About time, it was idiotic to have a target in the first place.
It should be changed to control immigration into the country, instead of net migration as you can't control people leaving the country. But in any case May said she wasn't dropping the aspiration anyway.
I'm surprised it's not Poland for the UK too, there's about a million now I thought, and I presumed most people of Indian descent here were second or third generation so not foreign born, and the actual foreign born tally would be relatively low compared to the recent Polish influx.
The ONS draws an interesting line:
India is the most common non-UK country of birth in 2014. An estimated 793,000 usual residents of the UK were born in India (9.6% of the total non-UK born population resident in the UK)
Polish is the most common non-British nationality in 2014. An estimated 853,000 usual residents of the UK have Polish nationality (16.0% of the total number of non-British nationals resident in the UK)
i.e. many Indians by birth now hold British nationality.
I was born in India. When I first arrived in Blighty in 1976, I spoke not a word of English - but that was because I was only 4 months old
People go on and on about getting rid of "unskilled" immigration. I still don't understand where businesses are going to find the people to fill the thousands and thousands of jobs current filled by unskilled (but often extremely able) immigrants. Even if they pay a bit more.
Mystery of 14 Turkish navy ships 'still missing' after failed coup and a commander who has not been seen in four days. Fourteen navy ships are reportedly missing following the Turkey coup They have failed to return to their ports and could be headed to Greece . Commander of the navy Admiral Veysel Kosele also remains missing
I have done that too whilst playing Turkey, Sometimes in Diplomacy it is better to put a fleet under another nation's command than see it eliminated.
Hi HurstLlama, hope you and the family are well. I have now really annoyed our old collie dog by taking on a third rescue cat from the Cat Protection League. A very independent two year old maine coon X boy who we have quickly discovered prefers the company of Fitaloon and the lads to females!
Interesting news about those Turkish ships, IIRC, didn't the Turkish PM claim that the Navy had refused to join the attempted Military coup?
Wotcha Mrs. Lass. You got a Maine Coon? Oh, gosh! I so want one of those when Thomas, our surviving rescue cat goes through the great cat flap (he is 19 now and we love him dearly).
Do you want to send me pictures? Hurstllama at gmail dot com
Will send you some pics of Odie (fitaloon's humour strikes again). Odie is a maine coon/moggy cross, and although he is far bigger than our two kitties, he isn't quite as big as we expected. Our other two kitties are very affectionate and vocal, both were abandoned and found around 3 days old. But this lad's independent nature reminds me far more of your old boy Brute.
A lot of unskilled jobs are also not necessarily a good fit with providing jobs for the "UK underclass". Young immigrants will fill them (and work very hard at them) but not as a long term thing. It gets them a foot in the door - a couple of years work before they move on to better things. And frankly nobody would do a lot of these jobs for the long term.
I find your cheerful callousness towards your countrymen incredibly depressing.
You are the one wanting to force them into these soul destroying jobs. They are jobs for the young (whether they are UK or foreign). Shortish term assignments to build up a bit of money or to get them through school/university etc. Nobody stays in them for the long term. Hence they are unlikely to represent a solution to long term unemployment.
A lot of unskilled jobs are also not necessarily a good fit with providing jobs for the "UK underclass". Young immigrants will fill them (and work very hard at them) but not as a long term thing. It gets them a foot in the door - a couple of years work before they move on to better things. And frankly nobody would do a lot of these jobs for the long term.
I find your cheerful callousness towards your countrymen incredibly depressing.
You are the one wanting to force them into these soul destroying jobs. They are jobs for the young (whether they are UK or foreign). Shortish term assignments to build up a bit of money or to get them through school/university etc. Nobody stays in them for the long term. Hence they are unlikely to represent a solution to long term unemployment.
Force them? Permanently? Where on earth did I say that? I simply see no point in ignoring our unemployed. People aren't always permanently unskilled. But without establishing the basics of a working life, people are doomed. Why is a stepping stone for an immigrant not worthy for a Brit?
By decoupling supply and demand, we're spoiling the life chances of British people. But it's OK, we'll just import labour and revel in the illusory GDP increases.
Yeah, yeah: I don't doubt your sincerity. But it looks as if the woman was used to do what no-one else had the guts to do and then was discarded
It stinks.
Better for Corbyn to stay, be roundly defeated and from the ashes maybe decent Labour party members like you can create a left of centre party which actually acts on the liberal principles it claims to believe in and which the rest of us could even consider voting for.
+1
Btw my earlier reply to you top of PT
I saw. Thank you. A small world.
