This whole election is one giant clusterf##k....CBS have been caught editing video of Bill Clinton "misspeaking", rather than just showing the interview and then having clarification / correction.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmECSdH5IS4
That CBS felt it necessary to edit out a compromising line from Bill speaks volumes. Very silly editorial decision.
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
Selection at 13 implies that underperformers will be shunted down. It's the only part of the policy that makes sense.
Theresa may is under attack. The entire establishment and all the experts are aghast at her plans to bring back Grammar Schools.
In fact, everyone thinks that she is an idiot to do it except one ill informed group who are probably racists and bigots anyway - most of the voters.
Exactly right, metropolitan liberals we know dislike grammars, provincial Middle England is rather more enthusiastic for them
Yep. Sooner or later it will dawn on the Wets that Theresa is setting out to do to them what Cameron tried to do and failed to do to the right of the party (because he couldnt win a decent majority and he lost the referendum and couldnt deliver the coup de grace).
She knows there is a vast reservoir of ukip voters out there to bring home and the wets have nowhere else to go other than the libdems.
The grammar schools policy costs nothing. The big change was academies and free schools. The new policy will allow some of them to tinker with selection policies, expand and change their name while sending an almighty dog whistle to former voters lodged with the kippers.
By 2020 the new law will be in place but few if any schools will have converted. The clear message is. Only a Tory government can deliver a grammar school in YOUR town. If you vote UKIP you risk letting Labour in who will block this.
oh a policy for deluded selfish idiots.
Got it.
Voting for a rise or cut in child benefit, housing benefit, pensions, any tax is a selfish policy too - seem to be popular though.
This whole election is one giant clusterf##k....CBS have been caught editing video of Bill Clinton "misspeaking", rather than just showing the interview and then having clarification / correction.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmECSdH5IS4
That CBS felt it necessary to edit out a compromising line from Bill speaks volumes. Very silly editorial decision.
It just reinforces the feeling among ordinary people that there is a conspiracy to stitch up the election for Hillary between the Media and DNC. This kind of stuff will hit hard among previous Sanders supporters who had the same fears.
What pray is wrong with drinking champagne at breakfast? Four glasses may be a little excessive but, perhaps, not if one is thirsty or planning for an idle morning.
*hic*
I rather like the story of the magnificent John Mortimer who when he was in his later years fell into the hands of the quacks. When he told his doctor that he drank half a bottle of champagne every morning the conversation apparently went:
Quack: "God god, how long have you been doing that?"
Mortimer: "Ever since I could afford it"
Mortimer, who died well into his eighties, didn't really get on with modern trends in medicine, when asked by a doctor if he was left out of breath after exercise replied, "Dear boy, how would I know?"
Anyway back to drinking champagne at breakfast; it was I think Noel Coward who said, "Doesn't everyone?"
And Just for Miss. P., surely the most famous champagne quote ever. From Lily Bollinger:
“I drink Champagne when I'm happy and when I'm sad. Sometimes I drink it when I'm alone. When I have company I consider it obligatory. I trifle with it if I'm not hungry and drink it when I am. Otherwise, I never touch it -- unless I'm thirsty.”
This whole election is one giant clusterf##k....CBS have been caught editing video of Bill Clinton "misspeaking", rather than just showing the interview and then having clarification / correction.
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmECSdH5IS4
That CBS felt it necessary to edit out a compromising line from Bill speaks volumes. Very silly editorial decision.
It just reinforces the feeling among ordinary people that there is a conspiracy to stitch up the election for Hillary between the Media and DNC. This kind of stuff will hit hard among previous Sanders supporters who had the same fears.
The single most important thing this government has to do is sort out Brexit. If that goes wrong then the government will be in no position to help those it wants to help.
May's political capital needs to be used sparingly and sensibly on getting that right and getting it through Parliament.
I have no strong feelings on grammar schools. The issues seem to me to be what happens to those children who don't go to such schools and is it really sensible to have yet another educational reorganization.
