labour).
In the early 70s L'borough was Labour, but then no doubt the seat's demographics were very different (I used to work there so know it a bit). Lots more industrial workers for a start.
When Stephen Dorrell held it the constituency had quite different boundaries, which is why he ditched it for the safe seat of Charnwood.
Loughborough, Broxtowe, Nuneaton etc are where Labour lost the election last year, and Scotland obviously!
Ok, I didn't know the boundary had changed. Still, I agree it is example of where Labour lost, as is Broxtowe, Amber Valley and a whole string of other Mids seats. This shows the Himalayan scale of the mountain that Labour under Corbyn has to climb.
The problem at the last election was that they lost seats they ought to be winning under pretty well any leader. Gloucester was a safe Labour seat for decades when the Prices held it. On its present boundaries, with a weak Conservative candidate and a strong Labour one, Labour should have hammered the Conservatives into the ground. But they weren't even close. And they're now going backwards.
I cannot understand why we don't re-introduce exit controls at ports and airports. If we really want to know who is entering or leaving the country then we need to count them in and out. Relying on proxies like NI numbers or passenger surveys will never give an answer. We also cannot track who has overstayed.
Doing it for all of them implies they are all failing and coasting. That may indeed be true, of course, for all the reasons stated upthread. But if it had been me, I would just have said 'turn all schools into academies', wrapped up in some spin or positive bollicks about standards.
Moreover that does not mention primary schools or the abolition of parent governors.
I don't think that manifesto commitment gives them cover.
True, but then if that is the case - where there's a coasting and complacent LEA - you'd expect the schools to continually leave it, either voluntarily, as they feel the dead weight of the Authority, or through compulsion as schools are judged to be failing.
You mean that somewhere out there there is an LEA that isn't coasting and complacent? Where? Bradford sounds like a typical, maybe even above average LEA to me. In Bristol any school that underperformed (which was all of them, as the LEA made the Keystone Cops look efficient and effectual) was pushed straight into special measures and out of their control so they didn't have to do anything with it.
The amusing thing was it never dawned on them that they were signing their own death warrants by doing that. They just carried on until they had only one secondary school left, which promptly took academy status behind their backs anyway. How thick can you get?
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
I think most of his healthcare policies are fine. Indeed I support better weekend services. What I dislike is his victimisation of junior doctors in a completely counterproductive way. It is a classic example of a metropolitan elite screwing the terms and conditions of the workers that we were discussing on the last thread.
Improving weekend care is a lot more complex than cutting payrates for junior doctors working Saturdays. Spreading a stretched workforce thinner is not going to do it, just push up vacancies and absenteeism.
I don’t think many healthcare professionals disagree with the principle of seven day working. There are problems though, with family and social lives, and of course with working out satisfactory arrangements. One serious issue is combining such working with a significantly female workforce, where, like it or not, child-care is a very important issue.
F1: early, so just having an idle muse, but the Chinese circuit seems even more about straights than Bahrain, so the pace differences from Australia to Bahrain may continue to grow.
That said, I'm baffled why the Williams was so poor, sliding from and early 2nd and 3rd to the back end of the points. And Force India too.
Very Private Eye. I thought for a very brief moment you were being serious about Nicky Morgan. It does remind us that while the government is imploding over the referendum it's still managing to wreak havoc esewhere
I liked the way you managed to slip 'Jeremy Hunt' in for comparative purposes though I think you could have moved him from the 'hapless' column to the 'beleaguered' one. I can only think his 1% support with Conservative Home was a rounding error?
To remind us that Labour have their own crackpots by introducing Lucy 'Edstone' 'Powell was smart. There has been some criticism of unbalanced headers lately.
Then back with Graham Brady (known even to his his footballer wife Hale constituents as 'Thicko') and on to the governments 'defeats and retreats' then ending with George and his "megashambles budget"..........
.......altogether an ejoyable and well rounded piece
Hunt has a serious chance. Taking on, and beating, the health unions always goes down well.
It's the way you tell 'em! According to DB Con Home gives him a 1% chance. I haven't disliked a Tory Minister more since Norman Tebbit.
You are not the target electorate.
Hunt is sly, manipulative, bullying, ruthless and in cahoots with the press barons. He also can be very elusive (not just the infamous hiding behind a tree when being sought over the BSkyB deal - he also has not appeared in the Commons on several occasions to answer questions on the strikes, leaving the hapless Gummer to field them). He has a certain superficial charm and feathers his own nest very nicely.
I can see him getting to the top of the Conservative party and is a worthwhile value punt.
That's like Billy Wilder's famous critique of Otto Preminger "OK so he was late came in over budget was rude and his films were violent but what people forget is that he was a thoroughly bad director"
(My favourite one of his was this-"The Austrians are brilliant people. They made the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian".)
Very Private Eye. I thought for a very brief moment you were being serious about Nicky Morgan. It does remind us that while the government is imploding over the referendum it's still managing to wreak havoc esewhere
I liked the way you managed to slip 'Jeremy Hunt' in for comparative purposes though I think you could have moved him from the 'hapless' column to the 'beleaguered' one. I can only think his 1% support with Conservative Home was a rounding error?
To remind us that Labour have their own crackpots by introducing Lucy 'Edstone' 'Powell was smart. There has been some criticism of unbalanced headers lately.
Then back with Graham Brady (known even to his his footballer wife Hale constituents as 'Thicko') and on to the governments 'defeats and retreats' then ending with George and his "megashambles budget"..........
.......altogether an ejoyable and well rounded piece
Hunt has a serious chance. Taking on, and beating, the health unions always goes down well.
It's the way you tell 'em! According to DB Con Home gives him a 1% chance. I haven't disliked a Tory Minister more since Norman Tebbit.
You are not the target electorate.
Hunt is sly, manipulative, bullying, ruthless and in cahoots with the press barons. He also can be very elusive (not just the infamous hiding behind a tree when being sought over the BSkyB deal - he also has not appeared in the Commons on several occasions to answer questions on the strikes, leaving the hapless Gummer to field them). He has a certain superficial charm and feathers his own nest very nicely.
I can see him getting to the top of the Conservative party and is a worthwhile value punt.
That's like Billy Wilder's famous critique of Otto Preminger "OK so he was late came in over budget was rude and his films were violent but what people forget is that he was a thoroughly bad director"
(My favourite one of his was this-"The Austrians are brilliant people. They made the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian".)