I go to Italy for a fortnight and when I come back I find that a Gail's Artisan Bakery (for heaven's sake) has now opened in West Hampstead. The place is going to the dogs. I'd impose a Stupidity Tax on anyone daft enough to pay the sort of prices they charge.
Gail's must be a chain, for I am sure I have seen it somewhere else.
Coming back to London from Italy was always rather grim (although not with today's weather), even when I lived in West Hampstead.
It is a chain. An overpriced chain for people with more money than sense.
It seems somewhat rude to suggest that West Hampstead nowadays might not be such a bad target market. Sorry.
No need to apologise. I'm sure they've done their research. It's just a bit depressing for me to see overpriced useless shops replace useful ones. Gentrification usually means that in order to buy a nail you have to drive miles but within walking distance there are 35 estate agents and 42 coffee shops, none of which make a decent coffee.
Well we can only hope that Brexit will see off at least half of the estate agents!
House prices in London are ludicrous. They've just put the flat my Mum grew up in (sadly she didn't own it, but it was her Dad's grace & favour) for £150m. £150m. FOR A FUCKING FLAT.
What's the opposite of a humblebrag? Ah yes, a brag
In the mid 70s I was looking to buy a house in West London in the Twickenham Feltham area. I decided not to do so for 2 reasons: firstly I wanted to head back north, and secondly prices were ludicrous - almost 35k pounds for a 4 bedroom house. I felt that price level was unsustainable (little did I know).
Prices for an equivalent home in the Knutsford Wilmslow area were less than a third of that. I didn't need telling twice.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
Can you explain your comment the other day, because you went silent when I asked it the other day, you said Labour hated Grammars, that's why they got rid of them, so why did Mrs Thatcher close more/merge more grammar schools than anyone else?
Talking in cliches is really all you can do, isn't?
So, you can't answer my question.
Thought as much, you and facts are strangers.
Guess she thought it was a mistake by the time she became Tory Leader:
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn. - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977).
I'm a grammar school lad and proud. I'll support them as much as I can, wherever I can. Selection is far, far more meritocratic than the pseudo-selection of moving to catchment areas of better comps.
A lot of unskilled jobs are also not necessarily a good fit with providing jobs for the "UK underclass". Young immigrants will fill them (and work very hard at them) but not as a long term thing. It gets them a foot in the door - a couple of years work before they move on to better things. And frankly nobody would do a lot of these jobs for the long term.
I find your cheerful callousness towards your countrymen incredibly depressing.
You are the one wanting to force them into these soul destroying jobs. They are jobs for the young (whether they are UK or foreign). Shortish term assignments to build up a bit of money or to get them through school/university etc. Nobody stays in them for the long term. Hence they are unlikely to represent a solution to long term unemployment.
Do you understand how employment works? Often you start off in a junior position before rising within the same company or sector...
A lot of unskilled jobs are also not necessarily a good fit with providing jobs for the "UK underclass". Young immigrants will fill them (and work very hard at them) but not as a long term thing. It gets them a foot in the door - a couple of years work before they move on to better things. And frankly nobody would do a lot of these jobs for the long term.
I find your cheerful callousness towards your countrymen incredibly depressing.
You are the one wanting to force them into these soul destroying jobs. They are jobs for the young (whether they are UK or foreign). Shortish term assignments to build up a bit of money or to get them through school/university etc. Nobody stays in them for the long term. Hence they are unlikely to represent a solution to long term unemployment.
Force them? Permanently? Where on earth did I say that? I simply see no point in ignoring our unemployed. People aren't always permanently unskilled. But without establishing the basics of a working life, people are doomed. Why is a stepping stone for an immigrant not worthy for a Brit?
By decoupling supply and demand, we're spoiling the life chances of British people. But it's OK, we'll just import labour and revel in the illusory GDP increases.
I was posing the question as to how these jobs would be filled. If indeed you are right and a clamping down on unskilled immigration will lead to an unlocking of potential amongst the unemployed then i can have no arguments. Whether that will actually happen is another matter.
BTW what do the statistics show about the locations of these jobs and the areas of serious problems of youth and long term unemployment in the UK? I might hypothesise that there isn't great correlation and often the problem isn't so much "immigrants taking jobs" as simple "lack of jobs" (in the relevant geographical areas)
And, i should say that just because i am arguing, somewhat inadequately against you, doesn't mean i don't agree with you
I wonder how much the pound plunging as put off would be migrants to Britain ? Probably not a lot (at all?) from A8 but maybe some from Spain, Italy Portugal?
A police officer in Columbus, Ohio was served a sandwich containing glass shards yesterday at a restaurant, and had to be hospitalized.