Also, if any of the stories about the NHS being in crisis are even remotely true, she will need to deal with this. A Tory party obsessing about grammars and overseeing an NHS crisis is not going to be in a good position.
Cameron was brought down by hubris. May and the Tories will be too if they assume complacently that Labour can't win.
What happens at the moment to children whose parents can't afford to buy a house in the catchment area of a good comprehensive school?
The single most important thing this government has to do is sort out Brexit. If that goes wrong then the government will be in no position to help those it wants to help.
May's political capital needs to be used sparingly and sensibly on getting that right and getting it through Parliament.
I have no strong feelings on grammar schools. The issues seem to me to be what happens to those children who don't go to such schools and is it really sensible to have yet another educational reorganization.
Also, if any of the stories about the NHS being in crisis are even remotely true, she will need to deal with this. A Tory party obsessing about grammars and overseeing an NHS crisis is not going to be in a good position.
Cameron was brought down by hubris. May and the Tories will be too if they assume complacently that Labour can't win.
The Economist article here covers the issues fairly well, albeit a bit light on the effects of reducing staffing on 5 days so as to boost it at weekends.
It does look to me tgat secondary care is heading towards being emergency care only. Maybe that is the plan, with elective care rationed or privatised. It may be a decent plan, but perhaps should at least be debated openly.
What pray is wrong with drinking champagne at breakfast? Four glasses may be a little excessive but, perhaps, not if one is thirsty or planning for an idle morning.
*hic*
I rather like the story of the magnificent John Mortimer who when he was in his later years fell into the hands of the quacks. When he told his doctor that he drank half a bottle of champagne every morning the conversation apparently went:
Quack: "God god, how long have you been doing that?"
Mortimer: "Ever since I could afford it"
Mortimer, who died well into his eighties, didn't really get on with modern trends in medicine, when asked by a doctor if he was left out of breath after exercise replied, "Dear boy, how would I know?"
Anyway back to drinking champagne at breakfast; it was I think Noel Coward who said, "Doesn't everyone?"
And Just for Miss. P., surely the most famous champagne quote ever. From Lily Bollinger:
“I drink Champagne when I'm happy and when I'm sad. Sometimes I drink it when I'm alone. When I have company I consider it obligatory. I trifle with it if I'm not hungry and drink it when I am. Otherwise, I never touch it -- unless I'm thirsty.”
The single most important thing this government has to do is sort out Brexit. If that goes wrong then the government will be in no position to help those it wants to help.
May's political capital needs to be used sparingly and sensibly on getting that right and getting it through Parliament.
I have no strong feelings on grammar schools. The issues seem to me to be what happens to those children who don't go to such schools and is it really sensible to have yet another educational reorganization.
Also, if any of the stories about the NHS being in crisis are even remotely true, she will need to deal with this. A Tory party obsessing about grammars and overseeing an NHS crisis is not going to be in a good position.
Cameron was brought down by hubris. May and the Tories will be too if they assume complacently that Labour can't win.
What happens at the moment to children whose parents can't afford to buy a house in the catchment area of a good comprehensive school?
Travel subsidies and random selection are the best solution. Obliterating the link between where one lives and where one goes to school is the only thing that makes sense.
If May genuinely wants to cut through a political class consensus and get the public onside, she should axe the 0.7% foreign aid budget and shovel most of it into the NHS.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Theresa may is under attack. The entire establishment and all the experts are aghast at her plans to bring back Grammar Schools.
In fact, everyone thinks that she is an idiot to do it except one ill informed group who are probably racists and bigots anyway - most of the voters.
Exactly right, metropolitan liberals we know dislike grammars, provincial Middle England is rather more enthusiastic for them
Yep. Sooner or later it will dawn on the Wets that Theresa is setting out to do to them what Cameron tried to do and failed to do to the right of the party (because he couldnt win a decent majority and he lost the referendum and couldnt deliver the coup de grace).
She knows there is a vast reservoir of ukip voters out there to bring home and the wets have nowhere else to go other than the libdems.
