Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
I thought Thatcher inherited the closure of dozens of Grammar schools when she took office. – How many closures did she actually initiate the closure of herself?
I think most happened once she became Education Secretary.
She saw the evidence, ask yourself, if she thought it was a mistake, when she was PM, usually with stonking majorities, why didn't she open a single new grammar school as PM?
She saw the evidence.
She also campaigned in favour of IN in 1975, yet by 1989 she was banging on about Europe.
Over the very long term things change. After 40 years of trying with the comprehensive system and failing to produce results, the evidence is against it.
I haven't the faintest idea what advantage grammars have vs. streamed comprehensives (probably with some people being in different grades for different subjects). I'm not sure how many counties went down the route of mixed ability classes; that is something I agree could have screwed up some peoples' life chances. But there's no reason to over-react to that bad idea by having full-blown apartheid.
Please name another western developed country with an 11+ and better results than England/Wales. Finland? No selective schools but it seems more selective in who it allows to teach: http://oph.fi/english/education_system/basic_education. Scotland? No selective schools either.
Germany ?
Grammar Schools are called "Gymnasiums" in Germany.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
Actually Mike usually is awake at 4am (most of the morning threads are written at that time) as he has odd sleeping patterns.
I know, because he regularly sends me emails at 3/4 am.
And occasionally when Mike's not paying attention, when he thinks he's composing an email, he's actually sending me a text.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
How about parents wot can't afford to send their kids to Public school?
Yes, that's what we're talking about. Do try to keep up.
Mike is seemingly obsessed with Corbyn. It is a little unhealthy frankly.
It’s a political web site – tis not OGH’s fault that the Messiah has turned out to be the fallen Madonna with the big boobies...
Hey the bbc censors has stated that allo allo is now too offensive for modern audiences.
Have they? Oh dear...
Something that they binned the idea of a remake as they thought the comedy Nazis would cause offence.
That's silly, but I'm still glad they didn't do the remake.
Yeah. The Nazis were fine, but it was a bit(!) sexist. Not enough hot studs taking their kit off on a regular basis to meet the equality standards I'll leave it to other PBers to decide what a male version of the 'Fallen Madonna with the Big Boobies' would be.....
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
As I suggested, the problem might be mixed ability classes, not comprehensives per se.
My grammar school's university entrance results were dismal. Not even grammars necessarily 'worked'.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
But we already do - but in secret. Our system of three different levels of GCSE papers means that we are limiting them even more than we did in the days of GCE and CSE.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
How about parents wot can't afford to send their kids to Public school?
Yes, that's what we're talking about. Do try to keep up.
So would you abolish public schools then? Why pick on (free at the point of use) Grammars?
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
It would be nice to see a bit more of him here. He has posted rarely in recent months, Is he well?
These sorts of polls are of course simplistic party games. We don't know, for instance, what people might think about replacing the House of Lords and how that might affect their answers.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
One of the things I particularly remember was the pride of the teachers, who for the first time were working with a set of children they could really push to a higher level of achievement. It was a brave new world.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
But we already do - but in secret. Our system of three different levels of GCSE papers means that we are limiting them even more than we did in the days of GCE and CSE.
Honesty about this is necessary.
But they won't be labelled by having attended St Sinks Academy. Which given the British obsession over which school people attended is a very good thing.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
The same reason there is a finite supply of any skilled professions.
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
'Lets see how things are in a few months'. Fwiw, I think the temptation to expose momentum Labour to the voters as opposed to the members is going to become so great that May will call an election, and that will for certainly result in a greatly increased Tory majority.
I keep hearing this but the mechanism and motive for doing so remain clear. She could do it if the labour right collaborated to vote for an election, but then they would be blamed for any ensuing loss and wiped out of the party, guaranteeing a genuine left-leaning labour for a 2021 election which would probably have a better chance than they are currently on course to have in 2020.
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
But we already do - but in secret. Our system of three different levels of GCSE papers means that we are limiting them even more than we did in the days of GCE and CSE.
Honesty about this is necessary.
But they won't be labelled by having attended St Sinks Academy. Which given the British obsession over which school people attended is a very good thing.
If that is what you are really concerned about then I don't think you are bothered at all about getting the best possible education for each and every child in our schools.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
The same reason there is a finite supply of any skilled professions.