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
OK. Perhaps the rest really are that bad too. The results in Bradford are hardly anything to write home about. True, there are cultural issues that make high educational attainment in large parts of the district difficult but (1) the schools don't do wonderfully even where that's not the case and (2) some other areas with similar issues do a lot better.
But I'd still rather that the change happened organically rather than forcing it on schools and communities that might not want it and for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
Very Private Eye. I thought for a very brief moment you were being serious about Nicky Morgan. It does remind us that while the government is imploding over the referendum it's still managing to wreak havoc esewhere
I liked the way you managed to slip 'Jeremy Hunt' in for comparative purposes though I think you could have moved him from the 'hapless' column to the 'beleaguered' one. I can only think his 1% support with Conservative Home was a rounding error?
To remind us that Labour have their own crackpots by introducing Lucy 'Edstone' 'Powell was smart. There has been some criticism of unbalanced headers lately.
Then back with Graham Brady (known even to his his footballer wife Hale constituents as 'Thicko') and on to the governments 'defeats and retreats' then ending with George and his "megashambles budget"..........
.......altogether an ejoyable and well rounded piece
Hunt has a serious chance. Taking on, and beating, the health unions always goes down well.
It's the way you tell 'em! According to DB Con Home gives him a 1% chance. I haven't disliked a Tory Minister more since Norman Tebbit.
You are not the target electorate.
Hunt is sly, manipulative, bullying, ruthless and in cahoots with the press barons. He also can be very elusive (not just the infamous hiding behind a tree when being sought over the BSkyB deal - he also has not appeared in the Commons on several occasions to answer questions on the strikes, leaving the hapless Gummer to field them). He has a certain superficial charm and feathers his own nest very nicely.
I can see him getting to the top of the Conservative party and is a worthwhile value punt.
That's like Billy Wilder's famous critique of Otto Preminger "OK so he was late came in over budget was rude and his films were violent but what people forget is that he was a thoroughly bad director"
(My favourite one of his was this-"The Austrians are brilliant people. They made the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian".)
On thread, if Morgan is really a contender for Conservative leader it is time to close the doors and shutters and head for the boats. But fortunately I don't yet think we have sunk that low.
F1: Ecclestone and Todt are pushing for aggregate qualifying, where the two fastest laps are averaged to determine grid order.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
OK. Perhaps the rest really are that bad too. The results in Bradford are hardly anything to write home about. True, there are cultural issues that make high educational attainment in large parts of the district difficult but (1) the schools don't do wonderfully even where that's not the case and (2) some other areas with similar issues do a lot better.
But I'd still rather that the change happened organically rather than forcing it on schools and communities that might not want it and for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
F1: Ecclestone and Todt are pushing for aggregate qualifying, where the two fastest laps are averaged to determine grid order.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
Todt is clearly angling to become Minister for Education/Health/Transport/Work/Justice (delete as appropriate).
Very Private Eye. I thought for a very brief moment you were being serious about Nicky Morgan. It does remind us that while the government is imploding over the referendum it's still managing to wreak havoc esewhere
I liked the way you managed to slip 'Jeremy Hunt' in for comparative purposes though I think you could have moved him from the 'hapless' column to the 'beleaguered' one. I can only think his 1% support with Conservative Home was a rounding error?
To remind us that Labour have their own crackpots by introducing Lucy 'Edstone' 'Powell was smart. There has been some criticism of unbalanced headers lately.
Then back with Graham Brady (known even to his his footballer wife Hale constituents as 'Thicko') and on to the governments 'defeats and retreats' then ending with George and his "megashambles budget"..........
.......altogether an ejoyable and well rounded piece
Hunt has a serious chance. Taking on, and beating, the health unions always goes down well.
Does Hunt go down well with Conservative-leaning doctors (which is, presumably, most of them)?
He doesn't get support from Conservatives of any sort:
50% of UK doctors voted Conservative in 2010 according to a poll in Pulse. I haven't seen a more recent figure.
True. I know many Conservatives who loathe the man.
Nicky Morgan has made some very good statements about transgender rights. Indeed she was having a good winter until she decided to do Dave Cameron's bidding on yooofs in Europe. Whatever your opinion on the EU it was utter twaddle. Sorry woger.
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
Interestingly those targets/tests seem to favour Asian pupils — Asian schools tend to feature memorizing large quantities of data, prioritized over other skills, so the parents of Asian pupils may be better qualified to coach their children in these types of tests.
What kind of tests or assessments you employ might well change the results you get for this kind of analysis.
Of course memory is an important component of ability. But not all of it.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
OK. Perhaps the rest really are that bad too. The results in Bradford are hardly anything to write home about. True, there are cultural issues that make high educational attainment in large parts of the district difficult but (1) the schools don't do wonderfully even where that's not the case and (2) some other areas with similar issues do a lot better.
But I'd still rather that the change happened organically rather than forcing it on schools and communities that might not want it and for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
I would agree with the rest.
Genuine question for the PB brains trust. Who owns these Academy chains?
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
There are of course problems with going too far on the Fear - which is that if you make out that the UK is utterly helpless without the EU then it a) can be perceived as Britain bashing b) it insults people's intelligence and c) more subtly,it implies that more EU integration would be a great idea - which makes the whole nature of the PM's 'renegotation' questionable.
No idea, don't live there any more. The PCC is an independent so that doesn't count.
Gloucester council has all out elections on new boundaries . Council is currently Con 20 Lab 9 LD 7 , new council has 3 more councillors . A local forecast for the new council is Con 18-19 Lab 11-13 LD 8-9 Conservatives to just lose overall majority .
Mr. Doethur, the theory seems to be that Todt just doesn't want to be seen to either have made a mistake or back down in the face of the teams. I don't watch the Apprentice any more, but it reminds me of one fool who (at a sit-down meeting with his team) had all of them remove their jackets whilst he kept his on. Because it was important they knew he was the boss.
Anyway, F1 has had two good races and most of the chatter has been about the unnecessarily dire qualifying.
Interestingly those targets/tests seem to favour Asian pupils — Asian schools tend to feature memorizing large quantities of data, prioritized over other skills, so the parents of Asian pupils may be better qualified to coach their children in these types of tests.
What kind of tests or assessments you employ might well change the results you get for this kind of analysis.
Of course memory is an important component of ability. But not all of it.
Hmm.
That's like saying infantry recruitment tests favour men...
All about the attitude of parents towards learning and authority. No surprise to see gypsies last and chinese top.