The grammar schools policy costs nothing. The big change was academies and free schools. The new policy will allow some of them to tinker with selection policies, expand and change their name while sending an almighty dog whistle to former voters lodged with the kippers.
By 2020 the new law will be in place but few if any schools will have converted. The clear message is. Only a Tory government can deliver a grammar school in YOUR town. If you vote UKIP you risk letting Labour in who will block this.
I think there is a danger of conflating UKIP leadership/membership leanings (much closer to tories) with the voters, who don't necessarily lean to tories (those new kippers up north are ex labour not ex tory). I don't think the tories have that big a reservoir. The southern kippers are basically all found in uber safe tory shires so no use to May anyway.
Travel subsidies and random selection are the best solution. Obliterating the link between where one lives and where one goes to school is the only thing that makes sense.
The people who are against grammar schools will be even more furious about the prospect of busing.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
How widespread is selection by house price for secondary schools?
Theresa may is under attack. The entire establishment and all the experts are aghast at her plans to bring back Grammar Schools.
In fact, everyone thinks that she is an idiot to do it except one ill informed group who are probably racists and bigots anyway - most of the voters.
Exactly right, metropolitan liberals we know dislike grammars, provincial Middle England is rather more enthusiastic for them
Yep. Sooner or later it will dawn on the Wets that Theresa is setting out to do to them what Cameron tried to do and failed to do to the right of the party (because he couldnt win a decent majority and he lost the referendum and couldnt deliver the coup de grace).
She knows there is a vast reservoir of ukip voters out there to bring home and the wets have nowhere else to go other than the libdems.
The grammar schools policy costs nothing. The big change was academies and free schools. The new policy will allow some of them to tinker with selection policies, expand and change their name while sending an almighty dog whistle to former voters lodged with the kippers.
By 2020 the new law will be in place but few if any schools will have converted. The clear message is. Only a Tory government can deliver a grammar school in YOUR town. If you vote UKIP you risk letting Labour in who will block this.
I think there is a danger of conflating UKIP leadership/membership leanings (much closer to tories) with the voters, who don't necessarily lean to tories (those new kippers up north are ex labour not ex tory). I don't think the tories have that big a reservoir. The southern kippers are basically all found in uber safe tory shires so no use to May anyway.
The policy will equally impact people in places like Yeovil and Sutton who deserted to the tories in 2015.
Go back to the lib dems in 2020 if you want but only a tory majority will ensure a grammar school in YOUR town - or in the case of Sutton, its expansion.
The single most important thing this government has to do is sort out Brexit. If that goes wrong then the government will be in no position to help those it wants to help.
May's political capital needs to be used sparingly and sensibly on getting that right and getting it through Parliament.
I have no strong feelings on grammar schools. The issues seem to me to be what happens to those children who don't go to such schools and is it really sensible to have yet another educational reorganization.
Also, if any of the stories about the NHS being in crisis are even remotely true, she will need to deal with this. A Tory party obsessing about grammars and overseeing an NHS crisis is not going to be in a good position.
Cameron was brought down by hubris. May and the Tories will be too if they assume complacently that Labour can't win.
What happens at the moment to children whose parents can't afford to buy a house in the catchment area of a good comprehensive school?
Travel subsidies and random selection are the best solution. Obliterating the link between where one lives and where one goes to school is the only thing that makes sense.
I am the managing director of Stagecoach and I support this post.
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
If May genuinely wants to cut through a political class consensus and get the public onside, she should axe the 0.7% foreign aid budget and shovel most of it into the NHS.
Depending on the polling you look at, and the question asked, then the foreign aid budget is not unpopular.
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
That sound you can hear is thousands of Lefties collapsing in horror. Please be more gentle next time.
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
Demand will outstrip supply for the best schools and then they will have to ration somehow?
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
"They" wont decide. The school concerned will decide.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Travel subsidies and random selection are the best solution. Obliterating the link between where one lives and where one goes to school is the only thing that makes sense.