Get this - an investigation is underway to try to establish if this was intentional, and public health officials will visit the restaurant. The place's name is being withheld.
What's the opposite of a humblebrag? Ah yes, a brag
Actually, it's more of a comment on stupid prices in London. My Mum lived there for 3 years when growing up. It wasn't her house - she got to live there because her Dad was doing his bit for the country. I think most people on here realise already that I have some successful ancestors who I have yet to live up to
On Saudi front - time for the evil empire of Saud to be dismembered. take Hijaz back to a moderate sunni state, moderate shia get the oil reserves, let the wahabi fight amongst themselves in the desert and stop poisoning the rest of the world with their toxic ideology, abetted by the likes of Cameron and buddies. Just taking away support from House of Saud would achieve this in a couple of years.
Newsflash to extremist political groups in america and elsewhere, you don't have to bring to life the metaphor of what you were all doing anyway, the metaphor will suffice.
The media certainly got this completely wrong having speculated prior to Mrs. May's coronation that Philip Hammond and George Osborne were likely to swap jobs, since the then Chancellor had long coveted the Foreign Office. Some swap!
One of the reasons it's going to be difficult for the commentariat is that May doesn't socialise, doesn't gossip. A riddle wrapped in an enigma etc.
Not really, May is proving far more Brownite in her behaviour than the Lobby's favourite Brown Markll model George Osborne. Anyone within the Conservative party who isn't concerned at May's brutal reshuffle, and the way many form Ministers were treated including Osborne, really needs to tweak their political antennae.
Sorry but I still think the brutal sacking of Osborne was just spin cooked up by Osborne himself.
First, Osborne had previously said he'd retire when David Cameron went (albeit neither man had 2016 ringed on his five-year calendar) and that he did not want to be Prime Minister -- and since he did not stand, we can take his word for the last part.
Second, if it was not choreographed by or at least with Osborne, then it is too risky. How could May rule out Osborne not touring the television studios to provide a running criticism of her next few months, let alone the past six years?
Third, it was too overtly theatrical to summon Osborne to Number 10, in front of all the cameras, for a two minute dismissal. Remember May and Osborne had been together earlier in the day at David Cameron's final Cabinet meeting, and again at the House of Commons.
The media certainly got this completely wrong having speculated prior to Mrs. May's coronation that Philip Hammond and George Osborne were likely to swap jobs, since the then Chancellor had long coveted the Foreign Office. Some swap!
Ahem. The media did indeed get it completely wrong, but some PB Tories didn't.
A "one nation Tory" who compared benefit claimants to Mick Philpott, who drove countless more families to have to rely on food banks, who took money away from low-paid workers, who tried to impose disability cuts which were too harsh even for Iain Duncan Smith, etc.
You really should stop believing things you read in the Guardian. I once had an argument with a very well known academic and political expert who was 100% convinced that Osborne had called benefit claimants 'scroungers'.
After several exchanges of emails, he finally had to admit defeat: it was the Guardian, not Osborne, who had done so.
Newsflash to extremist political groups in america and elsewhere, you don't have to bring to life the metaphor of what you were all doing anyway, the metaphor will suffice.
What a bizzare three way fight.
Black Lives Matter vs KKK. KKK vs Westboro Baptist Church (the KKK find the Westboro Baptist too extreme!!!). Do Black Lives Matter and Westboro Baptist church hate each other particularly - got to imagine so?
I wonder just why May was so brutal towards Osborne?
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
I liked Cameron and the Cameroons, but it was no secret how disdainful they were of both their own PCP and the membership if not part of the Notting Hill set.
I think that you will find that often repeated narrative almost always came from the same usual suspects who had a personal axe to grind.
I wonder just why May was so brutal towards Osborne?
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
I liked Cameron and the Cameroons, but it was no secret how disdainful they were of both their own PCP and the membership if not part of the Notting Hill set.
I think that you will find that often repeated narrative almost always came from the same usual suspects who had a personal axe to grind.
WRT to what went on between TM and GO, we are on the third rehash of the same story and each time it gets embellished a little bit more. – It’s the perfect conspiracy and journalistic wet dream, as everyone gets to paint their favourite character as sinister, sinner or sinned.
I read something the other day that said there are more Britons in Australia than in the 27 EU countries combined. No idea of it's truth.
So, there are more Poles in Germany than in the UK. I thought they were all here.
No that's not what it says. It says there are more Poles in Germany than any other nation of birth in Germany.
Nothing about more or less than the UK.
Amazing there are more than Turks
Well they do share a border.
