It's curious how all the grammar school advocates come out with a cascade of anecdotes and are strongly hostile to any statistics. Obviously grammar schools are poor at teaching reasoning skills.
What I think was really wrong with my education was that my school did not have a sixth form. As far as they were concerned you stopped being their problem at 16. I had very poor guidance on my A-Level selections and by the time I figured out what I might like to do at university it was too late. My Comprehensive was very good at encouraging budding doctors and dentists. Lawyers, economists, dare I say politicians? Not so much.
Your worth as a teacher is determined by how many of your kids get 5 grades A-C at GCSE. The side effect of this is obvious, a phenomenon I've heard called "C banging".
Essentially teachers ignore the A-Bs (who can take care of themselves) and ignore the EFGs (who're write offs) and dedicate all their time to trying to flip those Ds to Cs, and stop the Cs flipping to Ds.
So teachers are ignoring pupils expected to get 5 of the available 7 grades. This is, of course, a perfectly rational side effect of the perverse incentive of the 5 grades A-C target.
The old adage 'you get what you measure' applies. While I haven't been in a state school since 2003 (I did a temp job in a failing Forest comp while my DV process was underway), that kind of behaviour was widespread.
The Jesuits said "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". Worrying about ages 11+ seems to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Kids are already doomed at that point.
@iainjwatson: Labour's QC says that there are reasonable grounds for appeal and a public interest in court of appeal hearing the case
That sounds like a QC wanting more money rather than really believing that they have a good case (which they clearly don't)
The Court of Appeal will throw it out and any further delays will make the whole election process even messier
Better to swallow this, change the rules properly and with maximum transparency in readiness for next year's challenge.
Didn't Labour's QC also think they had a good chance of keeping Corbo off the ballot ?
"Labour's QC says that there are reasonable grounds for appeal and a public interest in court of appeal hearing the case" is just a recitation of the test, not an actual argument.
The overriding issue in education today is an under achievement of white, working class boys from an early age that widens through the school years. An underlying cause in the secondary of which I am a Governor is a lack of parental interest in their boys' education. Can anyone explain why additional grammar schools will solve this? Those boys will not end up at the grammar unless there is some intervention to make it happen - a 'named person' to act as an education advocate for bright WWC kids maybe?
Unfortunately if some chavs want to treat education as a joke, encouraged by their parents, there is little that can realistically be done about it for them. Grammar schools don't help them, they help the hard working and bright poor kids get separated from the chavs mucking around so the bright kids get pushed to the best of their ability.
Middle class and rich parents can separate their kids by moving house and getting a good postcode.
Hard working and bright poor kids do very well in any good or outstanding state secondary school - the exception are those schools that require improvement and which are mainly clustered in northern, metropolitan areas with poor performing local education authorities. The DfE has, or at least had, these LEAs very firmly in their sights. The pressure on state schools and LEAs to improve outcomes and close achievement gaps is fierce and is working in most areas, let the Regional School Commisioners now sort out the remaining poor performers.
Your comment about chavs suggests that, having secured their votes for Brexit, you are amongst those who are now happy to resume the prejudices that were replaced by faux concern for a few weeks.
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
This.
Trouble is that grammar schools now *are* only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for them. You either send your kids to an independent school up to 11 or have them expensively tutored. Otherwise they have no chance.
They were great in their day (I went to one too) but that was then.
I'm sorry this is a very lazy set of arguments, which may apply to some extent to the ridiculously oversubscribed schools in and around London but not anywhere else.
The grammar school my daughter attends has about a 10% intake from private schools and evidence of tutoring is pretty limited as well according to the senior staff. It also shows up pretty quickly in underperformance later on, and as such the school strongly discourages it. Most of the kids are from fairly ordinary families from the local towns and villages.
The solution to the 'problem' of tutoring etc. is to open more grammar schools and expand existing ones. Have a look at Northern Ireland, where about 40% of transferring students attend grammars now.
Actually the solution is probably a complete overhaul of the education system, and I have no rooted objection to including academic selection in that, but I don't think that's what is being proposed.
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
This.
Trouble is that grammar schools now *are* only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for them. You either send your kids to an independent school up to 11 or have them expensively tutored. Otherwise they have no chance.