The people who are against grammar schools will be even more furious about the prospect of busing.
Let them be outraged. There is no sensible opposition to the idea.
Still, it's all sticking plasters. We need a new solution to schooling. I'd look to the very successful Swiss and German systems. With our excellent higher education sector and a better primary/secondary sector we could have s world class education system. Bolting grammar schools onto a broken one won't make enough of a difference to be worth it.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
How widespread is selection by house price for secondary schools?
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
How widespread is selection by house price for secondary schools?
It applies everywhere. Didn't you know that?
Presumably there is a bucket load of evidence, Can you link to some?
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
Demand will outstrip supply for the best schools and then they will have to ration somehow?
You don't appear to understand how a market works. If there is demand for good schooling then new ones will appear as investors seek to make money. Shitty schools will die through lack of business. And before people ask the 'and what then for the kids in a school that dies?' question - the answer is a new management team takes over as the creditors sell the school. Good schools might become groups f schools or school companies. Virgin Schools! Most of the bullshit in secondary education would be gone in short order.
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
"They" wont decide. The school concerned will decide.
Indeed - a producer's charter and sod the consumer!
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
Demand will outstrip supply for the best schools and then they will have to ration somehow?
You don't appear to understand how a market works. If there is demand for good schooling then new ones will appear as investors seek to make money. Shitty schools will die through lack of business. And before people ask the 'and what then for the kids in a school that dies?' question - the answer is a new management team takes over as the creditors sell the school. Good schools might become groups f schools or school companies. Virgin Schools! Most of the bullshit in secondary education would be gone in short order.
Nice one - I'll have to stop doing my PhD in economics as I know nothing about economics.
Pray tell, what happens in the interim between demand exceeding supply and new schools appearing. Do children just sit around waiting twiddling their thumbs? What happens to the kids and their lives, when those shitty schools have shut down?
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
It meams only those families who can afford to move into the catchment area of the good school can send their children there. We should completely do away with catchment areas for this reason. Its just another way the middle classes are able to game the system.
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
Demand will outstrip supply for the best schools and then they will have to ration somehow?
You don't appear to understand how a market works. If there is demand for good schooling then new ones will appear as investors seek to make money. Shitty schools will die through lack of business. And before people ask the 'and what then for the kids in a school that dies?' question - the answer is a new management team takes over as the creditors sell the school. Good schools might become groups f schools or school companies. Virgin Schools! Most of the bullshit in secondary education would be gone in short order.
This is the model I've always keenly advocated. This is how the nursery sector operates, providing (in my experience) a much more customer-focused service than schools, responding to what parents want rather than what educators want. It's far from entirely private: ofsted enforce standards, and vouchers provide some/most/all of the cost, depending on circumstance - you'd expect for schools all of the cost would be covered.
However, I'm not the one who has to sell it politically, make it work, or worry about what happens if it doesn't. It would be a brave politician to put something like this into practice.
Mr. Jessop, ask people if they want X billion on foreign aid or for British hospitals. One suspects the polling would favour the latter.
If you ask that question, yes, you're probably right. Then again, if you suggested that all the military were to be abolished and the money spent on the NHS, you'd probably be right as well. Or all council tax spent on the police.
As an example: do you really want the immunisation schemes we fund throughout the world to be stopped? The money we spent helping combat the Ebola outbreak? The education schemes that gets children into school throughout the world?
Still, it's all sticking plasters. We need a new solution to schooling. I'd look to the very successful Swiss and German systems. With our excellent higher education sector and a better primary/secondary sector we could have s world class education system. Bolting grammar schools onto a broken one won't make enough of a difference to be worth it.
Yeah I don't think the type of school matters much. You could send children to a faith school, private, comprehensive, academy, or grammar, and the type of school would have much less bearing on their education than the quality of the curriculum and teachers. We seem to be having a very mid 20th century debate.