There are many people who have immigrated to Germany from Poland who consider themselves to be of German heritage, mainly from those parts of Poland that used to be parts of Germany. Because of the dependence of German nationality on bloodline, many of them may actually be considered by the German authorities to be German, despite having been born in Poland.
Nevertheless, I doubt that the Poles outnumber the Turks in Germany. Large numbers of Turks immigrated to Germany during the 60s and 70s and mostly stayed there.
I wonder just why May was so brutal towards Osborne?
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
I liked Cameron and the Cameroons, but it was no secret how disdainful they were of both their own PCP and the membership if not part of the Notting Hill set.
I think that you will find that often repeated narrative almost always came from the same usual suspects who had a personal axe to grind.
WRT to what went on between TM and GO, we are on the third rehash of the same story and each time it gets embellished a little bit more. – It’s the perfect conspiracy and journalistic wet dream, as everyone gets to paint their favourite character as sinister, sinner or sinned.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
Can you explain your comment the other day, because you went silent when I asked it the other day, you said Labour hated Grammars, that's why they got rid of them, so why did Mrs Thatcher close more/merge more grammar schools than anyone else?
Talking in cliches is really all you can do, isn't?
So, you can't answer my question.
Thought as much, you and facts are strangers.
I rather thought it was the local education authorities around the country which introduced the comprehensive system as instructed to by the previous Labour government:
' So, when Labour got into power, and Education Secretary Anthony Crosland asked local authorities to submit plans for going comprehensive, the bulk of councils decided to do so.
The pace of change was rapid. In the ten years between 1965 and 1975, virtually all state secondary schools in Wales and Scotland went comprehensive. In England the figure was about 90 per cent. And the swing took place under Labour and Conservative governments, with the pace of change being quicker under the Tories. '
Now why did more grammar schools merge/close after 1970 (while Thatcher was Education Secretary) than before ? Two connected reasons:
1) It took years for local authorities to plan for the change to a comprehensive system
2) Most local authorities were Conservative controlled from 1968 to 1971 and they opposed the change.
It was only after the changeover plans were completed and Labour took control of more local authorities from 1970 onwards that the closure of grammar schools accelerated.
This coincided with Thatcher's period as Education Secretary - so you have the irony of a Labour government policy being mostly implemented under a Conservative government.
Now whether Thatcher opposed the closure of grammar schools at that time I don't know. Nor do I know if there was anything Thatcher could have done to block their closure assuming she did oppose it.
It does seem though that Thatcher was opposed to any further closures whilst LotO in the late 1970s and whilst she was PM while on the other hand not attempting to open any new grammar schools.
Excuse a dim question but as a v infrequent gambler but political obsessive I am looking at Betfair but I don't quite get how it works - can someone explain briefly ?
Regarding Mrs May's appointments and sackings, it does certainly seem as though she has been pretty ruthless. It's how she treated some of her allies which is most striking - Chris Grayling, for example. I also know of a junior minister and close ally of hers who got a fairly brusque deal.
I wonder just why May was so brutal towards Osborne?
Revenge is a dish best served cold.
I liked Cameron and the Cameroons, but it was no secret how disdainful they were of both their own PCP and the membership if not part of the Notting Hill set.
I think that you will find that often repeated narrative almost always came from the same usual suspects who had a personal axe to grind.
WRT to what went on between TM and GO, we are on the third rehash of the same story and each time it gets embellished a little bit more. – It’s the perfect conspiracy and journalistic wet dream, as everyone gets to paint their favourite character as sinister, sinner or sinned.
And presumably only 2 or 3 people know the truth
Evening Charles – If the stories are to be believed, there were at least 40 present in the room.
Someone I know in the Tory Party, and has been a member since the 60s, who would normally rate Margaret Thatcher as an awesome PM, says he can never forgive her for the policies on grammar schools, he said, he could forgive her for closing the grammar schools for the reasons you give.
But he said, she had eleven years as PM, often with 3 figure majorities, and she never undid what happened under her watch, especially in light of the quote Sunil gave down thread.
If this is correct, then May is less intelligent than she appears. It doesn't serve her purpose at all beyond what sacking him did. She'll have made an enemy of someone who does still have tendrils throughout the tory party.
Also, in the professional world when you are sacking someone you tend to do it in the most diplomatic way possible, does she think she's Lord Sugar on the apprentice, pointing her finger across the table at Ozzy?
I am glad to see Osborne out of government and hopefully an end to Osbornomics, I just down think it's a smart move on her part.
It is never worth accummulating enemies.