' Immigration from Asian countries was heavily restricted until laws were changed in 1965. When the gates finally opened, many Asian arrivals were well-educated, endured hardships to secure more opportunities for their families, and were determined to seize the American dream through effort and education.
These immigrants, and their descendants, often demanded that children work as hard as humanly possible to achieve. Parental respect is paramount in Asian culture, so many children have obeyed — and excelled.
"Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best," wrote Amy Chua, only half tongue-in-cheek, in her recent best-selling book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother."
"Chinese parents can say, 'You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you,'" Chua wrote. "By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how their kids turned out." '
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
The opposite could be true. Remain has won on negatives but now needs to develop its positive case to attract more supporters.
I have a strong suspicion that those posters who are busily explaining that Nicky Morgan is an incompetent (and/or socialist) would have said the same about Margaret Thatcher after her less than stellar time as Education Secretary but before she became leader. That's not to suggest that the former will become Conservative leader but it is interesting.
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
There are of course problems with going too far on the Fear - which is that if you make out that the UK is utterly helpless without the EU then it a) can be perceived as Britain bashing b) it insults people's intelligence and c) more subtly,it implies that more EU integration would be a great idea - which makes the whole nature of the PM's 'renegotation' questionable.
Isn't Project Fear Ultra or Revenge of the Killer Project Fear what TSE has promised will start the moment the local election ballot boxes are closed.
It will make last week's threat to Interrail seem like a Sunday picnic in the park.
Interestingly those targets/tests seem to favour Asian pupils — Asian schools tend to feature memorizing large quantities of data, prioritized over other skills, so the parents of Asian pupils may be better qualified to coach their children in these types of tests.
What kind of tests or assessments you employ might well change the results you get for this kind of analysis.
Of course memory is an important component of ability. But not all of it.
Hmm.
That's like saying infantry recruitment tests favour men...
All about the attitude of parents towards learning and authority. No surprise to see gypsies last and chinese top.
' Immigration from Asian countries was heavily restricted until laws were changed in 1965. When the gates finally opened, many Asian arrivals were well-educated, endured hardships to secure more opportunities for their families, and were determined to seize the American dream through effort and education.
These immigrants, and their descendants, often demanded that children work as hard as humanly possible to achieve. Parental respect is paramount in Asian culture, so many children have obeyed — and excelled.
"Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best," wrote Amy Chua, only half tongue-in-cheek, in her recent best-selling book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother."
"Chinese parents can say, 'You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you,'" Chua wrote. "By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how their kids turned out." '
You can have laws against the corporal punishment of children.
I have a strong suspicion that those posters who are busily explaining that Nicky Morgan is an incompetent (and/or socialist) would have said the same about Margaret Thatcher after her less than stellar time as Education Secretary but before she became leader. That's not to suggest that the former will become Conservative leader but it is interesting.
Indeed. All Thatcher did as Education Secretary was snatch milk.
Nicky Morgan has continued Gove's excellent work and improved education standards.
That Michael Gove supports these plans tells me they are an excellent idea.
Interestingly those targets/tests seem to favour Asian pupils — Asian schools tend to feature memorizing large quantities of data, prioritized over other skills, so the parents of Asian pupils may be better qualified to coach their children in these types of tests.
What kind of tests or assessments you employ might well change the results you get for this kind of analysis.
Of course memory is an important component of ability. But not all of it.
Hmm.
That's like saying infantry recruitment tests favour men...
All about the attitude of parents towards learning and authority. No surprise to see gypsies last and chinese top.
' Immigration from Asian countries was heavily restricted until laws were changed in 1965. When the gates finally opened, many Asian arrivals were well-educated, endured hardships to secure more opportunities for their families, and were determined to seize the American dream through effort and education.
These immigrants, and their descendants, often demanded that children work as hard as humanly possible to achieve. Parental respect is paramount in Asian culture, so many children have obeyed — and excelled.
"Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best," wrote Amy Chua, only half tongue-in-cheek, in her recent best-selling book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother."
"Chinese parents can say, 'You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you,'" Chua wrote. "By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how their kids turned out." '
Well, indeed. Learning and authority. the Japanese (and Chinese governments) would hold that there is a single authorititive version of history (for example), and the children should learn it.
Mr. Pubgoer, I'm a little surprised Project Bedwetter hasn't claimed that confusion over the EU stance of the UK has caused the stupid qualifying format in F1
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
OK. Perhaps the rest really are that bad too. The results in Bradford are hardly anything to write home about. True, there are cultural issues that make high educational attainment in large parts of the district difficult but (1) the schools don't do wonderfully even where that's not the case and (2) some other areas with similar issues do a lot better.
But I'd still rather that the change happened organically rather than forcing it on schools and communities that might not want it and for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
I would agree with the rest.
Genuine question for the PB brains trust. Who owns these Academy chains?
It varies. Some are charities, some are businesses, some are churches, even some universities are getting involved.
The problem is that none of them have meaningful links to the schools or the parents.
Mr. Pubgoer, I'm a little surprised Project Bedwetter hasn't claimed that confusion over the EU stance of the UK has caused the stupid qualifying format in F1
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
There are of course problems with going too far on the Fear - which is that if you make out that the UK is utterly helpless without the EU then it a) can be perceived as Britain bashing b) it insults people's intelligence and c) more subtly,it implies that more EU integration would be a great idea - which makes the whole nature of the PM's 'renegotation' questionable.
Isn't Project Fear Ultra or Revenge of the Killer Project Fear what TSE has promised will start the moment the local election ballot boxes are closed.
It will make last week's threat to Interrail seem like a Sunday picnic in the park.
David Cameron is a vicious bastard when it comes to winning. Remember the AV referendum and that poster of the baby saying she needs a new maternity unit not a new expensive voting system or the waterboarding he gave Ed for stabbing his own brother in the back which shows you can't trust him to keep the country safe.
He's upping his game against a side that has and will use the line Vote Remain and get raped.
Nicky Morgan has continued Gove's excellent work and improved education standards.
That Michael Gove supports these plans tells me they are an excellent idea.
It tells me there is a disaster waiting to happen. Most of Gove's actual ideas were excellent. The implementation and operation of them was unfortunately anything but, as you can see in my earlier comments on new exams.
This looks to be similar. Of course, we needn't blame Gove or Morgan, as it is their preternaturally useless administrators who actually implement the policy. But they should be keeping a check on what they are doing.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
nd for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
I would agree with the rest.
Genuine question for the PB brains trust. Who owns these Academy chains?
It varies. Some are charities, some are businesses, some are churches, even some universities are getting involved.