I agree with many of posters on this thread - the return to educational selection is a potential elephant trap for the Tories and a massive uniting force for Labour. May needs to ensure that the first round of selection occurs after the next election. When the majority of parents see their children shunted off to secondary modern schools, it's going to cause vast resentment that will fester for years. Corbyn could ride the wave of that resentment straight into Downing Street.
My guess is that grammars and other hat tips to the right will focus a lot of Labour minds. And more and more Labour members will become more focused on winning the election. That will not be good news for Corbyn. The Tories are one of his Achilles heels.
Time to get on Trump for a trade. This model - which is definitely a contributory driver to the market - is surely going to swing to 50-50 when updated with some post-pneumonia polls.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
The catchment area would be large enough to contain different types of houses, not all 5 bed detached but some flats and terraced, so the 'selection by house price' argument is contrived.
Mr. Jessop, I think very few would support abolition of the armed forces.
The ebola crisis is over, thankfully. Reacting to an acute crisis, whether disease or famine, makes sense. Perpetually pumping money (and having a law to that effect) means that we're not identifying worthy ways to spend money, but trying to spray around enough cash to meet the 0.7% nonsense. I'm sure some of it is well spent, and some of it isn't.
Better to axe the target, and spend some of it here.
Mr. Eagles, so, no, unless they do something else.
Very severe. I'm sure it'll deter the group from organising something similar.
The guys who chucked purple powder at Blair in the commons 'only' got fines, so I don't think courts come down too heavily on protests (no matter how stupid), it seems anti-British.
Time to get on Trump for a trade. This model - which is definitely a contributory driver to the market - is surely going to swing to 50-50 when updated with some post-pneumonia polls.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
The catchment area would be large enough to contain different types of houses, not all 5 bed detached but some flats and terraced, so the 'selection by house price' argument is contrived.
The catchment area for the two grammars in Salisbury is vast and supports every economic demography and house price possible, as do the good comprehensives. If, as I suspect these schools will mainly be in the shires, then I don’t foresee any great problems, failing that, there’s always the bus.
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
Demand will outstrip supply for the best schools and then they will have to ration somehow?
You don't appear to understand how a market works. If there is demand for good schooling then new ones will appear as investors seek to make money. Shitty schools will die through lack of business. And before people ask the 'and what then for the kids in a school that dies?' question - the answer is a new management team takes over as the creditors sell the school. Good schools might become groups f schools or school companies. Virgin Schools! Most of the bullshit in secondary education would be gone in short order.
It's difficult to argue with vouchers. I'm sure there is an argument against them somewhere but I can't think of one offhand
Mr. Eagles, protest and breaking into the air-side [no idea what the technical term is] of an airport, disrupting it for hours whilst the police faffed about like a bunch of Mary Ellens are not synonymous.
"But where will the Prime Minister find the fiercest opposition? The only people who are emphatically against grammar schools turns out to be in this survey those with doctorates. Nearly half of PhDs surveyed (48 per cent) oppose the idea, with only 30 per cent so far in favour."
Quite. This is ideology vs average voter territory.
It's one of those issues where it depends how the question is put. Ask if you like grammar schools and lots of people think "well-behaved studious places, good". Ask if you like selection at 11 with a better than even chance that your kid will go to an inferior school and the response is different. Also, people who care a lot about the issue are almost all anti.
FWIW, my brief column on the issue has had a uniformly supportive response:
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
I think your post illustrates another risk that May is taking: that her initiative will be over-sold or will raise expectations that won't be met. All she plans to do is relax the current restriction on opening new grammar schools. It will then be up to your local council (or anyone who want to open their own free grammar school). Most won't be interested; many won't need a new secondary school anyway. No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars so in reality, even if passed, her proposal will actually change very little.
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
I think your post illustrates another risk that May is taking: that her initiative will be over-sold or will raise expectations that won't be met. All she plans to do is relax the current restriction on opening new grammar schools. It will then be up to your local council (or anyone who want to open their own free grammar school). Most won't be interested; many won't need a new secondary school anyway. No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars so in reality, even if passed, her proposal will actually change very little.