They were great in their day (I went to one too) but that was then.
I'm sorry this is a very lazy set of arguments, which may apply to some extent to the ridiculously oversubscribed schools in and around London but not anywhere else.
The grammar school my daughter attends has about a 10% intake from private schools and evidence of tutoring is pretty limited as well according to the senior staff. It also shows up pretty quickly in underperformance later on, and as such the school strongly discourages it. Most of the kids are from fairly ordinary families from the local towns and villages.
The solution to the 'problem' of tutoring etc. is to open more grammar schools and expand existing ones. Have a look at Northern Ireland, where about 40% of transferring students attend grammars now.
Actually the solution is probably a complete overhaul of the education system, and I have no rooted objection to including academic selection in that, but I don't think that's what is being proposed.
No-one knows what is being proposed - as no proposals have been tabled.
What we are getting is a lot of speculation based on nothing other than preconceptions
Grammar schools are great. I went to one and received an education normally only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for it. Without going to a grammar school I would not be where I am today. More should be given the opportunity to attend grammar schools and comprehensive schools should become more like grammar schools in terms of discipline, expectations and teaching. Those are the three things that will unlock higher achievement, comprehensive schools too often set low expectations for pupils and are unprepared to do what is necessary in terms of discipline to make sure children learn and want to learn.
This.
Trouble is that grammar schools now *are* only available to the middle classes who can afford to pay for them. You either send your kids to an independent school up to 11 or have them expensively tutored. Otherwise they have no chance.
They were great in their day (I went to one too) but that was then.
I'm sorry this is a very lazy set of arguments, which may apply to some extent to the ridiculously oversubscribed schools in and around London but not anywhere else.
The grammar school my daughter attends has about a 10% intake from private schools and evidence of tutoring is pretty limited as well according to the senior staff. It also shows up pretty quickly in underperformance later on, and as such the school strongly discourages it. Most of the kids are from fairly ordinary families from the local towns and villages.
The solution to the 'problem' of tutoring etc. is to open more grammar schools and expand existing ones. Have a look at Northern Ireland, where about 40% of transferring students attend grammars now.
Actually the solution is probably a complete overhaul of the education system, and I have no rooted objection to including academic selection in that, but I don't think that's what is being proposed.
I wouldn't argue with that - complete overhaul that is. But what is being proposed is a small step in the right direction.
"If you plot how well children do on average by household deprivation for selective areas and for the rest of the country, you can see that the net effect of grammar schools is to disadvantage poor children and help the rich."
You are advocating disadvantaging the poor and helping the rich.
That's where the obsession with grammar schools alone is wrong IMO: it has to be part of a complete system. And sadly, that means if you have grammar schools, you need to spend *more* on the kids who fail to get in. Otherwise they will be even further left behind.
With one or two honourable exceptions, people talk about 'grammar schools' and ignore the rest of the system. That's a recipe for social disaster.
Then again, our current education 'system' is hardly well thought-out or designed to work. Instead of harking back to a past system that did not work for everyone, why not decide what end-results we want for all children and build a system to get that?
It may or may not include grammar schools, technical colleges, streaming or setting, after-hours classes, etc, etc. But what we have always had in education appears to be a disjointed mess designed solely to get headline-grabbing exam results, not to let all kids reach their potential.
'Setting' by subject in a (not too large) comprehensive school seems to me better than the grammar school system. In Buckinghamshire, whilst the grammar school pupils do well, the children who don't go to grammar school or public school fare worse than children of the same ability elsewhere in the country.
'Setting' allows children of similar ability in that subject to learn together at a similar pace.
Signed
Ex grammar school boy and parent of two ex grammar school children.
@iainjwatson: Labour's QC says that there are reasonable grounds for appeal and a public interest in court of appeal hearing the case
That sounds like a QC wanting more money rather than really believing that they have a good case (which they clearly don't)
The Court of Appeal will throw it out and any further delays will make the whole election process even messier
Better to swallow this, change the rules properly and with maximum transparency in readiness for next year's challenge.
Didn't Labour's QC also think they had a good chance of keeping Corbo off the ballot ?
"Labour's QC says that there are reasonable grounds for appeal and a public interest in court of appeal hearing the case" is just a recitation of the test, not an actual argument.