The problem is that none of them have meaningful links to the schools or the parents.
Thanks for that. Someone was telling me last week that it was being done as a land grab with a view to future house building opportunities.
It's not really accurate. It would only apply if the "annexe" is a distinct property able to be sold separately (presumably registered as such at the Land Registry etc) which is a less common case than a part of the house which is separated off as a private apartment. As well as that, you would normally assume that a granny moving into an annexe (as it were) wouldn't be owning another house, so provided that said granny is the legal acquirer of the annexe and the children own the house, nobody has a second home, so no surcharge.
It's also easily addressed by asking the seller to connect the properties and merge the titles before sale, meaning it's then a single property. Basically, it only applies where the property is genuinely two completely legally distinct dwellings bought by the same person. Doesn't seem too surprising that a tax on "additional homes" would catch that.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
nd for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
I would agree with the rest.
Genuine question for the PB brains trust. Who owns these Academy chains?
It varies. Some are charities, some are businesses, some are churches, even some universities are getting involved.
The problem is that none of them have meaningful links to the schools or the parents.
Thanks for that. Someone was telling me last week that it was being done as a land grab with a view to future house building opportunities.
For the ones that are businesses, that is far from impossible. Even if it's just the playing fields, these green city centre sites, it's quite plausible, sadly.
F1: Ecclestone and Todt are pushing for aggregate qualifying, where the two fastest laps are averaged to determine grid order.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
I might be wrong, but didn't they try a form of that years ago on the traditional two-day qualifying format? That system, which I think started with F1, was to have two qualifying sessions, one on the Friday (Thurs at Monaco), and Saturday. The problem was that if the weather was poor on the Saturday few, if any, drivers would go on track. Whilst that's fine, neither it or the two-day split is good for TV.
For this reason, I think for a season or two they tried making it the aggregate best time from both days.
F1 really needs to look at what the viewers want and give them that, rather than tinkering with what was a perfectly good qualifying format. The fans' survey from last year ought to be their bible.
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
There are of course problems with going too far on the Fear - which is that if you make out that the UK is utterly helpless without the EU then it a) can be perceived as Britain bashing b) it insults people's intelligence and c) more subtly,it implies that more EU integration would be a great idea - which makes the whole nature of the PM's 'renegotation' questionable.
Isn't Project Fear Ultra or Revenge of the Killer Project Fear what TSE has promised will start the moment the local election ballot boxes are closed.
It will make last week's threat to Interrail seem like a Sunday picnic in the park.
David Cameron is a vicious bastard when it comes to winning. Remember the AV referendum and that poster of the baby saying she needs a new maternity unit not a new expensive voting system or the waterboarding he gave Ed for stabbing his own brother in the back which shows you can't trust him to keep the country safe.
He's upping his game against a side that has and will use the line Vote Remain and get raped.
This is all shaping up to be corking good fun. All we need now is Farage to offer us 'blood, toil, sweat and tears etc.
I have a strong suspicion that those posters who are busily explaining that Nicky Morgan is an incompetent (and/or socialist) would have said the same about Margaret Thatcher after her less than stellar time as Education Secretary but before she became leader. That's not to suggest that the former will become Conservative leader but it is interesting.
Indeed. All Thatcher did as Education Secretary was snatch milk.
Nicky Morgan has continued Gove's excellent work and improved education standards.
That Michael Gove supports these plans tells me they are an excellent idea.
Although you will find she tried very hard to find other cuts to the education budget first. But was under orders to make savings.
Mr. Jessop, it's time for Ecclestone to go. Todt's not much bloody use either.
I agree on the fan survey. It was damned long, and anyone who got through it (probably took me about 40 minutes) was clearly very into the sport.
On a related note, Channel 4 should fire Steve Jones. I had planned to watch some of the build-up, but ended up switching over to something else because I grew tired of being perpetually annoyed at his failed efforts to present F1.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
nd for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
I would agree with the rest.
Genuine question for the PB brains trust. Who owns these Academy chains?
It varies. Some are charities, some are businesses, some are churches, even some universities are getting involved.
The problem is that none of them have meaningful links to the schools or the parents.
Thanks for that. Someone was telling me last week that it was being done as a land grab with a view to future house building opportunities.
That's verging on a tin foil hat conspiracy theory involving Evil Tories. Probably cooked up by a Left leaning teacher. I overheard a similar line of discussion from one in a restaurant last week.
The sad reality is that school playing fields aren't any safer under council control, many local authorities having been more than happy to flog them off already.
F1: Ecclestone and Todt are pushing for aggregate qualifying, where the two fastest laps are averaged to determine grid order.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
I might be wrong, but didn't they try a form of that years ago on the traditional two-day qualifying format? That system, which I think started with F1, was to have two qualifying sessions, one on the Friday (Thurs at Monaco), and Saturday. The problem was that if the weather was poor on the Saturday few, if any, drivers would go on track. Whilst that's fine, neither it or the two-day split is good for TV.
For this reason, I think for a season or two they tried making it the aggregate best time from both days.
F1 really needs to look at what the viewers want and give them that, rather than tinkering with what was a perfectly good qualifying format. The fans' survey from last year ought to be their bible.
I think they did away with Friday qualifying in 1996. There have been a whole host of qualifying formats over the last 20 years. If they wanted to mix up the grid a bit more I think they'd be better off going back to single lap qualifying. I saw it first hand at Spa in 2005 and it was quite exciting and there was the potential for someone to make a mistake and start at the back of the grid.
I agree that Ms Morgan has no hope of becoming leader, but it's only fair to point out that she has actually been doing rather better recently than many of us expected. Her appearance at the lions' den of the NASUWT conference showed courage and was grudgingly well-received even by the far-left teachers who infest such conferences. Her speech on the EU was also very good, which of course was why it was so attacked by the more extreme Leavers.
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
There are of course problems with going too far on the Fear - which is that if you make out that the UK is utterly helpless without the EU then it a) can be perceived as Britain bashing b) it insults people's intelligence and c) more subtly,it implies that more EU integration would be a great idea - which makes the whole nature of the PM's 'renegotation' questionable.
Isn't Project Fear Ultra or Revenge of the Killer Project Fear what TSE has promised will start the moment the local election ballot boxes are closed.
It will make last week's threat to Interrail seem like a Sunday picnic in the park.
He's right. Apparently Leave are now looking for an agency with an initial spend of £7 million and Remain have already appointed Adam and Eve. It should kick off in earnest about six weeks before the vote.