"No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars" Didn't she say that every school could become a grammar? (as ridiculous as that sounds)
Time to get on Trump for a trade. This model - which is definitely a contributory driver to the market - is surely going to swing to 50-50 when updated with some post-pneumonia polls.
I'm very much undecided on grammar schools. I went to a comprehensive and did absolutely fine but I'm also very keen for my kids to go to the local Royal School. But I also think the local non-grammar schools are decent.
Why don't we go totally radical in education and move to 100% vouchers for all? Leave the market to provide schools. Take the state out of delivery altogether.
Demand will outstrip supply for the best schools and then they will have to ration somehow?
You don't appear to understand how a market works. If there is demand for good schooling then new ones will appear as investors seek to make money. Shitty schools will die through lack of business. And before people ask the 'and what then for the kids in a school that dies?' question - the answer is a new management team takes over as the creditors sell the school. Good schools might become groups f schools or school companies. Virgin Schools! Most of the bullshit in secondary education would be gone in short order.
It's difficult to argue with vouchers. I'm sure there is an argument against them somewhere but I can't think of one offhand
The transition period would involve millions of children being stuck in failing schools as good schools places will be limited, at first. It also means additional expense since fee paying schools will most likely accept vouchers as a discount off their ticket price.
Still, it's a good idea, but it would be impossible to pass in this country. Better to look at a more egalitarian system.
Time to get on Trump for a trade. This model - which is definitely a contributory driver to the market - is surely going to swing to 50-50 when updated with some post-pneumonia polls.
fivethirtyeight now seem to be trying very hard to influence voters who come onto their site. Two articles (basically one implying Trump is too old and the other justifying the 'deplorables basket' have just gone up.) They know better than anyone what the polls being commissioned now are going to show, but their model will absorb the impact for several days - it doesn't cope too well with 'events'.
Mr. Eagles, protest and breaking into the air-side [no idea what the technical term is] of an airport, disrupting it for hours whilst the police faffed about like a bunch of Mary Ellens are not synonymous.
They should be thanked for exposing weaknesses in the airport's security. If they could get airside, so could someone with a bomb.
''Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible. ''
It isn't the return of the grammar that worries me really. Its the return of the secondary modern. We cannot have that.
What is the real difference between a secondary modern and a bad comprehensive that nobody who can afford a better schools associated house price uses?
Mr. Jessop, I think very few would support abolition of the armed forces.
The ebola crisis is over, thankfully. Reacting to an acute crisis, whether disease or famine, makes sense. Perpetually pumping money (and having a law to that effect) means that we're not identifying worthy ways to spend money, but trying to spray around enough cash to meet the 0.7% nonsense. I'm sure some of it is well spent, and some of it isn't.
Better to axe the target, and spend some of it here.
Perhaps. But that's very different from your first assertion.
So how much would you spend 'here'? Which projects would you see cut, and which (if any) would you expand?
Personally, I'd have *all* departments having percentage budgets to work within, set for at least a parliament in advance, and have people vote parties in according to how they set the percentage values per department.
It also means in a period of recession all departments would have to cut equally.
@Pulpstar fpt - I rebacked trump @ ~3.3 when the Clinton/trump book went down to 91%. I also built up an exposure for the first time in months by laying the combined sanders/Biden @~7%.
Basically I'm treading water right now until the debates - the only position I'm taking is against the field.
Rough figures;
Clinton/trump +18.5 Biden/sanders -2.5 Else >=+18
That's a superb book. Did you get there by backing Trump significantly when he was at very long odds?
Actually, no.
Most of the book value came from trading the nevertrumps during the priumaries.
Cruz, Jeb, Romney,Ryan,Bloomberg & Johnson were all good trades for me.
I balanced the book against trump before the dem convention, which bumped the book value up by ~30% - but the few other times I've taken positions on Clinton/trump, the market has moved against me before I got out.