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
Maybe we need to redefine either the definition or the role of 'Teacher' to reach an outcome that works in the modern world.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
The same reason there is a finite supply of any skilled professions.
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
We we could just train better teachers so the ratio of good to shit improves.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
Actually Mike usually is awake at 4am (most of the morning threads are written at that time) as he has odd sleeping patterns.
I know, because he regularly sends me emails at 3/4 am.
And occasionally when Mike's not paying attention, when he thinks he's composing an email, he's actually sending me a text.
You know you can set your phone to mute incoming texts (etc) overnight?
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
No apologies to me.
I can perfectly understand that if one is tweeting every 90 minutes on average about the same issue or person one is to assume that he is obsessed with it.
If OGH starts to tweet about how much crap he thinks Corbyn is at 4 in the morning, then I would be slightly concerned.
Actually Mike usually is awake at 4am (most of the morning threads are written at that time) as he has odd sleeping patterns.
I know, because he regularly sends me emails at 3/4 am.
And occasionally when Mike's not paying attention, when he thinks he's composing an email, he's actually sending me a text.
You know you can set your phone to mute incoming texts (etc) overnight?
Well, you can if you have an Android mobile.
You can do that with iPhones too, but I still leave my phone on a very low volume for calls and texts overnight.
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
'Lets see how things are in a few months'. Fwiw, I think the temptation to expose momentum Labour to the voters as opposed to the members is going to become so great that May will call an election, and that will for certainly result in a greatly increased Tory majority.
I keep hearing this but the mechanism and motive for doing so remain clear. She could do it if the labour right collaborated to vote for an election, but then they would be blamed for any ensuing loss and wiped out of the party, guaranteeing a genuine left-leaning labour for a 2021 election which would probably have a better chance than they are currently on course to have in 2020.
It's interesting that as a Corbynite you imply that an election would result in further Labour losses. After all, it was the Blairites who delivered three consecutive stonking/substantial Labour majorities. Is that what you have against them?
I dud a quick back of the envelope which came up with 91% self sufficient (62.7/69).
Checking I seem to have underestimated Irish agriculture output.
For example, Beef self sufficiency in RoI is 640% ie enough beef for 32 million people.
For Sheep it is 370%. For pork 195%.
So I reckon it is fair to say that the British Isles is self sufficient in terms of being able to adequately (if boringly) feed the population.
Given a population of 70 million that shows how agricultural productivity has improved over the 20th century.
In 2014 the RoI produced 1,289,000[1] tonnes of "meat", that's 889,000[1] for export, 400,000[1] for local consumption. The RoI's population is ~4.5 million, so its exports could supply the meat needs of about another 10 million.
So to summarise:
* The UK is 76% sufficient in home-grown foods[2] * So it can't feed ~16million people (approx 24% of approx 64million UK people) * The RoI is self-sufficient in "meat"[0] and could feed approx 10 million UK residents in "meat" * So we're still 6 million UK residents short in "meat", and we have not yet supplied their needs for plant-based foods, whether direct (veg, fruit) or indirect (bread, biscuits, jam...)
I was a member of the first grammar school standard intake to a former secondary modern when it went comprehensive in the 1960s. I received an excellent education and made it to University, the first in my family to do so.
Going back to a grammar/secondary modern system will undo all of that - condemning the vast majority of schools, their pupils and teachers alike, to a world in which their ambitions and attainments are capped.
Tragic, utterly tragic.
Attainment is already capped.
There are different levels of GCSE papers within each qualification - and so the top level you can achieve is determined by the papers the school determines that you shall take.
It might not be as overt - but it still exists.
Every child leaving primary school is graded by their teachers and that determines how they start at secondary school. And this is causing problems for many, many secondary teachers.
The reason is that many primary schools are inflating the scores of their pupils meaning the kids are not fully prepared for the challenges that await them. This particularly noticeable in maths where kids arrive with a report that says they are at a certain level - and they then struggle when being taught at the appropriate level in their new school.
External moderated assessment at the end of primary school would eliminate that and give secondary schools the information they need to tailor things to the needs of their new intakes rather than having to deal with primary schools who (understandably?) inflate their own achievements.
I would have loved a grammar school education - as it was a real struggle to be taught in a mixed ability comprehensive where academic achievement was scorned. Yes, I managed ok - but my schooling would have been more rewarding if I had been in an environment where getting top marks singled you out for bullying.