So on 26th May in time honoured tradition ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE meets ITS NOT TIME FOR A CHANGE!
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
There are of course problems with going too far on the Fear - which is that if you make out that the UK is utterly helpless without the EU then it a) can be perceived as Britain bashing b) it insults people's intelligence and c) more subtly,it implies that more EU integration would be a great idea - which makes the whole nature of the PM's 'renegotation' questionable.
Isn't Project Fear Ultra or Revenge of the Killer Project Fear what TSE has promised will start the moment the local election ballot boxes are closed.
It will make last week's threat to Interrail seem like a Sunday picnic in the park.
David Cameron is a vicious bastard when it comes to winning. Remember the AV referendum and that poster of the baby saying she needs a new maternity unit not a new expensive voting system or the waterboarding he gave Ed for stabbing his own brother in the back which shows you can't trust him to keep the country safe.
He's upping his game against a side that has and will use the line Vote Remain and get raped.
This is all shaping up to be corking good fun. All we need now is Farage to offer us 'blood, toil, sweat and tears etc.
Wait until Dave uses his charm to get the Oldies to vote Remain.
For community schools (and most likely voluntary-controlled schools) the local authority would have owned the land and this would remain the property of the LA being the subject of a 125 Year lease to the academy.
For voluntary aided schools the foundation or diocese would have owned the land. Again this land would most likely be the subject of a 125 year lease or the freehold could be transferred to the new academy trust.
For the majority of foundation schools the governing body would have been the owner of the land, with in some cases a charitable foundation being the owner of part or all of it; depending upon whether the land was bought originally with either public funds (e.g. by the LA) or private funds (as would be case for many long-standing endowed schools) For foundation schools the freehold of the “publicly-funded” land has necessarily been transferred to the new academy trust. As the governing body of the former foundation school would have ceased to exist at the time of conversion to academy status, if this transfer had taken place, then the land and buildings of the school would no longer have had an owner!!
25 April 2012 at 3:11pm
Dr Andy Clayton said:
Just spotted a typo in my recent reply.
The final sentence should read:
As the governing body of the former foundation school would have ceased to exist at the time of conversion to academy status, if this transfer had NOT taken place, then the land and buildings of the school would no longer have had an owner.
No, Bradford was and is one of the most ineffective LEAs in the country, to the extent that the management was forcibly contracted out about 15 years ago (which didn't work as the new management never got to grips with the culture of the place or made sufficient personnel changes).
I think you're overestimating the quality of the rest if you think that's unusually bad David. It sounds normal to me, although others are probably better at hiding it.
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
nd for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
In answer to your last question, no. Most academy chains are struggling.
I would agree with the rest.
Genuine question for the PB brains trust. Who owns these Academy chains?
It varies. Some are charities, some are businesses, some are churches, even some universities are getting involved.
The problem is that none of them have meaningful links to the schools or the parents.
Thanks for that. Someone was telling me last week that it was being done as a land grab with a view to future house building opportunities.
That's verging on a tin foil hat conspiracy theory involving Evil Tories. Probably cooked up by a Left leaning teacher. I overheard a similar line of discussion from one in a restaurant last week.
The sad reality is that school playing fields aren't any safer under council control, many local authorities having been more than happy to flog them off already.
I agree with you that it could be seen as tinfoil hat style to suggest that academy chains would build on playing fields and councils won't (both types of body already have form here). The difference, of course, is that when the council do it then the uplift in land value as a result of planning permission being obtained goes back to council taxpayers. When the academy chain does it, it goes back to the ultimate shareholders. Not too bad if it's an educational charity trust, less good if it's a pure for-profit outfit. So there's definitely a substantial element of transfer of common wealth to private capital in the course of this process.
Morgan has zero appeal as a leader. This academies plan seems highly ideological, all the teachers I have ever met are seriously p1ssed off at their workload and the pettyfogging interference from the centre, plus as a parent the focus on teaching the details of grammar which absolutely nobody needs is absurd. Gove had done a decent job but it just seems to be taken further and further to no good end
F1: Ecclestone and Todt are pushing for aggregate qualifying, where the two fastest laps are averaged to determine grid order.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
I might be wrong, but didn't they try a form of that years ago on the traditional two-day qualifying format? That system, which I think started with F1, was to have two qualifying sessions, one on the Friday (Thurs at Monaco), and Saturday. The problem was that if the weather was poor on the Saturday few, if any, drivers would go on track. Whilst that's fine, neither it or the two-day split is good for TV.
For this reason, I think for a season or two they tried making it the aggregate best time from both days.
F1 really needs to look at what the viewers want and give them that, rather than tinkering with what was a perfectly good qualifying format. The fans' survey from last year ought to be their bible.
I think they did away with Friday qualifying in 1996. There have been a whole host of qualifying formats over the last 20 years. If they wanted to mix up the grid a bit more I think they'd be better off going back to single lap qualifying. I saw it first hand at Spa in 2005 and it was quite exciting and there was the potential for someone to make a mistake and start at the back of the grid.
Wasn't the problem with the single lap system that there was little activity on the track for most of the hour? If drivers set a time and then there was a little moisture or a change in temperature they'd never beat their time, so it was pointless going out.
I.e. it was often TV unfriendly. That was the whole driver for the knockout format (which worked IMO).
My view is that if they want to make it seem more competitive then they should go for a BTCC-style weight penalty system. But I don't think that's a common view.
I'm also amused that Mercedes' dominance is a clarion call for change, when Red Bull's stroppy dominance wasn't, and Ferrari's F1-killing success in the early 2000s was absolutely fine. I do wonder how much Todt is independent of Ferrari these days.
Mr. Jessop, worth pointing out that F1 twice changed the scoring system to try and stop Schumacher winning all the time. However, I do generally agree that the bigwigs didn't care about Red Bull having four seasons on the trot.
On the proposal to move towards all schools becoming academies, isn't this the logical end-point of Blair's creation of academies in the first place (one of the few good things the Blair government did)? As more and more schools voluntarily (or semi-voluntarily) become academies, LEAs will eventually be left as extremely expensive bureaucratic relics, loading ever larger deadweight-costs on to a smaller and smaller base of schools. It will, eventually, be time to cut this layer of bureaucracy out completely.
Take the Harris group of academies. They're owned by a charity set up by Philip Harris, the Tory lord, director of Arsenal football club and "friend of David Cameron" who dominated the carpet sector in Britain for decades.
If this was Russia, Harris would be called an "oligarch".