Five new members of the #Labour Party have won a High Court battle over their legal right to vote in the forthcoming leadership election
Seems fair enough, given they were told they'd have a vote when they joined.
I wonder if they get two votes if they also forked out £25 as to become registered supporters?
The system is based on OMOV, I think - so if they'd paid again in order to get a vote they'd been told they'd be denied otherwise, I'd have thought they'd be due a refund of their £25 rather than two votes?
So the result of all this will be both a large lawyers' bill, and having to process refunds from tens of thousands of the £25 'supporters' who were actually members.
Really couldn't make it up, as someone commented earlier there have been more court cases than hustings so far in this leadership election.
Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, is being awarded the Legion d'Honneur by the French Government for his services to the EU in the referendum.
The Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign and still seems to be trying to justify its pre referendum claims despite the post referendum evidence.
Even worse is that in a private email Lionel Barber recognises how embarrassing the award is - see Guido Fawkes at www.order-order.com .
Surely the easiest way out of this whole sorry mess for Labour is to persuade Smith to withdraw from the contest.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
Surely if Smith withdraws now, they'll have to refund *everyone* who paid £25, not just those that are also party members? If they do that, they'll have all the admin charges associated with the payment system (maybe 5% of the £4m = £200k) and nothing to show for it - as well as the legal bill.
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, is being awarded the Legion d'Honneur by the French Government for his services to the EU in the referendum.
The Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign and still seems to be trying to justify its pre referendum claims despite the post referendum evidence.
Even worse is that in a private email Lionel Barber recognises how embarrassing the award is - see Guido Fawkes at www.order-order.com .
Mr. Smith, wouldn't a 2-3 week delay put the result after the Labour Party Conference?
Corbyn's Labour is insistent on defying all expected behaviour from a mainstream party...
For once - if by chance - Corbyn and his team aren't to blame for this one. But how on earth do you have a party conference if a leadership election's still ongoing?
Surely the easiest way out of this whole sorry mess for Labour is to persuade Smith to withdraw from the contest.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
Surely if Smith withdraws now, they'll have to refund *everyone* who paid £25, not just those that are also party members? If they do that, they'll have all the admin charges associated with the payment system (maybe 5% of the £4m = £200k) and nothing to show for it - as well as the legal bill.
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
Why, didn't the £25 pay membership, of which the leadership vote is only one part?
@iainjwatson: Judge says judgment based on labour rule book and constitution - and members have been 'entirely successful' in claiming right to vote
Which gives rise to this sort of view
@janinegibson: The Labour Party will now begin a three month administrative purdah while it works out whether or not its own NEC can administer it
Would Conservative members have a case for being denied their May vs Leadsom ballot?
The only way that would have been possible would it be for the 1922 committee to have changed the rules part way through the process so as to exclude candidates or members unlawfully. Which they didn't do.
So yesterday I write a thread header suggesting that Labour go back to their roots (ok - that was a bit of @SeanT-style shameless self-promotion) and today there's this general cock-up re membership.
Honestly, they'd do better turning themselves into a gardening club and attending to real roots. They'd probably do more good for the country as well.
@iainjwatson: Judge says judgment based on labour rule book and constitution - and members have been 'entirely successful' in claiming right to vote
Which gives rise to this sort of view
@janinegibson: The Labour Party will now begin a three month administrative purdah while it works out whether or not its own NEC can administer it
Would Conservative members have a case for being denied their May vs Leadsom ballot?
Nope. The rules there are well written and very clear. Anyone who joined more than three months before the leader resigns is entitled to vote for the new leader. Labour have made their rules up as they go along, and were actively trying to sign up members with the promise of a vote in the leadership contest, only to deny them that vote later.
I'm disappointed not to have had my vote for the Tory leader, but think the way it worked out was for the best - for country as well as party.
@iainjwatson: Judge says judgment based on labour rule book and constitution - and members have been 'entirely successful' in claiming right to vote
Which gives rise to this sort of view
@janinegibson: The Labour Party will now begin a three month administrative purdah while it works out whether or not its own NEC can administer it
Would Conservative members have a case for being denied their May vs Leadsom ballot?
