With 538, Florida now flipped back to Clinton but Ohio and North Carolina switched to GOP column. Race definitely tightening after Clinton's "stumble".
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
Grammar schools are a terrific brand and a lousy product. By adopting the brand May has played a blinder. She's touched the same cultural erogenous zone as Brexit and given herself a USP to the Hard Brexit headbangers on her backbenches. She will need that USP. As Grammars are such a lousy product I'm assuming that as a serious politician she'll be quite happy with a minor relaxing in the current expansion rules and two or three rural countries doing a pilot on new ones. Of course as we all know PM's do do very stupid things occasionally so we'll see. However I remain to be convinced this is anything other than a clever ruse re Brexit.
Being pro Brexit and pro LEAVE are not the same views. I would put the HoC anti grammar tories at 30+. Bigger than Mrs May's majority. Since it was not in the manifesto it is also an easy point to oppose.
@DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn talks of Norway model for Brexit Britain and no hard borders with EU countries - not convinced that's what many leave voters want.
He should have a word with Dan...
@DanielJHannan: If you're told that "Brexit was all about immigration," you can be almost certain that you're talking to a Remain voter.
I think the word is 'Scuttlebutt' - Buzzfeed do not seem to be an objective organisation. "In October 2014, it was noted by the Pew Research Center that in the United States, BuzzFeed was viewed as an unreliable source by the majority of people, regardless of political affiliation." - Wikipedia
I note mostly that NeverTrump's are really concerned that Trump may win, I've noticed it my self.
Some of them are wobbling towards Trump (like David Frum and Ross Douthat), some have gone straight in calling Hillary a superman and a genius (like Josh Barro)
The National Review and the Weekly Standard are particularly wobbling, if Trump cuts the Putin stuff I believe they may join him.
.....Basically, they're reliant on Jeremy Corbyn being able to generate absolute vote shares in excess of 40% and the Tories doing appallingly just to get to a majority of one (and this is one of those occasions when I remind those not already aware that the Conservatives have polled at least 30% of the vote at every single GE since 1835.) Indeed, if you give both parties 36% each then the Tories are only just shy of a majority and Labour are 70 seats behind them. It's an astonishing reversal of Labour's previous systemic advantages.
It's no wonder that the Tories are so assiduously pursuing a "no MP left behind" policy to shuffle all the retirements and ennoblements about, and try to make sure that threatened MPs are moved into safe seats. The advantages of getting the new boundaries through are clearly enormous for them.
Absolutely. People underestimate how important this is to the Conservative party. There will be massive effort of carrots and sticks from the whips over the next two years, to make sure this goes off without a hitch.
Anyone who is being awkward now will end up with a knighthood, a seat in the Lords or a job as Ambassador to Singapore or the Seychelles.
How does this fit in with local party autonomy? Surely local parties choose their candidates? However, at the same time, presumably new local associations would all have to be set up for all new seats - so local parties don't actually exist until that happens? So how will it work in practice? eg Take the extra Isle of Wight seat. Could Theresa May just issue an edict that the Con candidate will be X? If not, what would have to happen?
If managed carefully most problems can be overcome. There was an article on Con Home on the draft principles. Also do note the late retirements which could easily add another 6 guaranteed seats in return for peerages and other jobs. The biggest challenge are with the europhiles. Far too many of them for the membership to put up with. However with the continued death of Labour, there could be circa 40 gains from a new GE. But does Patrick McLoughlin inspire confidence as Chairman to anyone in the party?
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
Maybe, but I sense that most voters now just want it settled and to be shot of the EU. Unless Owen wins I cannot see Labour standing aside for a Ref2 candidate.
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.
and risk driving their vote down further since a large minority of their GE vote voted to LEAVE.
NEVADA OHIO NORTH CAROLINA PENNSYLVANIA IOWA FLORIDA (+10!!!!) TIES NEW HAMPHSIRE
Clinton leads in
COLORADO MISSOURI WISCONSIN RHODE ISLAND
Caution: Poll size often very small / State.
I don't use those aggregated 50 state polls, they use a new methodology that is untested and tend to produce clunky results.
In the case of Google, Hillary with a lead of just 6% in D.C.
Well we're not getting nearly as many polls so far Statewide as we did for either the 2015 election or 2016 referendum. Some of them are weeks if not months out of date. We do get National ones though - which are basically calling it a tie.
Grammar schools are a terrific brand and a lousy product. By adopting the brand May has played a blinder. She's touched the same cultural erogenous zone as Brexit and given herself a USP to the Hard Brexit headbangers on her backbenches. She will need that USP. As Grammars are such a lousy product I'm assuming that as a serious politician she'll be quite happy with a minor relaxing in the current expansion rules and two or three rural countries doing a pilot on new ones. Of course as we all know PM's do do very stupid things occasionally so we'll see. However I remain to be convinced this is anything other than a clever ruse re Brexit.
Even I laughed at 'cultural erogenous zone'.
FWIW, I disagree. I think May believes in grammars but hasn't yet worked out you can't control everything as PM and nor can you dictate to your cabinet colleagues.
May is going to need to become better at the politics of the politics.
Grammar schools are a terrific brand and a lousy product. By adopting the brand May has played a blinder. She's touched the same cultural erogenous zone as Brexit and given herself a USP to the Hard Brexit headbangers on her backbenches. She will need that USP. As Grammars are such a lousy product I'm assuming that as a serious politician she'll be quite happy with a minor relaxing in the current expansion rules and two or three rural countries doing a pilot on new ones. Of course as we all know PM's do do very stupid things occasionally so we'll see. However I remain to be convinced this is anything other than a clever ruse re Brexit.