He invested a lot of money into "education" - oops, sorry, I mean he "donated" it - after he flogged his palace in the south of France. He also paid to get his name into the title of a college at Oxford university, Harris Manchester College.
Here's an article from the Times Education Supplement in which the scribe seriously argues that having this kind of person own schools is all about their being generous and giving their money away. I wonder what would happen if someone submitted an article to that publication arguing the opposite. Journalists, please don't try it if you care about your career.
These guys know a thing or two about public relations.
They also know a thing or two about certification scams. Hello Ofsted.
It's all just looting by politically connected business interests.
(Hello too to the alternative Steiner-promoted certifiers who protect the interests of those batshit crazy but commercially highly astute nutters.)
Just look at the youth you come into contact with. Do they seem to be getting more able to think for themselves or less? Right. Never mind what Ofsted says. Frankly who trusts a word Ofsted say?
There's a lot of dosh in school catering contracts too.
The Harris Federation is a "charity", although along with other "academy" charities it has been granted exemption from publishing its accounts with the Charity Commission. That means we can't see its annual reports.
But it runs profit-making companies such as Harris Academies Project Management Limited (construction work) and HCTC Enterprises Ltd, which does things like running sports centres.
Look, it's like Russia in the 1990s. What matters is controlling the cash flow. Don't f*ck with the oligarchs.
Here's some info on academies by people who've done a bit of digging.
The Saturn V rocket did 0 - 60 in 1.5 seconds with ~ 1 billion horsepower, whereas a top fuel dragster can go 0 - 60 in 0.8 seconds (10,000 hp)
Amazing to watch videos of the Saturn V take offs now - simply awe-inspiring.
And also bloody dangerous. It's worth remembering that astronauts were basically riding a giant and highly volatile controlled explosion.
I'm amazed there weren't more disasters than there were, even though each one that did occur was still an incredible tragedy.
I think I'm right in saying that not a single Saturn V launch went to plan - they all had problems - some significant, such as an engine failure, and others minor. Pogoing (oscillations) were a massive issue on some launches.
That is why I believe the project was scrapped early - NASA realised that they would sooner or later lose a launcher, and possible a crew.
F1: Ecclestone and Todt are pushing for aggregate qualifying, where the two fastest laps are averaged to determine grid order.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
I might be wrong, but didn't they try a form of that years ago on the traditional two-day qualifying format? That system, which I think started with F1, was to have two qualifying sessions, one on the Friday (Thurs at Monaco), and Saturday. The problem was that if the weather was poor on the Saturday few, if any, drivers would go on track. Whilst that's fine, neither it or the two-day split is good for TV.
For this reason, I think for a season or two they tried making it the aggregate best time from both days.
F1 really needs to look at what the viewers want and give them that, rather than tinkering with what was a perfectly good qualifying format. The fans' survey from last year ought to be their bible.
I think they did away with Friday qualifying in 1996. There have been a whole host of qualifying formats over the last 20 years. If they wanted to mix up the grid a bit more I think they'd be better off going back to single lap qualifying. I saw it first hand at Spa in 2005 and it was quite exciting and there was the potential for someone to make a mistake and start at the back of the grid.
Wasn't the problem with the single lap system that there was little activity on the track for most of the hour? If drivers set a time and then there was a little moisture or a change in temperature they'd never beat their time, so it was pointless going out.
I.e. it was often TV unfriendly. That was the whole driver for the knockout format (which worked IMO).
My view is that if they want to make it seem more competitive then they should go for a BTCC-style weight penalty system. But I don't think that's a common view.
I'm also amused that Mercedes' dominance is a clarion call for change, when Red Bull's stroppy dominance wasn't, and Ferrari's F1-killing success in the early 2000s was absolutely fine. I do wonder how much Todt is independent of Ferrari these days.
With apologies to Mr. Dancer, the idiocy of F1 is in trying to make each Grand Prix a 3 day TV event with practice and qualifying. Nobody gives a stuff. We want a couple of hours of exciting racing, then on to the next venue. Anyone trying to sell the other two days as something of note needs to be slapped around the head with an enormo-haddock.
It's not really accurate. It would only apply if the "annexe" is a distinct property able to be sold separately (presumably registered as such at the Land Registry etc) which is a less common case than a part of the house which is separated off as a private apartment. As well as that, you would normally assume that a granny moving into an annexe (as it were) wouldn't be owning another house, so provided that said granny is the legal acquirer of the annexe and the children own the house, nobody has a second home, so no surcharge.
It's also easily addressed by asking the seller to connect the properties and merge the titles before sale, meaning it's then a single property. Basically, it only applies where the property is genuinely two completely legally distinct dwellings bought by the same person. Doesn't seem too surprising that a tax on "additional homes" would catch that.
It's clear from the article that Christina Odone's mother would prefer a hole in the head than to go and live in her daughter's attic as a live in baby sitter.
I'm also amused that Mercedes' dominance is a clarion call for change, when Red Bull's stroppy dominance wasn't, and Ferrari's F1-killing success in the early 2000s was absolutely fine. I do wonder how much Todt is independent of Ferrari these days.
Mercedes' dominance goes far beyond anything of the past. It very much feels like we're at the end of history and they will win forever more because no one else seems to be able to develop their engine to match the Mercedes.
The Saturn V rocket did 0 - 60 in 1.5 seconds with ~ 1 billion horsepower, whereas a top fuel dragster can go 0 - 60 in 0.8 seconds (10,000 hp)
The Saturn V would have gone from 0-60 faster if it didn't have to do it vertically!
There's an Airbus facility in France where they test new airliners. The jets are strapped to large blocks, the brakes are applied, and full thrust applied.
... all the teachers I have ever met are seriously p1ssed off at their workload and the pettyfogging interference from the centre, ...
Seems odd then that they object to a plan to devolve power away from the centre and down to their schools.
Leaving ideologues aside, there are two key objections from education professionals. The first is that in many respects, it's moving power from one centre (the LEA, which you're at least familiar with and know how to "manage") to another centre (the all-powerful Whitehall authority) which isn't showing great signs of being any more efficient simply by virtue of being national. Going from LEA to NEA isn't prima facie a good move. The second is that the functions that schools take on in the process of transition to academy take time or cost money to run. By and large this isn't too bad with secondaries because they have the scale to employ bursars, accountants, etc. But for primaries then all too often it's a story of spending the extra money on teaching staff/shiny new kit etc, then realising that there's a load more work that has to be done by people who went into teaching to become teachers, not accountants, administrators and procurement specialists.