Nope. The rules there are well written and very clear. Anyone who joined more than three months before the leader resigns is entitled to vote for the new leader. Labour have made their rules up as they go along, and were actively trying to sign up members with the promise of a vote in the leadership contest, only to deny them that vote later.
I'm disappointed not to have had my vote for the Tory leader, but think the way it worked out was for the best - for country as well as party.
I'm disappointed too, Leadsom was denied the opportunity to lose to the mother of all shellackings.
Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, is being awarded the Legion d'Honneur by the French Government for his services to the EU in the referendum.
The Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign and still seems to be trying to justify its pre referendum claims despite the post referendum evidence.
Even worse is that in a private email Lionel Barber recognises how embarrassing the award is - see Guido Fawkes at www.order-order.com .
The most interesting thing about that is that the French government sees the interests of the EU as being the same as the interests of the French government. I suppose they think that, with Britain out of the way, this will in fact be the case, even more so than now. But that - surely - was not what Mr Barber wanted?
Surely the easiest way out of this whole sorry mess for Labour is to persuade Smith to withdraw from the contest.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
Surely if Smith withdraws now, they'll have to refund *everyone* who paid £25, not just those that are also party members? If they do that, they'll have all the admin charges associated with the payment system (maybe 5% of the £4m = £200k) and nothing to show for it - as well as the legal bill.
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
Why, didn't the £25 pay membership, of which the leadership vote is only one part?
Nope, those who signed up paying £25 signed up as registered supporters purely to get a vote in the leadership election. Exactly the same as those who paid £3 last time but with the price going up. The £25ers aren't party members.
Surely the easiest way out of this whole sorry mess for Labour is to persuade Smith to withdraw from the contest.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
Surely if Smith withdraws now, they'll have to refund *everyone* who paid £25, not just those that are also party members? If they do that, they'll have all the admin charges associated with the payment system (maybe 5% of the £4m = £200k) and nothing to show for it - as well as the legal bill.
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
They would not have to refund full members, they signed up on the basis that they were entitled to vote in a leadership election if there WAS one.
Whether they would have to refund those who registered more recently is a moot point. If one candidate withdraws, then it is not the fault of the Labour Party. Those people signed up as affiliate members of the Labour Party and while it was a proviso that anyone who signed up in that 48 hour period recently could vote in a leadership election, presumably legally they are signed up as affiliate members for a year and not just simply to place a vote in that particular contest.
Andrew Lilico Peaty's taken 2.3% off the 100m breakstroke world record in 18 mths. That's like the 100m sprint record were 10s & one person cut it to 9.77
Mr. Smith, wouldn't a 2-3 week delay put the result after the Labour Party Conference?
Corbyn's Labour is insistent on defying all expected behaviour from a mainstream party...
For once - if by chance - Corbyn and his team aren't to blame for this one. But how on earth do you have a party conference if a leadership election's still ongoing?
To be fair, the Tories did it in 2005 and it worked out well.
Doesn't stop me laughing my head off this morning at Labour though, what a mess!
Feels a bit like (on twitter at least) most pre corbyn labourites have given up on the party in its current state. Feel sad for democracy overall, but cant say Labour havent brought this mess upon themselves.
@Mortimer No, it's not right to compare just grammar schools with other schools in other areas. That's like comparing first team rugby players with random schoolchildren for sporting prowess.
You have to look at how those areas educate all children. Unless you don't care about the underclass of course (which is the unspoken truth behind many of those advocating grammar schools).
The question is, what is the overall benefit? If the top slice do 20% better and the remainder 5% worse then I'd say it was worth it.
So yesterday I write a thread header suggesting that Labour go back to their roots (ok - that was a bit of @SeanT-style shameless self-promotion) and today there's this general cock-up re membership.
Honestly, they'd do better turning themselves into a gardening club and attending to real roots. They'd probably do more good for the country as well.
If they were a gardening club they'd be accusing each other of pouring weedkiller on other members' dahlias.
Theo UsherwoodIf every single newbie party member paid £25 to vote, and they're all entitled to their money back, Labour facing £3 million plus bill. 1/2.
Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, is being awarded the Legion d'Honneur by the French Government for his services to the EU in the referendum.
The Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign and still seems to be trying to justify its pre referendum claims despite the post referendum evidence.
Even worse is that in a private email Lionel Barber recognises how embarrassing the award is - see Guido Fawkes at www.order-order.com .
The most interesting thing about that is that the French government sees the interests of the EU as being the same as the interests of the French government. I suppose they think that, with Britain out of the way, this will in fact be the case, even more so than now. But that - surely - was not what Mr Barber wanted?
Mr. Smith, wouldn't a 2-3 week delay put the result after the Labour Party Conference?
Corbyn's Labour is insistent on defying all expected behaviour from a mainstream party...
For once - if by chance - Corbyn and his team aren't to blame for this one. But how on earth do you have a party conference if a leadership election's still ongoing?
To be fair, the Tories did it in 2005 and it worked out well.
Doesn't stop me laughing my head off this morning at Labour though, what a mess!
True, but that was a conference designed as such and where the incumbent leader was outgoing and therefore able to play a neutral(ish) role.
I do wonder whether the result might now be announced in the middle of the Tory conference.
So yesterday I write a thread header suggesting that Labour go back to their roots (ok - that was a bit of @SeanT-style shameless self-promotion) and today there's this general cock-up re membership.
Honestly, they'd do better turning themselves into a gardening club and attending to real roots. They'd probably do more good for the country as well.
If they were a gardening club they'd be accusing each other of pouring weedkiller on other members' dahlias.
Owen Smith "Whilst Jeremy's gardening is very good, I think my plot of dandelions is the right way forward for Labour".
@Mortimer No, it's not right to compare just grammar schools with other schools in other areas. That's like comparing first team rugby players with random schoolchildren for sporting prowess.
You have to look at how those areas educate all children. Unless you don't care about the underclass of course (which is the unspoken truth behind many of those advocating grammar schools).
The question is, what is the overall benefit? If the top slice do 20% better and the remainder 5% worse then I'd say it was worth it.
No: especially if the top slice is much smaller in number.
Where do more of our social problems come from: the top 1% of academic achievement or the bottom 1%? The bottom slice is where we need to be pouring money and effort, especially if they are being let down by their parents.
It's a bit like the Troubled Families scheme: helping the bottom can help not just them, but the entirety of society, if done right.
Theo UsherwoodIf every single newbie party member paid £25 to vote, and they're all entitled to their money back, Labour facing £3 million plus bill. 1/2.
But that was a cash windfall they wouldn't otherwise have had, so the only real cost is the extra admin.
Theo UsherwoodIf every single newbie party member paid £25 to vote, and they're all entitled to their money back, Labour facing £3 million plus bill. 1/2.
But that was a cash windfall they wouldn't otherwise have had, so the only real cost is the extra admin.
And the legal fees
And the cost of their (already tattered) reputation
Jess Phillips may ultimately be doomed in Yardley but she has a nice turn of phrase:
Labour has forgotten what it is for and how to talk to people. The party is like a 10-year old vegetarian who lectures everyone about her own worthiness. It fails to recognise that many people’s pressing concern is not the pursuit of purist ideals but earning enough to afford a home, a holiday and a Christmas treat for the kids. People want equality but do not want to feel guilty for wanting comfort for their families.
Jess Phillips may ultimately be doomed in Yardley but she has a nice turn of phrase:
Labour has forgotten what it is for and how to talk to people. The party is like a 10-year old vegetarian who lectures everyone about her own worthiness. It fails to recognise that many people’s pressing concern is not the pursuit of purist ideals but earning enough to afford a home, a holiday and a Christmas treat for the kids. People want equality but do not want to feel guilty for wanting comfort for their families.
Jess Phillips may ultimately be doomed in Yardley but she has a nice turn of phrase:
Labour has forgotten what it is for and how to talk to people. The party is like a 10-year old vegetarian who lectures everyone about her own worthiness. It fails to recognise that many people’s pressing concern is not the pursuit of purist ideals but earning enough to afford a home, a holiday and a Christmas treat for the kids. People want equality but do not want to feel guilty for wanting comfort for their families.
That is the only sensible thing I have ever seen from her. Her usual outpourings are about playing as many victim cards as possible to win some bizarre SJW prize.