Indeed, especially just as you literally enter the door of your Leadership/Premiership, and you have such a small Government majority.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
Can you explain your comment the other day, because you went silent when I asked it the other day, you said Labour hated Grammars, that's why they got rid of them, so why did Mrs Thatcher close more/merge more grammar schools than anyone else?
Talking in cliches is really all you can do, isn't?
Excuse a dim question but as a v infrequent gambler but political obsessive I am looking at Betfair but I don't quite get how it works - can someone explain briefly ?
Ask any question you want.
The blue "back" boxes are like a simple bet you'd place at a bookmaker.
The pink "lay" boxes are the *opposite* - when you lay, you are taking on the role of the bookie.
We waited all this time - and these are the bloody promised Owls that Labour are going to be dishing out to all the voters? Weird genetically-modified Corbyn-owl clones? What a swizz! I want Hedwig - and nothing less.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
Can you explain your comment the other day, because you went silent when I asked it the other day, you said Labour hated Grammars, that's why they got rid of them, so why did Mrs Thatcher close more/merge more grammar schools than anyone else?
Talking in cliches is really all you can do, isn't?
So, you can't answer my question.
Thought as much, you and facts are strangers.
"Mrs CJ & I avoid cliches like the plague"
I used to run into David Nobbs regularly at a pub near Harrogate. Really interesting man.
People go on and on about getting rid of "unskilled" immigration. I still don't understand where businesses are going to find the people to fill the thousands and thousands of jobs current filled by unskilled (but often extremely able) immigrants. Even if they pay a bit more.
700,000 youth unemployed for a start.
156,000 people between that ages of 18 and 24 are in receipt of job seekers allowance/UC. The lowest for over twenty years.
Someone I know in the Tory Party, and has been a member since the 60s, who would normally rate Margaret Thatcher as an awesome PM, says he can never forgive her for the policies on grammar schools, he said, he could forgive her for closing the grammar schools for the reasons you give.
But he said, she had eleven years as PM, often with 3 figure majorities, and she never undid what happened under her watch, especially in light of the quote Sunil gave down thread.
IIRC on the BBC 1979 election program Norman StJohn Stevas was being interviewed as Shirley Williams defeat was announced and he mentioned that as Shadow Education Secretary that he had had some battles with Williams over grammar schools.
Now I don't know what the Conservative policy at that time nationally was but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't being fiercely supportive of Conservative councils (and it would have been Conservative areas which would have had the remaining grammar schools) resisting against the Labour governments attempts to close 'their' grammar schools.
I suspect that by the time of Thatcher became PM she realised that reintroducing grammar schools would not have been worth the political (and probably financial) cost and that there were better ways of raising school standards - the introduction of GCSEs for example.
Whether Thatcher would have chosen to reintroduce grammar schools if it had been easy to do so I don't know. It might be significant that Thatcher sent her own children to leading public schools.
It might be argued that City Technology Colleges were attempts to reintroduce grammar schools by the back door into Labour controlled areas. Or perhaps they were merely an attempt to create more private sector or more choice in schools.
As to Thatcher's famous grammar schools quote I do wonder how much it actually relates to grammar schools and how much it was mere 'class war' politics.
I read something the other day that said there are more Britons in Australia than in the 27 EU countries combined. No idea of it's truth.
So, there are more Poles in Germany than in the UK. I thought they were all here.
No that's not what it says. It says there are more Poles in Germany than any other nation of birth in Germany.
Nothing about more or less than the UK.
Amazing there are more than Turks
Well they do share a border.
There are many people who have immigrated to Germany from Poland who consider themselves to be of German heritage, mainly from those parts of Poland that used to be parts of Germany. Because of the dependence of German nationality on bloodline, many of them may actually be considered by the German authorities to be German, despite having been born in Poland.
Nevertheless, I doubt that the Poles outnumber the Turks in Germany. Large numbers of Turks immigrated to Germany during the 60s and 70s and mostly stayed there.
Turks would be more noticeable in Germany whilst Poles wouldn't, maybe it *feels* like Turks are more, polls often show people in Britain think Muslims make up 20% of the population when its much less.
I'm surprised it's not Poland for the UK too, there's about a million now I thought, and I presumed most people of Indian descent here were second or third generation so not foreign born, and the actual foreign born tally would be relatively low compared to the recent Polish influx.
The ONS draws an interesting line:
India is the most common non-UK country of birth in 2014. An estimated 793,000 usual residents of the UK were born in India (9.6% of the total non-UK born population resident in the UK)
Polish is the most common non-British nationality in 2014. An estimated 853,000 usual residents of the UK have Polish nationality (16.0% of the total number of non-British nationals resident in the UK)
i.e. many Indians by birth now hold British nationality.