Which is an argument for better teaching and setting, not for casting the majority of children to an education which will limit their life chances forever.
But we already do - but in secret. Our system of three different levels of GCSE papers means that we are limiting them even more than we did in the days of GCE and CSE.
Honesty about this is necessary.
But they won't be labelled by having attended St Sinks Academy. Which given the British obsession over which school people attended is a very good thing.
If that is what you are really concerned about then I don't think you are bothered at all about getting the best possible education for each and every child in our schools.
ComRes is not publishing voting intention for the time being while we continue to review our methods.
The figures in the tables is not a full suite VI question, so people should not take this as a voting intention figure. This is a rough figure, which historically overestimates Labour/underestimates the Tories.
ComRes is not publishing voting intention for the time being while we continue to review our methods.
The figures in the tables is not a full suite VI question, so people should not take this as a voting intention figure. This is a rough figure, which historically overestimates Labour/underestimates the Tories.
I dud a quick back of the envelope which came up with 91% self sufficient (62.7/69).
Checking I seem to have underestimated Irish agriculture output.
For example, Beef self sufficiency in RoI is 640% ie enough beef for 32 million people.
For Sheep it is 370%. For pork 195%.
So I reckon it is fair to say that the British Isles is self sufficient in terms of being able to adequately (if boringly) feed the population.
Given a population of 70 million that shows how agricultural productivity has improved over the 20th century.
In 2014 the RoI produced 1,289,000[1] tonnes of "meat", that's 889,000[1] for export, 400,000[1] for local consumption. The RoI's population is ~4.5 million, so its exports could supply the meat needs of about another 10 million.
So to summarise:
* The UK is 76% sufficient in home-grown foods[2] * So it can't feed ~16million people (approx 24% of approx 64million UK people) * The RoI is self-sufficient in "meat"[0] and could feed approx 10 million UK residents in "meat" * So we're still 6 million UK residents short in "meat", and we have not yet supplied their needs for plant-based foods, whether direct (veg, fruit) or indirect (bread, biscuits, jam...)
Con 32% : Lab 28% : UKIP 10% : Grn 4% : SNP 4% and
Other/DK/WNV etc 15%
Clearly an outlier
Wait, do those numbers include DKs/WNV? I thought topline figures didn't do that.
After excluding DKs etc it looks as if the figures would be - Con 38 - Lab 33 - UKIP 12 approx.
No it wouldn't. Please don't post this.
Found it, it's at the top of Q2_7, Page 59.
It looks like what the numbers would have been if ComRes didn't apply their secret sauce, since they are only demographically weighted and by past vote. Not by ABCD's that ComRes does, to try and correct for turnout.
Presumably Comres is still trying to figure what went wrong with their ABCD model during the referendum, so are refraining from publishing VI.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
The key is more to do with managing the atmosphere within the school so that all achievement is valued. An absolute zero tolerance of bullying is key to this. And something that very few schools actually take seriously enough.
Indeed my old secondary school has just sacked their Head - because she was proved to have been bullying staff members. It took over 10 years for this to happen. If this is what is happening in the staff room - what chance to the poor kids have?
It's a bit of a skewed question, I think. It essentially puts the case for the Lords and not for their abolition.
The two statements aren't even contradictory, which is silly.
exactly it should have asked elected or unelected.
Many variants on either side of that question.
As there was for E.U ref. So?
Yeah, it all depends on how the question is posed. You could ask 100% elected vs. 0% elected, 90% elected/10% appointed vs 90% appointed/10% elected... etc. etc. Perhaps 'should there be an elected element of the HoL'?
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
ComRes is not publishing voting intention for the time being while we continue to review our methods.
The figures in the tables is not a full suite VI question, so people should not take this as a voting intention figure. This is a rough figure, which historically overestimates Labour/underestimates the Tories.
I wonder why Justin posted it? *innocent face*
Anyway since this is probably what Comres would have published with their pre-2015 methodology, we can simply add 3 to the Tories, and subtract 3 from Labour to give us a very rough result:
I dud a quick back of the envelope which came up with 91% self sufficient (62.7/69).
Checking I seem to have underestimated Irish agriculture output.
For example, Beef self sufficiency in RoI is 640% ie enough beef for 32 million people.