I'm not sure I'm very good at reading the tea leaves when it comes to Clinton vs trump.
PB Tips on Bloomberg have a news story about maybe running were goldmines. On at 90, off at 50.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Not contrived - it is a well established fact.
The catchment area would be large enough to contain different types of houses, not all 5 bed detached but some flats and terraced, so the 'selection by house price' argument is contrived.
Mr. Eagles, protest and breaking into the air-side [no idea what the technical term is] of an airport, disrupting it for hours whilst the police faffed about like a bunch of Mary Ellens are not synonymous.
They should be thanked for exposing weaknesses in the airport's security. If they could get airside, so could someone with a bomb.
City airport has the most lax security of any London airport I've been to. I guess they don't expect City types to be terrorists!
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Labour "in favour" of comprehensives? Abbott sends her kids to comprehensives, right?
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
It meams only those families who can afford to move into the catchment area of the good school can send their children there. We should completely do away with catchment areas for this reason. Its just another way the middle classes are able to game the system.
Left and right should ask for equal rights for those who are likely to become electricians or plumbers rather than astrophysicists or quantum chemists. Peter Lilley - possibly an unlikely opponent - criticised May's grammar schools announcement and cited this reason; i.e., that UK academic education is quite good but its technical/vocational education is hopeless.
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
I think your post illustrates another risk that May is taking: that her initiative will be over-sold or will raise expectations that won't be met. All she plans to do is relax the current restriction on opening new grammar schools. It will then be up to your local council (or anyone who want to open their own free grammar school). Most won't be interested; many won't need a new secondary school anyway. No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars so in reality, even if passed, her proposal will actually change very little.
Yes. Any new Grammar would be a new build. I think the proposal is in reality a modest one which has been blown up out of proportion by its opponents. We may see an addition 50 - 100 Grammars, not a wholesale reversal of the 1960s/70s policy.
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Labour "in favour" of comprehensives? Abbott sends her kids to comprehensives, right?
I just think it's very odd how the left seems to prefer selection by house price rather than by ability. It's the precise opposite of what you'd expect them to believe.
Assuming that Labour are in favour of Comprehensive schools, how does this 'selection by house price' work? The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Labour "in favour" of comprehensives? Abbott sends her kids to comprehensives, right?
Labour, like most good socialists, are in favour of comprehensives for "the plebs". Not for themselves and their family of course that's different, but as a matter of principle for everyone else they are all in favour . . .
I wonder how they will decide which school in each town becomes a grammar and which will be turned into secondary moderns? Presumably some sort of drawing lots will take place. Will the thick kids currently attending the winner be allowed to stay, or will they be shunted out?
I think your post illustrates another risk that May is taking: that her initiative will be over-sold or will raise expectations that won't be met. All she plans to do is relax the current restriction on opening new grammar schools. It will then be up to your local council (or anyone who want to open their own free grammar school). Most won't be interested; many won't need a new secondary school anyway. No-one has suggested turning existing schools into grammars so in reality, even if passed, her proposal will actually change very little.
Yes. Any new Grammar would be a new build. I think the proposal is in reality a modest one which has been blown up out of proportion by its opponents. We may see an addition 50 - 100 Grammars, not a wholesale reversal of the 1960s/70s policy.
Didn't May herself say that every school would have the chance to be a grammar? So it wouldn't have to be a new build?
Comments
Quack: "God god, how long have you been doing that?"
Mortimer: "Ever since I could afford it"
Mortimer, who died well into his eighties, didn't really get on with modern trends in medicine, when asked by a doctor if he was left out of breath after exercise replied, "Dear boy, how would I know?"
Anyway back to drinking champagne at breakfast; it was I think Noel Coward who said, "Doesn't everyone?"
And Just for Miss. P., surely the most famous champagne quote ever. From Lily Bollinger:
“I drink Champagne when I'm happy and when I'm sad. Sometimes I drink it when I'm alone. When I have company I consider it obligatory. I trifle with it if I'm not hungry and drink it when I am. Otherwise, I never touch it -- unless I'm thirsty.”