I was born in India. When I first arrived in Blighty in 1976, I spoke not a word of English - but that was because I was only 4 months old
I shall always be a member/President of the George Osborne fan club. Top top bloke.
Just read this speech he gave last night, here's an excerpt, true one nation Toryism at its finest.
It was a Conservative, William Wilberforce, who ended the slave trade.
It was a Conservative, Edward Stanley, who then abolished slavery itself.
It was a Conservative, the Earl of Shaftesbury, who promoted the Factory Acts that limited working hours and banned the employment of young children.
It was a Conservative, Lord Salisbury, who introduced free elementary education.
It was Conservatives in government who extended the franchise to working men, and then a Conservative, Stanley Baldwin, that ensured equal votes for women.
It was a Conservative, Rab Butler, who legislated for universal state education.
It was a Conservative, Margaret Thatcher, who gave people the right to buy their council homes.
It was a Conservative, John Major, and his junior minister William Hague, who introduced the landmark Disability Discrimination Act.
And it was a Conservative, David Cameron, who introduced equal marriage.
Why aren’t we prouder of this record as a party? Why don’t we shout it from the rooftops?
It’s made our society stronger and fairer and better.
It’s been the all-too-well kept secret of our political success
You like him because he's able to enumerate the party's achievements? This seems to be a fairly low bar.
And do you think it was a particular clever political move on the part of Theresa May to just throw her own Government's economic record/achievements out the back door with Osborne in such a brutally dismissive way? You may claim that being able to enumerate your party's achievements in Government a fairly low bar, but it can just as quickly become a lost art when you are languishing on the Opposition benches and the electorate no longer want to listen. That Theresa May has chosen to treat Osborne in such a way may cause her, her team and his critics within the party some short term enjoyment or pleasure. But that graceless inability to even allow him to resign so she didn't have to reply with a letter of thanks for his service in Government has in effect just written off the party's economic record too! A big misjudgement.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
Can you explain your comment the other day, because you went silent when I asked it the other day, you said Labour hated Grammars, that's why they got rid of them, so why did Mrs Thatcher close more/merge more grammar schools than anyone else?
Talking in cliches is really all you can do, isn't?
So, you can't answer my question.
Thought as much, you and facts are strangers.
Guess she thought it was a mistake by the time she became Tory Leader:
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn. - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977).
I'm a grammar school lad and proud. I'll support them as much as I can, wherever I can. Selection is far, far more meritocratic than the pseudo-selection of moving to catchment areas of better comps.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
I rather thought it was the local education authorities around the country which introduced the comprehensive system as instructed to by the previous Labour government:
' So, when Labour got into power, and Education Secretary Anthony Crosland asked local authorities to submit plans for going comprehensive, the bulk of councils decided to do so.
The pace of change was rapid. In the ten years between 1965 and 1975, virtually all state secondary schools in Wales and Scotland went comprehensive. In England the figure was about 90 per cent. And the swing took place under Labour and Conservative governments, with the pace of change being quicker under the Tories. '
Now why did more grammar schools merge/close after 1970 (while Thatcher was Education Secretary) than before ? Two connected reasons:
1) It took years for local authorities to plan for the change to a comprehensive system
2) Most local authorities were Conservative controlled from 1968 to 1971 and they opposed the change.
It was only after the changeover plans were completed and Labour took control of more local authorities from 1970 onwards that the closure of grammar schools accelerated.
This coincided with Thatcher's period as Education Secretary - so you have the irony of a Labour government policy being mostly implemented under a Conservative government.
Now whether Thatcher opposed the closure of grammar schools at that time I don't know. Nor do I know if there was anything Thatcher could have done to block their closure assuming she did oppose it.
It does seem though that Thatcher was opposed to any further closures whilst LotO in the late 1970s and whilst she was PM while on the other hand not attempting to open any new grammar schools.
Whilst you might not agree or like George Osborne, I admired his loyalty to the party and Cameron, everything he did was for what he perceived in the best interests of Dave.
No one can ever come up with any examples of George on the record/off the record criticising Dave.
Given the history of spats between No 10 and No 11 in the past, that's quite an achievement,
--------------------------------------------
God you're easily pleased, aren't you?
Can you explain your comment the other day, because you went silent when I asked it the other day, you said Labour hated Grammars, that's why they got rid of them, so why did Mrs Thatcher close more/merge more grammar schools than anyone else?
Talking in cliches is really all you can do, isn't?
So, you can't answer my question.
Thought as much, you and facts are strangers.
Guess she thought it was a mistake by the time she became Tory Leader:
"People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn. - M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 14 October, 1977).