For Sheep it is 370%. For pork 195%.
So I reckon it is fair to say that the British Isles is self sufficient in terms of being able to adequately (if boringly) feed the population.
Given a population of 70 million that shows how agricultural productivity has improved over the 20th century.
In 2014 the RoI produced 1,289,000[1] tonnes of "meat", that's 889,000[1] for export, 400,000[1] for local consumption. The RoI's population is ~4.5 million, so its exports could supply the meat needs of about another 10 million.
So to summarise:
* The UK is 76% sufficient in home-grown foods[2] * So it can't feed ~16million people (approx 24% of approx 64million UK people) * The RoI is self-sufficient in "meat"[0] and could feed approx 10 million UK residents in "meat" * So we're still 6 million UK residents short in "meat", and we have not yet supplied their needs for plant-based foods, whether direct (veg, fruit) or indirect (bread, biscuits, jam...)
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
The same reason there is a finite supply of any skilled professions.
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
We we could just train better teachers so the ratio of good to shit improves.
As Finland appears to do; selective on who can teach, not on who can attend a school. I assume they stream their comprehensives as mixed ability classes are a recipe for poor outcomes but being within the same school allows pupils to transfer between levels if they excel or can't keep up.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
Im not saying that Mike shouldnt cover Corbyn - I'm just saying that his obvious hatred for him is a little too obvious, regarding the analysis, which is relentlesssly lacking in context - i dont think even the most fervent corbyn supporter is expecting the party to be an electoral blockbuster in the midst of an apocalyptic internal power struggle. And i dont think that many members blame corbyn for that. Let see how things are in a few months.
'Lets see how things are in a few months'. Fwiw, I think the temptation to expose momentum Labour to the voters as opposed to the members is going to become so great that May will call an election, and that will for certainly result in a greatly increased Tory majority.
I keep hearing this but the mechanism and motive for doing so remain clear. She could do it if the labour right collaborated to vote for an election, but then they would be blamed for any ensuing loss and wiped out of the party, guaranteeing a genuine left-leaning labour for a 2021 election which would probably have a better chance than they are currently on course to have in 2020.
It's interesting that as a Corbynite you imply that an election would result in further Labour losses. After all, it was the Blairites who delivered three consecutive stonking/substantial Labour majorities. Is that what you have against them?
Im not a 'Corbynite', im just someone who sees the obvious that labour needs a period of renewal and a new direction for which corbyn has provided the catalyst. If it hadnt been him it would have been something else before long. The labour right are tough on corbyn but fail to be tough on the causes of corbyn, which are going nowhere. Of course i dont expect any party to do well in an election called in the middle of a massive internal struggle (one not of corbyn's making), whoever they are led by. But there most likely won't be one. After initial goodwill, the Blairites lost millions of voters at every single election, and for good reason.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
It will at lesst stop the little shits making bright working class inner city kids life a misery and preventing them ruining the life chances of the bright ones.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
Soylent Green.
But who will do all the consuming?
For the obvious reason it won't matter much to you who is doing the eating.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
It will at lesst stop the little shits making bright working class inner city kids life a misery and preventing them ruining the life chances of the bright ones.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
Soylent Green.
But who will do all the consuming?
You don't need much education to spend benefits on alcohol, mass produced tat and lottery tickets....
Hyperbole apart there is a problem that modern civilisation has used technology to virtually abolish unskilled labouring and now have the problem of what to do with the 10-20% of the population who are incapable of doing any other renumerative work..
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
It will at lesst stop the little shits making bright working class inner city kids life a misery and preventing them ruining the life chances of the bright ones.
So sink schools for the plebs?
So much for One Nation Toryism.
They've got sink schools already. This just gives the bright ones a chance to escape this fate.
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
They didn't close a single Secondary Modern. They were just rebadged Comprehensives.
Just as re-badging polytechnics universities didn't convert them into world class universities.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
The same reason there is a finite supply of any skilled professions.
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
We we could just train better teachers so the ratio of good to shit improves.
As Finland appears to do; selective on who can teach, not on who can attend a school. I assume they stream their comprehensives as mixed ability classes are a recipe for poor outcomes but being within the same school allows pupils to transfer between levels if they excel or can't keep up.
I think Finland does have selection at 16.