The sooner she is out of British public life, the better.
Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, is being awarded the Legion d'Honneur by the French Government for his services to the EU in the referendum.
The Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign and still seems to be trying to justify its pre referendum claims despite the post referendum evidence.
Even worse is that in a private email Lionel Barber recognises how embarrassing the award is - see Guido Fawkes at www.order-order.com .
The most interesting thing about that is that the French government sees the interests of the EU as being the same as the interests of the French government. I suppose they think that, with Britain out of the way, this will in fact be the case, even more so than now. But that - surely - was not what Mr Barber wanted?
It's illustrative. The status quo has its advocates simply because it is the incumbents that distribute rewards. There's no extrinsic value in insurgency. However, as Harington said, treason doth never prosper etc. Once the Brexiteers take over, it'll be gongs all round.
The value is in Laying Smith at 6.8 in the next Labour leader market. Although you will have to be patient and wait for your winnings for some time.
Time value of money may mean the 1.1 on Jez is better. It is debatable though, and an interesting technical note on betting as to which is actually better.
Theo UsherwoodIf every single newbie party member paid £25 to vote, and they're all entitled to their money back, Labour facing £3 million plus bill. 1/2.
But that was a cash windfall they wouldn't otherwise have had, so the only real cost is the extra admin.
And the legal fees
And the cost of their (already tattered) reputation
They're probably going to end up down a few hundred grand, while we all laugh at their inability to host the proverbial drunken party in the ale house.
It's not going to happen, mainly because of the EU and Art. 50, but it must be really tempting for the PM to think about engineering a general election for the autumn.
Surely the easiest way out of this whole sorry mess for Labour is to persuade Smith to withdraw from the contest.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
Surely if Smith withdraws now, they'll have to refund *everyone* who paid £25, not just those that are also party members? If they do that, they'll have all the admin charges associated with the payment system (maybe 5% of the £4m = £200k) and nothing to show for it - as well as the legal bill.
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
Why, didn't the £25 pay membership, of which the leadership vote is only one part?
Nope, those who signed up paying £25 signed up as registered supporters purely to get a vote in the leadership election. Exactly the same as those who paid £3 last time but with the price going up. The £25ers aren't party members.
Many full Labour party members who joined after the original January cut-off for a vote in the leadership contest will have paid the £25 to get a vote in the leader election.
Following the court ruling, such full members joining after the Jan cut-off WILL now have a vote. Consequently they did not need to pay the £25 to be supporters to get the vote. Arguably they have been missold supporter membership to buy back the vote that was originally withheld.
Why do parents like grammar schools? They believe the kids will get a better education. They do, because you have fewer of the rowdy, I don't want no education refuseniks. I suspect a driving force behind parents paying.
Why do kids like grammar schools? They don't necessarily, they generally prefer to stay with their mates. I went to the local grammar school from a council estate in 1960, and received both discouraging banter and grudging admiration from my previous school friends. But there was no disparagement of achievement.
My son and daughter went to a comprehensive where the attitude was different. Being a 'boffin' was to be mocked and looked down on. Possibly a social change, mixed with a little jealousy.
The ideal would be streamed, subject-based comprehensives, as was suggested earlier. Even my lderly grammar streamed as a matter of course.
Andrew Lilico Peaty's taken 2.3% off the 100m breakstroke world record in 18 mths. That's like the 100m sprint record were 10s & one person cut it to 9.77
Read 538's take on the American swimmer Katie Ledecky who is fantastically, almost absurdly dominant. The first half of her 1500m swim would have broken the 800m world record.
Surely the easiest way out of this whole sorry mess for Labour is to persuade Smith to withdraw from the contest.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
Surely if Smith withdraws now, they'll have to refund *everyone* who paid £25, not just those that are also party members? If they do that, they'll have all the admin charges associated with the payment system (maybe 5% of the £4m = £200k) and nothing to show for it - as well as the legal bill.
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
Why, didn't the £25 pay membership, of which the leadership vote is only one part?
Nope, those who signed up paying £25 signed up as registered supporters purely to get a vote in the leadership election. Exactly the same as those who paid £3 last time but with the price going up. The £25ers aren't party members.