You could blame the leadership for this, but since the rationale for the programme is that local school leadership is "better" than LEAs that would seem churlish.
The Saturn V rocket did 0 - 60 in 1.5 seconds with ~ 1 billion horsepower, whereas a top fuel dragster can go 0 - 60 in 0.8 seconds (10,000 hp)
The Saturn V would have gone from 0-60 faster if it didn't have to do it vertically!
There's an Airbus facility in France where they test new airliners. The jets are strapped to large blocks, the brakes are applied, and full thrust applied.
The Saturn V rocket did 0 - 60 in 1.5 seconds with ~ 1 billion horsepower, whereas a top fuel dragster can go 0 - 60 in 0.8 seconds (10,000 hp)
Amazing to watch videos of the Saturn V take offs now - simply awe-inspiring.
And also bloody dangerous. It's worth remembering that astronauts were basically riding a giant and highly volatile controlled explosion.
I'm amazed there weren't more disasters than there were, even though each one that did occur was still an incredible tragedy.
'were' ? You're talking about astronauts as if they are an extinct breed ! Tim Peake rode a rocket based largely off 1967 Soviet tech to the space station very recently.
For anyone travelling from out of town to the PB Meet, there are some good deals on hotels Friday evening - Saturday morning, I bagged a "Lucky 8" 4* in Ilford for £35.91 !
The Saturn V rocket did 0 - 60 in 1.5 seconds with ~ 1 billion horsepower, whereas a top fuel dragster can go 0 - 60 in 0.8 seconds (10,000 hp)
The Saturn V would have gone from 0-60 faster if it didn't have to do it vertically!
There's an Airbus facility in France where they test new airliners. The jets are strapped to large blocks, the brakes are applied, and full thrust applied.
For anyone travelling from out of town to the PB Meet, there are some good deals on hotels Friday evening - Saturday morning, I bagged a "Lucky 8" 4* in Ilford for £35.91 !
That's a bit of a trek isn't it? And it's in Essex!
Alas I won't be able to make it.
I'm in Dortmund Thursday then seeing Muse on Friday and Saturday.
Comments
Improving weekend care is a lot more complex than cutting payrates for junior doctors working Saturdays. Spreading a stretched workforce thinner is not going to do it, just push up vacancies and absenteeism.
turn every failing and coasting secondary school into an academy and deliver free
schools for parents and communities that want them
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf
p. 33
Moreover that does not mention primary schools or the abolition of parent governors.
I don't think that manifesto commitment gives them cover.
Why does it consistently fail? In my experience, it doesn't understand children, or parents, or teachers. It doesn't understand the education market it operates within (or even that it is within a market). It is either too scared of the unions or too lazy to act against what it perceives as their interests (even when it's not). It imposes itself on schools inappropriately. It would rather keep open a bad school and close a good one because the good one's "in the wrong place" than take quality of educational provision into account. It had absurd accounting rules that it doesn't understand the rationale for e.g. schools must hold a surplus of x% 'in case of emergencies' but if there is an emergency then it can't spend it because of the rule (and the tightness of the financial window also means that schools end up engaging in last-minute splurges). I could go on.
This 'one size fits all' smacks more of Socialism/Labour than Tory pragmatism.......
That's why getting rid of them would be a great move if it wasn't being done in such a cack-handed way (cf Dr Foxinsoxuk's point about the junior doctors).
That said, I'm baffled why the Williams was so poor, sliding from and early 2nd and 3rd to the back end of the points. And Force India too.
(My favourite one of his was this-"The Austrians are brilliant people. They made the world believe that Hitler was a German and Beethoven an Austrian".)
But I'd still rather that the change happened organically rather than forcing it on schools and communities that might not want it and for which it might not be appropriate - is there the management capacity within academy chains to deliver what the government wants, for example.
Nobody asked for that or wants it. It seems the choice will be between the current stupid qualifying, or the new stupid qualifying. The old good qualifying may not be an option for team principals.
I would agree with the rest.
What a muppet.
Nicky Morgan has made some very good statements about transgender rights. Indeed she was having a good winter until she decided to do Dave Cameron's bidding on yooofs in Europe. Whatever your opinion on the EU it was utter twaddle. Sorry woger.
Summary: risk is the only issue on which Remain is ahead. It needs to go strongly negative to win, perhaps more negative than its supporters can stomach.
What kind of tests or assessments you employ might well change the results you get for this kind of analysis.
Of course memory is an important component of ability. But not all of it.
Who owns these Academy chains?
A local forecast for the new council is Con 18-19 Lab 11-13 LD 8-9 Conservatives to just lose overall majority .
Anyway, F1 has had two good races and most of the chatter has been about the unnecessarily dire qualifying.
That's like saying infantry recruitment tests favour men...
All about the attitude of parents towards learning and authority. No surprise to see gypsies last and chinese top.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1
From the USA but:
' Immigration from Asian countries was heavily restricted until laws were changed in 1965. When the gates finally opened, many Asian arrivals were well-educated, endured hardships to secure more opportunities for their families, and were determined to seize the American dream through effort and education.
These immigrants, and their descendants, often demanded that children work as hard as humanly possible to achieve. Parental respect is paramount in Asian culture, so many children have obeyed — and excelled.
"Chinese parents can order their kids to get straight As. Western parents can only ask their kids to try their best," wrote Amy Chua, only half tongue-in-cheek, in her recent best-selling book "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother."
"Chinese parents can say, 'You're lazy. All your classmates are getting ahead of you,'" Chua wrote. "By contrast, Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feelings about achievement, and try to persuade themselves that they're not disappointed about how their kids turned out." '
(in the chart in the second link)
It will make last week's threat to Interrail seem like a Sunday picnic in the park.
Or you can have successful, respectful children.
But you can't have both.
Nicky Morgan has continued Gove's excellent work and improved education standards.
That Michael Gove supports these plans tells me they are an excellent idea.
whether this is a good thing is debatable.
How is penalising those who look after their parents at home a good idea? http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/granny-annexe-tax-strikes-at-the-heart-of-family-values-why-do-the-tories-want-to-worsen-the-granny-state-hqzqr20dv
The problem is that none of them have meaningful links to the schools or the parents.
He's upping his game against a side that has and will use the line Vote Remain and get raped.
I agree with your underlying point, but Cameron's very vindictiveness/brusqueness seems to have antagonised rather than cowed his party.
Mr. Pubgoer, sorry.