Really the issue is when we should select on academic ability. Historically it was done at 11, though the Public Schools do the CE at 13 or 14. No one objects to selection at 18 for university places, and I suspect most people would oppose selection at age 8.
Selection at 14 takes place for most children when they choose their GCSE's or equivalent, and if we are to reintroduce selection to British schools that would seem to be the best age.
On topic, I'm not sure how relevant May's approval ratings are before she's actually done anything. I was asked by vaarious Americans when I was there recently what I thought of our new Prime Minister, and to my embarassment could not really answer. I never understood the phrase "risen without a trace" before, but, if it describes any of our recent Prime Minsters, it surely fits her.
Talking of comedy reboot...what have they done to the putput bike in the kieran!
I don't get Keirin - you're supposed to follow the moped for 6 laps and then suddenly sprint the last two laps???
It removes the wind resistance penalty of being the lead rider while the group is getting up to sprinting speed - otherwise it would just be like the sprint and all about slow tactical positioning before the final sprint
Bugger, bugger, bugger, for all of us laying David Miliband as next Labour leader
Labour MPs call on David Miliband to return and topple Jeremy Corbyn as leader
The former minister, who lost out in the 2010 leadership race to his brother Ed, quit politics but party figures want him to stand for murdered Jo Cox’s seat
Really surprised by the Grammar school figure. May more politically astute than I thought.
Wait until they realise more grammars means more secondary moderns.
One of the best things Thatcher did was to close/merge a record breaking number of grammars, she knew the damage grammars cause.
But hey, at least we can claim that No One Is Left Behind. Apart from the ones left behind, of course.
I'm with Michael Gove, grammar schools are the educational equivalent of saying only the non sick/ill can use the NHS.
All they do is put more kids on the scrapheap, what we should be doing is making sure we improve all state schools.
What I don't understand is why the proposed increase in grammar schools is bound to result in a return to the (correctly) much derided secondary modern?
There is a finite supply of good teachers and educationally motivated parents. By cramming them all into a subset of schools you are implicitly abandoning the others to a second class status.
I don't believe there is a finite supply of good teachers - why would there be?
The same reason there is a finite supply of any skilled professions.
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
We we could just train better teachers so the ratio of good to shit improves.
As Finland appears to do; selective on who can teach, not on who can attend a school. I assume they stream their comprehensives as mixed ability classes are a recipe for poor outcomes but being within the same school allows pupils to transfer between levels if they excel or can't keep up.
I think Finland does have selection at 16.
Really the issue is when we should select on academic ability. Historically it was done at 11, though the Public Schools do the CE at 13 or 14. No one objects to selection at 18 for university places, and I suspect most people would oppose selection at age 8.
Selection at 14 takes place for most children when they choose their GCSE's or equivalent, and if we are to reintroduce selection to British schools that would seem to be the best age.
You need selection at 11 but there needs to be the ability for promotion / relegation not a one off decision at 11.
Bugger, bugger, bugger, for all of us laying David Miliband as next Labour leader
Labour MPs call on David Miliband to return and topple Jeremy Corbyn as leader
The former minister, who lost out in the 2010 leadership race to his brother Ed, quit politics but party figures want him to stand for murdered Jo Cox’s seat
Talking of comedy reboot...what have they done to the putput bike in the kieran!
I don't get Keirin - you're supposed to follow the moped for 6 laps and then suddenly sprint the last two laps???
It removes the wind resistance penalty of being the lead rider while the group is getting up to sprinting speed - otherwise it would just be like the sprint and all about slow tactical positioning before the final sprint
I had to say I struggled to understand the point of the moped. But that makes a lot of sense.
I like the idea of grammars in principal but worry if they become widespread they will syphon off the best teachers and cause a lot of unnecessary travel and hothousing.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
And how will that help the 'chavs' as you so delightfully brand them? Or are they beyond redemption?
Soylent Green.
But who will do all the consuming?
You don't need much education to spend benefits on alcohol, mass produced tat and lottery tickets....
Hyperbole apart there is a problem that modern civilisation has used technology to virtually abolish unskilled labouring and now have the problem of what to do with the 10-20% of the population who are incapable of doing any other renumerative work..
On the contrary there is much unskilled labouring to be done in agriculture, cleaning, retail, nursing homes etc. However we generally rely on immigrants to do it.