I'm a grammar school lad and proud. I'll support them as much as I can, wherever I can. Selection is far, far more meritocratic than the pseudo-selection of moving to catchment areas of better comps.
I'm a grammar school lad too!
TSE on the other hand is a public school twit
(only kidding!)
I'm public school too, but don't look down on anyone.
I know party members are not representative of the population at large but how did Trump do so well even in liberal states like California? Or were his rivals that bad.
Excuse a dim question but as a v infrequent gambler but political obsessive I am looking at Betfair but I don't quite get how it works - can someone explain briefly ?
Ask any question you want.
The blue "back" boxes are like a simple bet you'd place at a bookmaker.
The pink "lay" boxes are the *opposite* - when you lay, you are taking on the role of the bookie.
Thank you. So if I say lay Donald Trump at 3.65 I am inviting other users to accept those odds and potentially have to pay them if he did win?
Excuse a dim question but as a v infrequent gambler but political obsessive I am looking at Betfair but I don't quite get how it works - can someone explain briefly ?
Ask any question you want.
The blue "back" boxes are like a simple bet you'd place at a bookmaker.
The pink "lay" boxes are the *opposite* - when you lay, you are taking on the role of the bookie.
Thank you. So if I say lay Donald Trump at 3.65 I am inviting other users to accept those odds and potentially have to pay them if he did win?
Yep, exactly.
By laying, you're betting that Donald Trump *won't* become president.
If anyone other than Trump becomes POTUS you win the amount that you've laid.
If he does become POTUS, you'll lose the "liability" amount, which are the lay odds minus 1, multiplied by your stake.
The overall amount you win after the event is settled in November is subject to a commission charge of 5%.
If you end up losing money, you don't pay any commission.
I can rest now. I have finally seen it all. I am no longer capable of surprise. I live in a world where Donald Trump might actually become POTUS. Cuckoo.
I know party members are not representative of the population at large but how did Trump do so well even in liberal states like California? Or were his rivals that bad.
Trump is more liberal than the other Republican contenders.
It was in the states which have large numbers of Evangelical and Mormon Republicans that Trump struggled in.
I know party members are not representative of the population at large but how did Trump do so well even in liberal states like California? Or were his rivals that bad.
Excuse a dim question but as a v infrequent gambler but political obsessive I am looking at Betfair but I don't quite get how it works - can someone explain briefly ?
Ask any question you want.
The blue "back" boxes are like a simple bet you'd place at a bookmaker.
The pink "lay" boxes are the *opposite* - when you lay, you are taking on the role of the bookie.
Thank you. So if I say lay Donald Trump at 3.65 I am inviting other users to accept those odds and potentially have to pay them if he did win?
Yep, exactly.
By laying, you're betting that Donald Trump *won't* become president.
If anyone other than Trump becomes POTUS you win your bet.
Thanks again. Am I right - It seems like one could both bet on him and lay him in such a way as to at worst get your money back whatever the outcome?
Comments
By decoupling supply and demand, we're spoiling the life chances of British people. But it's OK, we'll just import labour and revel in the illusory GDP increases.
Prices for an equivalent home in the Knutsford Wilmslow area were less than a third of that. I didn't need telling twice.
They will try to rig the roll call vote so that New York casts the vote to put Trump over the top. NY will probably pass the first time round.
https://twitter.com/KPLC7News/status/755510713095946241
BTW what do the statistics show about the locations of these jobs and the areas of serious problems of youth and long term unemployment in the UK? I might hypothesise that there isn't great correlation and often the problem isn't so much "immigrants taking jobs" as simple "lack of jobs" (in the relevant geographical areas)
And, i should say that just because i am arguing, somewhat inadequately against you, doesn't mean i don't agree with you
Get this - an investigation is underway to try to establish if this was intentional, and public health officials will visit the restaurant. The place's name is being withheld.
Germany does not have 3 million people born in Turkey residing within it's borders.
Check this out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Germany#Immigrant_population_in_Germany_by_country_of_birth
Rank Nationality Population
(2015)[42]
1 Turkey 1,506,113
2 Poland 740,962
3 Italy 596,127
First, Osborne had previously said he'd retire when David Cameron went (albeit neither man had 2016 ringed on his five-year calendar) and that he did not want to be Prime Minister -- and since he did not stand, we can take his word for the last part.
Second, if it was not choreographed by or at least with Osborne, then it is too risky. How could May rule out Osborne not touring the television studios to provide a running criticism of her next few months, let alone the past six years?