Many full Labour party members who joined after the original January cut-off for a vote in the leadership contest will have paid the £25 to get a vote in the leader election.
Following the court ruling, such full members joining after the Jan cut-off WILL now have a vote. Consequently they did not need to pay the £25 to be supporters to get the vote. Arguably they have been missold supporter membership to buy back the vote that was originally withheld.
Theo UsherwoodIf every single newbie party member paid £25 to vote, and they're all entitled to their money back, Labour facing £3 million plus bill. 1/2.
But that was a cash windfall they wouldn't otherwise have had, so the only real cost is the extra admin.
And the legal fees
And the cost of their (already tattered) reputation
They're probably going to end up down a few hundred grand, while we all laugh at their inability to host the proverbial drunken party in the ale house.
It's not going to happen, mainly because of the EU and Art. 50, but it must be really tempting for the PM to think about engineering a general election for the autumn.
If there were ever a time for masterly inactivity, this is it. As it stands Labour could fall into a bucket of rose petals and come out smelling of pig shit. There appears to be no end to their current travails.
The value is in Laying Smith at 6.8 in the next Labour leader market. Although you will have to be patient and wait for your winnings for some time.
No chance. That could be open for years yet, at least until 2020. Not worth tying up cash for the 14% return.
Fair point. One wonders why people are prepared to back Smith in that market at 6.8 and not take the 10 on offer in the other market.
Yes, I know that the next leader market offers a double chance, in that Smith could challenge again, but I really think it is highly unlikely that they will repeat the same mistake again and again in putting him forward.
But, you never know. It is the Labour PLP we are talking about here.
Andrew Lilico Peaty's taken 2.3% off the 100m breakstroke world record in 18 mths. That's like the 100m sprint record were 10s & one person cut it to 9.77
Read 538's take on the American swimmer Katie Ledecky who is fantastically, almost absurdly dominant. The first half of her 1500m swim would have broken the 800m world record.
As a thought experiment, if Owen Smith as expected loses, what price do you expect him to hold for next Labour leader in the wake of his defeat? The implied price difference between the Betfair Labour Leader contest and the Next Labour Leader market works out at somewhere around 25/1. But Angela Eagle is currently available to back on Betfair at 85. Would Owen Smith then look any more attractive?
As a thought experiment, if Owen Smith as expected loses, what price do you expect him to hold for next Labour leader in the wake of his defeat? The implied price difference between the Betfair Labour Leader contest and the Next Labour Leader market works out at somewhere around 25/1. But Angela Eagle is currently available to back on Betfair at 85. Would Owen Smith then look any more attractive?
Not of he's already lost once. Angela Eagle does look like good value for a small stake, could have excellent trading value.
As a thought experiment, if Owen Smith as expected loses, what price do you expect him to hold for next Labour leader in the wake of his defeat? The implied price difference between the Betfair Labour Leader contest and the Next Labour Leader market works out at somewhere around 25/1. But Angela Eagle is currently available to back on Betfair at 85. Would Owen Smith then look any more attractive?
I wonder if there is any value in Thornberry at 195.0 ?
I've put up £5 to back if anyone fancies laying another 'no hoper'
Comments
The Jesuits said "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". Worrying about ages 11+ seems to be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Kids are already doomed at that point.
Coincidental timing that the ruling came out when there was little more than 1 hour left for union affiliates to register.
What we are getting is a lot of speculation based on nothing other than preconceptions
'Setting' by subject in a (not too large) comprehensive school seems to me better than the grammar school system. In Buckinghamshire, whilst the grammar school pupils do well, the children who don't go to grammar school or public school fare worse than children of the same ability elsewhere in the country.
'Setting' allows children of similar ability in that subject to learn together at a similar pace.
Signed
Ex grammar school boy and parent of two ex grammar school children.
Really couldn't make it up, as someone commented earlier there have been more court cases than hustings so far in this leadership election.
He clearly only had an outside chance at best, even before this ruling. Those chances will now have receded even further.
It will save Labour a fortune on running the actual election and also on refunds to those members who felt they had to pay another £25 to vote.
It will avoid Corbyn's position being further cemented with a win even more resounding than the triumph last year.
It will allow moving on easier and quicker, be it with a split or some kind of healing process.