Are we likely to win the Keirin? Because looking at the wikipedia page for what the format entails it looks like several minutes of pointlessness ahead of a sprint, so really not the bother of watching unless Gold is on the cards.
His finest moment was his answer to a question on an upper limit on EU immigration: "Oh, I don't think there is one'. Something along those lines. I can imagine the Remain campaign team had a collective heart attack.
A Corbyn speech is worth exactly 12.2 times a speech by any other politician. Not because of the content - that is usually fairly ordinary - and not because of the delivery - he's decent in delivery, sure, but so are others - but because of his integrity and passion which, of course, no other politician has.
Comments
The two statements aren't even contradictory, which is silly.
My grammar school's university entrance results were dismal. Not even grammars necessarily 'worked'.
Honesty about this is necessary.
Con 32% : Lab 28% : UKIP 10% : Grn 4% : SNP 4% and
Other/DK/WNV etc 15%
Wait, do those numbers include DKs/WNV? I thought topline figures didn't do that.
Where are the LD ? In Other ?
I'll get my coat.......
Sure, theoretically we could get everyone in the country to train to be a teacher and that would increase the supply but it isn't really that practical.
You know you can set your phone to mute incoming texts (etc) overnight?
Well, you can if you have an Android mobile.
I think you are the one with an obsession - with seeing something that is not there.
Does the J in your name stand for Jeremy?
So to summarise:
* The UK is 76% sufficient in home-grown foods[2]
* So it can't feed ~16million people (approx 24% of approx 64million UK people)
* The RoI is self-sufficient in "meat"[0] and could feed approx 10 million UK residents in "meat"
* So we're still 6 million UK residents short in "meat", and we have not yet supplied their needs for plant-based foods, whether direct (veg, fruit) or indirect (bread, biscuits, jam...)
[0] "meat" = beef, veal, poultry, sheep, pig
[1] CSO statistical release, "Meat Supply Balance", November 2015: http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/msb/meatsupplybalance2014/
[2] DEFRA in March 2016: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515048/food-farming-stats-release-07apr16.pdf
ComRes is not publishing voting intention for the time being while we continue to review our methods.
The figures in the tables is not a full suite VI question, so people should not take this as a voting intention figure. This is a rough figure, which historically overestimates Labour/underestimates the Tories.
5 to 10 million vegetarians??
Doh! Just seen Poultry!
It looks like what the numbers would have been if ComRes didn't apply their secret sauce, since they are only demographically weighted and by past vote.
Not by ABCD's that ComRes does, to try and correct for turnout.
Presumably Comres is still trying to figure what went wrong with their ABCD model during the referendum, so are refraining from publishing VI.
My experience of comprehensives is that they need to work to be (a) large enough to work properly with streaming and a good range of academic and vocational subjects and (b) enough middle class/academically minded kids so that the less able kids are inspired to better themselves.
In inner cities it is often the other way round and a majority chav infested school results in bright and academically minded kids being frowned upon or tormented by the chavs and everyone being dragged down. In such places segregating the bright kids with grammars seems a good way forward.
Indeed my old secondary school has just sacked their Head - because she was proved to have been bullying staff members. It took over 10 years for this to happen. If this is what is happening in the staff room - what chance to the poor kids have?
CON 41
LAB 30
UKIP 12
LD 7
GRN 5
SNP 4
Which doesn't look out of line.
So much for One Nation Toryism.
Hyperbole apart there is a problem that modern civilisation has used technology to virtually abolish unskilled labouring and now have the problem of what to do with the 10-20% of the population who are incapable of doing any other renumerative work..
Their children might be quite good at this bike business.
Really the issue is when we should select on academic ability. Historically it was done at 11, though the Public Schools do the CE at 13 or 14. No one objects to selection at 18 for university places, and I suspect most people would oppose selection at age 8.
Selection at 14 takes place for most children when they choose their GCSE's or equivalent, and if we are to reintroduce selection to British schools that would seem to be the best age.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01D8MY08Y/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=1471119514&sr=8-2
Labour MPs call on David Miliband to return and topple Jeremy Corbyn as leader
The former minister, who lost out in the 2010 leadership race to his brother Ed, quit politics but party figures want him to stand for murdered Jo Cox’s seat
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-mps-call-david-miliband-8626175
More money to be made in the US....
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/764563562337542144