Third, it was too overtly theatrical to summon Osborne to Number 10, in front of all the cameras, for a two minute dismissal. Remember May and Osborne had been together earlier in the day at David Cameron's final Cabinet meeting, and again at the House of Commons.
Wait for the memoirs!
Joe shouts Give me an F!"
Audience shouts "F"
Give me a U
U!
Give me a C
C!
Give me a K
K!
"What does it spell?"
- silence
"Anybody - what does it spell?"
After several exchanges of emails, he finally had to admit defeat: it was the Guardian, not Osborne, who had done so.
Black Lives Matter vs KKK.
KKK vs Westboro Baptist Church (the KKK find the Westboro Baptist too extreme!!!).
Do Black Lives Matter and Westboro Baptist church hate each other particularly - got to imagine so?
Nevertheless, I doubt that the Poles outnumber the Turks in Germany. Large numbers of Turks immigrated to Germany during the 60s and 70s and mostly stayed there.
' So, when Labour got into power, and Education Secretary Anthony Crosland asked local authorities to submit plans for going comprehensive, the bulk of councils decided to do so.
The pace of change was rapid. In the ten years between 1965 and 1975, virtually all state secondary schools in Wales and Scotland went comprehensive. In England the figure was about 90 per cent. And the swing took place under Labour and Conservative governments, with the pace of change being quicker under the Tories. '
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/comprehensive-schools-the-history/92186.article
Now why did more grammar schools merge/close after 1970 (while Thatcher was Education Secretary) than before ? Two connected reasons:
1) It took years for local authorities to plan for the change to a comprehensive system
2) Most local authorities were Conservative controlled from 1968 to 1971 and they opposed the change.
It was only after the changeover plans were completed and Labour took control of more local authorities from 1970 onwards that the closure of grammar schools accelerated.
This coincided with Thatcher's period as Education Secretary - so you have the irony of a Labour government policy being mostly implemented under a Conservative government.
Now whether Thatcher opposed the closure of grammar schools at that time I don't know. Nor do I know if there was anything Thatcher could have done to block their closure assuming she did oppose it.
It does seem though that Thatcher was opposed to any further closures whilst LotO in the late 1970s and whilst she was PM while on the other hand not attempting to open any new grammar schools.
He best not change his mind to Ben Carson
Thanks for your reply.
Someone I know in the Tory Party, and has been a member since the 60s, who would normally rate Margaret Thatcher as an awesome PM, says he can never forgive her for the policies on grammar schools, he said, he could forgive her for closing the grammar schools for the reasons you give.
But he said, she had eleven years as PM, often with 3 figure majorities, and she never undid what happened under her watch, especially in light of the quote Sunil gave down thread.
A 1% return on £44k is pretty tempting....
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/politics/market/1.122495610
Unfortunately I don't have a spare £44k.
I thought the Illinois delegate was about to climax then
https://twitter.com/JackTindale/status/755527484683259904
The blue "back" boxes are like a simple bet you'd place at a bookmaker.
The pink "lay" boxes are the *opposite* - when you lay, you are taking on the role of the bookie.
1) The observation that Obama is a secret Muslim who wants to turn America in an Islamic state
2) Obama is a front for Jews and their money
Politicalinvesting.com ...
Now I don't know what the Conservative policy at that time nationally was but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't being fiercely supportive of Conservative councils (and it would have been Conservative areas which would have had the remaining grammar schools) resisting against the Labour governments attempts to close 'their' grammar schools.
I suspect that by the time of Thatcher became PM she realised that reintroducing grammar schools would not have been worth the political (and probably financial) cost and that there were better ways of raising school standards - the introduction of GCSEs for example.
Whether Thatcher would have chosen to reintroduce grammar schools if it had been easy to do so I don't know. It might be significant that Thatcher sent her own children to leading public schools.
It might be argued that City Technology Colleges were attempts to reintroduce grammar schools by the back door into Labour controlled areas. Or perhaps they were merely an attempt to create more private sector or more choice in schools.
As to Thatcher's famous grammar schools quote I do wonder how much it actually relates to grammar schools and how much it was mere 'class war' politics.
I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, but only because Heidi has clambered up behind me....
I was top of my class at primary school.
TSE on the other hand is a public school twit
(only kidding!)
By laying, you're betting that Donald Trump *won't* become president.
If anyone other than Trump becomes POTUS you win the amount that you've laid.
If he does become POTUS, you'll lose the "liability" amount, which are the lay odds minus 1, multiplied by your stake.
The overall amount you win after the event is settled in November is subject to a commission charge of 5%.
If you end up losing money, you don't pay any commission.
It was in the states which have large numbers of Evangelical and Mormon Republicans that Trump struggled in.