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706513-nhs-terrible-shape-keeping-it-alive-requires-medicine-both-left-and-right-will
It does look to me tgat secondary care is heading towards being emergency care only. Maybe that is the plan, with elective care rationed or privatised. It may be a decent plan, but perhaps should at least be debated openly.
2 is, without a cultural shift of earthquake proportions in the establishment, is -alas - impossible to achieve utopian idealism.
Grammar schools can be imposed over the head of the establishment and represent the art of the possible.
Court News
Black Lives Matter protesters are all given conditional discharges
Go back to the lib dems in 2020 if you want but only a tory majority will ensure a grammar school in YOUR town - or in the case of Sutton, its expansion.
It isn't the return of the grammar that worries me really. Its the return of the secondary modern. We cannot have that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYp98nySEPY
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/feb/29/majority-uk-believes-overseas-aid-should-rise-survey-eurobarometer-developing-countries
I would not be so certain that axing the foreign aid budget would be popular, serve our national interests, or be the right thing to do.
That does not mean there should not be an alteration in its priorities and more clarity in how and where the money is spent.
That sound you can hear is thousands of Lefties collapsing in horror. Please be more gentle next time.
The only example I can think of is the case where there are two comprehensive schools in the same town, the better one makes the houses in its catchment area worth more. If that's your argument it seems a little contrived.
Still, it's all sticking plasters. We need a new solution to schooling. I'd look to the very successful Swiss and German systems. With our excellent higher education sector and a better primary/secondary sector we could have s world class education system. Bolting grammar schools onto a broken one won't make enough of a difference to be worth it.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8935/european-army
Come on May get your finger(s) out!
Pray tell, what happens in the interim between demand exceeding supply and new schools appearing. Do children just sit around waiting twiddling their thumbs? What happens to the kids and their lives, when those shitty schools have shut down?
We are not amused surprised.
However, I'm not the one who has to sell it politically, make it work, or worry about what happens if it doesn't. It would be a brave politician to put something like this into practice.
As an example: do you really want the immunisation schemes we fund throughout the world to be stopped? The money we spent helping combat the Ebola outbreak? The education schemes that gets children into school throughout the world?
Very severe. I'm sure it'll deter the group from organising something similar.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/national-polls/#plus
Whilst I find their protest idiotic and pointless, they didn't place anyone's life at risk.
In a democracy people have the right to protest.
The ebola crisis is over, thankfully. Reacting to an acute crisis, whether disease or famine, makes sense. Perpetually pumping money (and having a law to that effect) means that we're not identifying worthy ways to spend money, but trying to spray around enough cash to meet the 0.7% nonsense. I'm sure some of it is well spent, and some of it isn't.
Better to axe the target, and spend some of it here.
The guys who chucked purple powder at Blair in the commons 'only' got fines, so I don't think courts come down too heavily on protests (no matter how stupid), it seems anti-British.
FWIW, my brief column on the issue has had a uniformly supportive response:
http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/how-will-the-boundary-review-affect-usgrammar-schoolssome-personal-news/
Didn't she say that every school could become a grammar? (as ridiculous as that sounds)
Still, it's a good idea, but it would be impossible to pass in this country. Better to look at a more egalitarian system.
Oops: DNC Continued to Email Passwords After They Knew They’d Been Hacked https://t.co/ni2yxLGNkO
So how much would you spend 'here'? Which projects would you see cut, and which (if any) would you expand?
Personally, I'd have *all* departments having percentage budgets to work within, set for at least a parliament in advance, and have people vote parties in according to how they set the percentage values per department.
It also means in a period of recession all departments would have to cut equally.
NEW POLL - OHIO:
TRUMP 48%
CLINTON 43%
(Bloomberg Poll) https://t.co/5IpYPFnHC1
Out of interest what do you use to generate characters? I like Pinyinput.com
任何人都可以使用谷歌。