The main effect will be to cost Labour a fortune as they need to repay alot of £25s, and the rest
The Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign and still seems to be trying to justify its pre referendum claims despite the post referendum evidence.
Even worse is that in a private email Lionel Barber recognises how embarrassing the award is - see Guido Fawkes at www.order-order.com .
An Omnishambles Clusterf..., as Malcolm Tucker might say.
http://order-order.com/2016/08/08/ukip-nec-compare-faragists-goebbels/
Honestly, they'd do better turning themselves into a gardening club and attending to real roots. They'd probably do more good for the country as well.
I'm disappointed not to have had my vote for the Tory leader, but think the way it worked out was for the best - for country as well as party.
Still not as bad as the time he wrote a piece largely seen as an apologist/appeasing article for the Hebdo attackers.
Why are they pathologically incapable of taking an honest beating ?
Whether they would have to refund those who registered more recently is a moot point. If one candidate withdraws, then it is not the fault of the Labour Party. Those people signed up as affiliate members of the Labour Party and while it was a proviso that anyone who signed up in that 48 hour period recently could vote in a leadership election, presumably legally they are signed up as affiliate members for a year and not just simply to place a vote in that particular contest.
Andrew Lilico
Peaty's taken 2.3% off the 100m breakstroke world record in 18 mths. That's like the 100m sprint record were 10s & one person cut it to 9.77
Doesn't stop me laughing my head off this morning at Labour though, what a mess!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJiuZRocTqo
I am sure that some of the bands also present an opportunity, but am at work and can't do the analysis.
I do wonder whether the result might now be announced in the middle of the Tory conference.
They really must have been reading the Homer Simpson guide to making a successful coup.
Every single step of the way, the PLP and the Labour Party have chosen the wrong option.
Where do more of our social problems come from: the top 1% of academic achievement or the bottom 1%? The bottom slice is where we need to be pouring money and effort, especially if they are being let down by their parents.
It's a bit like the Troubled Families scheme: helping the bottom can help not just them, but the entirety of society, if done right.
http://politicalodds.bet/labour-leadership-2016
And the cost of their (already tattered) reputation
Labour has forgotten what it is for and how to talk to people. The party is like a 10-year old vegetarian who lectures everyone about her own worthiness. It fails to recognise that many people’s pressing concern is not the pursuit of purist ideals but earning enough to afford a home, a holiday and a Christmas treat for the kids. People want equality but do not want to feel guilty for wanting comfort for their families.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e5fad658-5a62-11e6-9f70-badea1b336d4.html
They are appealing the decision.
http://leftfootforward.org/2016/08/court-overturns-labour-nec-decision-granting-leadership-vote-to-130000-members/
The sooner she is out of British public life, the better.
Assuming they lose, will Labour take it to the Supreme Court??
It's not going to happen, mainly because of the EU and Art. 50, but it must be really tempting for the PM to think about engineering a general election for the autumn.
Following the court ruling, such full members joining after the Jan cut-off WILL now have a vote. Consequently they did not need to pay the £25 to be supporters to get the vote. Arguably they have been missold supporter membership to buy back the vote that was originally withheld.
Why do kids like grammar schools? They don't necessarily, they generally prefer to stay with their mates. I went to the local grammar school from a council estate in 1960, and received both discouraging banter and grudging admiration from my previous school friends. But there was no disparagement of achievement.
My son and daughter went to a comprehensive where the attitude was different. Being a 'boffin' was to be mocked and looked down on. Possibly a social change, mixed with a little jealousy.
The ideal would be streamed, subject-based comprehensives, as was suggested earlier. Even my lderly grammar streamed as a matter of course.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/katie-ledecky-is-the-present-and-the-future-of-swimming/
Yes, I know that the next leader market offers a double chance, in that Smith could challenge again, but I really think it is highly unlikely that they will repeat the same mistake again and again in putting him forward.
But, you never know. It is the Labour PLP we are talking about here.
It's not like when we could lay Osborne and Johnson for next PM or Tory leader at close to evens last year.
I've put up £5 to back if anyone fancies laying another 'no hoper'
It is certainly true that the Financial Times was a leader in the Project Fear campaign. I am a regular reader.