This looks to be similar. Of course, we needn't blame Gove or Morgan, as it is their preternaturally useless administrators who actually implement the policy. But they should be keeping a check on what they are doing.
I have to do some work. Have a good morning.
Someone was telling me last week that it was being done as a land grab with a view to future house building opportunities.
It's also easily addressed by asking the seller to connect the properties and merge the titles before sale, meaning it's then a single property. Basically, it only applies where the property is genuinely two completely legally distinct dwellings bought by the same person. Doesn't seem too surprising that a tax on "additional homes" would catch that.
Much less accurate, and your grasp on current events would be as tenuous as your grasp on classical history.
For this reason, I think for a season or two they tried making it the aggregate best time from both days.
F1 really needs to look at what the viewers want and give them that, rather than tinkering with what was a perfectly good qualifying format. The fans' survey from last year ought to be their bible.
All we need now is Farage to offer us 'blood, toil, sweat and tears etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/news/tesla-races-airliner---and-wins/
I agree on the fan survey. It was damned long, and anyone who got through it (probably took me about 40 minutes) was clearly very into the sport.
On a related note, Channel 4 should fire Steve Jones. I had planned to watch some of the build-up, but ended up switching over to something else because I grew tired of being perpetually annoyed at his failed efforts to present F1.
The sad reality is that school playing fields aren't any safer under council control, many local authorities having been more than happy to flog them off already.
All the same, she has no hope of becoming leader.
So on 26th May in time honoured tradition ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE meets ITS NOT TIME FOR A CHANGE!
http://gearheads.org/7-vehicles-that-go-from-0-60-in-under-2-seconds/
The Saturn V rocket did 0 - 60 in 1.5 seconds with ~ 1 billion horsepower, whereas a top fuel dragster can go 0 - 60 in 0.8 seconds (10,000 hp)
http://antiacademies.org.uk/Q&A/school-buildings-and-land/
Dr Andy Clayton said:
For community schools (and most likely voluntary-controlled schools) the local authority would have owned the land and this would remain the property of the LA being the subject of a 125 Year lease to the academy.
For voluntary aided schools the foundation or diocese would have owned the land. Again this land would most likely be the subject of a 125 year lease or the freehold could be transferred to the new academy trust.
For the majority of foundation schools the governing body would have been the owner of the land, with in some cases a charitable foundation being the owner of part or all of it; depending upon whether the land was bought originally with either public funds (e.g. by the LA) or private funds (as would be case for many long-standing endowed schools) For foundation schools the freehold of the “publicly-funded” land has necessarily been transferred to the new academy trust. As the governing body of the former foundation school would have ceased to exist at the time of conversion to academy status, if this transfer had taken place, then the land and buildings of the school would no longer have had an owner!!
25 April 2012 at 3:11pm
Dr Andy Clayton said:
Just spotted a typo in my recent reply.
The final sentence should read:
As the governing body of the former foundation school would have ceased to exist at the time of conversion to academy status, if this transfer had NOT taken place, then the land and buildings of the school would no longer have had an owner.
That’s better, makes sense now!
25 April 2012 at 3:15pm
She has zero charm, humour or warmth. next
I.e. it was often TV unfriendly. That was the whole driver for the knockout format (which worked IMO).
My view is that if they want to make it seem more competitive then they should go for a BTCC-style weight penalty system. But I don't think that's a common view.
I'm also amused that Mercedes' dominance is a clarion call for change, when Red Bull's stroppy dominance wasn't, and Ferrari's F1-killing success in the early 2000s was absolutely fine. I do wonder how much Todt is independent of Ferrari these days.
And also bloody dangerous. It's worth remembering that astronauts were basically riding a giant and highly volatile controlled explosion.
I'm amazed there weren't more disasters than there were, even though each one that did occur was still an incredible tragedy.
If this was Russia, Harris would be called an "oligarch".
He invested a lot of money into "education" - oops, sorry, I mean he "donated" it - after he flogged his palace in the south of France. He also paid to get his name into the title of a college at Oxford university, Harris Manchester College.
Here's an article from the Times Education Supplement in which the scribe seriously argues that having this kind of person own schools is all about their being generous and giving their money away. I wonder what would happen if someone submitted an article to that publication arguing the opposite. Journalists, please don't try it if you care about your career.
These guys know a thing or two about public relations.
They also know a thing or two about certification scams. Hello Ofsted.
It's all just looting by politically connected business interests.
(Hello too to the alternative Steiner-promoted certifiers who protect the interests of those batshit crazy but commercially highly astute nutters.)
Just look at the youth you come into contact with. Do they seem to be getting more able to think for themselves or less? Right. Never mind what Ofsted says. Frankly who trusts a word Ofsted say?
There's a lot of dosh in school catering contracts too.
The Harris Federation is a "charity", although along with other "academy" charities it has been granted exemption from publishing its accounts with the Charity Commission. That means we can't see its annual reports.
But it runs profit-making companies such as Harris Academies Project Management Limited (construction work) and HCTC Enterprises Ltd, which does things like running sports centres.
Look, it's like Russia in the 1990s. What matters is controlling the cash flow. Don't f*ck with the oligarchs.
Here's some info on academies by people who've done a bit of digging.
Or any other orifice, for that matter. Although I admit to not having examined that closely ...
That is why I believe the project was scrapped early - NASA realised that they would sooner or later lose a launcher, and possible a crew.
......and who can blame her
It's a good test, until it's not quite strapped down enough:
https://airlineworld.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/etihad-airbus-slams-into-wall-while-engine-testing/
http://www.pprune.org/4705627-post484.html
Also, Vettel in 2011 had a similar air. Also also, the Ferrari seems much closer this year. If prone to engine failure.
You could blame the leadership for this, but since the rationale for the programme is that local school leadership is "better" than LEAs that would seem churlish.
"David Cameron you shagged a pig,
You made it squeal,
Get off your arse and save our steel"
Dave needs to become Superman, thus The Man of Steel, or the referendum situation will not develop necessarily to his and Remain's advantage,
And if they used 'sow' they could rhyme it with 'now'.
Spaceflight isn't dead yet, you know(*)
(*) Sadly the Saturn V is.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/04/labour-seeks-curbs-over-new-surveillance-law
Some mistake, surely?
For anyone travelling from out of town to the PB Meet, there are some good deals on hotels Friday evening - Saturday morning, I bagged a "Lucky 8" 4* in Ilford for £35.91 !
Alas I won't be able to make it.
I'm in Dortmund Thursday then seeing Muse on Friday and Saturday.