Being pro Brexit and pro LEAVE are not the same views. I would put the HoC anti grammar tories at 30+. Bigger than Mrs May's majority. Since it was not in the manifesto it is also an easy point to oppose.
Set against that, grammars are popular with the rank and file, and will there be enough appetite for rebellion when May has only just entered office?
30 votes against should be enough to sink the proposals, but 20 or less and they could clear the Commons, with support from the NI Unionists, Carswell and a small handful of Labour rebels.
@gabyhinsliff: While 'senior Corbyn allies' are disowning the dossier of MPs We Officially Hate, Corbyn is live on Sky leadership debate not disowning it
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.
The problem for the LD is that there are very few Liberals left, this is no longer the 1970's.
Liberal ideology is on the wane for a long time now, it's policies discredited. Those who are fanatical europeans are few to find after the failure of the EU project.
Just flicked Sky on, Owen Smith starts speaking about Labour being seen as hard left and every time they cut to audience lots of shaking heads and no clamping.
@DMcCaffreySKY: Corbyn talks of Norway model for Brexit Britain and no hard borders with EU countries - not convinced that's what many leave voters want.
He should have a word with Dan...
@DanielJHannan: If you're told that "Brexit was all about immigration," you can be almost certain that you're talking to a Remain voter.
Hannan belongs to a minority tendency of libertarians: very focussed on sovereignty and democracy, but also uber-free market and completely relaxed about immigration. For the wider electorate, evidence suggests that the motivating factors were 1. Sovereignty and 2. Immigration, in that order.
With 538, Florida now flipped back to Clinton but Ohio and North Carolina switched to GOP column. Race definitely tightening after Clinton's "stumble".
There have as yet been no polls taken with fieldwork solely post stumble .
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
I've tried running some crude numbers through Electoral Calculus and that suggests that Labour "only" needs something like a 12% lead for a majority - but regardless of the model the numbers do look to be very forbidding for them. Basically, they're reliant on Jeremy Corbyn being able to generate absolute vote shares in excess of 40% and the Tories doing appallingly just to get to a majority of one (and this is one of those occasions when I remind those not already aware that the Conservatives have polled at least 30% of the vote at every single GE since 1835.) Indeed, if you give both parties 36% each then the Tories are only just shy of a majority and Labour are 70 seats behind them. It's an astonishing reversal of Labour's previous systemic advantages.
It's no wonder that the Tories are so assiduously pursuing a "no MP left behind" policy to shuffle all the retirements and ennoblements about, and try to make sure that threatened MPs are moved into safe seats. The advantages of getting the new boundaries through are clearly enormous for them.
Absolutely. People underestimate how important this is to the Conservative party. There will be massive effort of carrots and sticks from the whips over the next two years, to make sure this goes off without a hitch.
Anyone who is being awkward now will end up with a knighthood, a seat in the Lords or a job as Ambassador to Singapore or the Seychelles.
How does this fit in with local party autonomy?
Surely local parties choose their candidates?
However, at the same time, presumably new local associations would all have to be set up for all new seats - so local parties don't actually exist until that happens?
So how will it work in practice?
eg Take the extra Isle of Wight seat. Could Theresa May just issue an edict that the Con candidate will be X? If not, what would have to happen?
Mrs May, could right a letter to the members of the locale association, saying I think you should give consideration to X as your new candidate, I want to keep then in my cabinet/junior minister/on Z committee, and they very nice. it would not be binding, but I think there are sufficient number of members who want to be helpful to the leader of their party, that unless X really messes up there selection interview/presentation, then they are in prime position.
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
Maybe, but I sense that most voters now just want it settled and to be shot of the EU. Unless Owen wins I cannot see Labour standing aside for a Ref2 candidate.
Owen is just using the EU as a convenient stick to bash Jeremy.
Wales voted Leave 52.5 to 47.5. But, Labour Wales voted Leave by a much more substantial margin.
The constituencies that voted Remain were Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (both Plaid Cymru), Ceredigion (LibDem), Vale of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire (both Tory). The only Welsh Labour constituencies that voted Remain were the Cardiff ones. Every other Labour constituency in Wales voted Leave.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude? Given pupil premium etc, surely the comprehensive school will receive better funding.
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
Maybe, but I sense that most voters now just want it settled and to be shot of the EU. Unless Owen wins I cannot see Labour standing aside for a Ref2 candidate.
Owen is just using the EU as a convenient stick to bash Jeremy.
Wales voted Leave 52.5 to 47.5. But, Labour Wales voted Leave by a much more substantial margin.
The constituencies that voted Remain were Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (both Plaid Cymru), Ceredigion (LibDem), Vale of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire (both Tory). The only Welsh Labour constituencies that voted Remain were the Cardiff ones. Every other Labour constituency in Wales voted Leave.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
But we don't have secondary moderns anymore....we don't / shouldn't have any schools where people are told well you are only capable of doing x or y and so only going to run courses in woodwork or metalwork, because you won't be going to uni.
It seems to me part of the argument against is steeped in a time when we did have schools were kids were told at 11 you won't be doing A-Levels.
One of the biggest scandals in state system is actually we do have schools were teachers tell kids things like Oxbridge isn't for people like you.
My person take is for a range of schools. Grammars aren't a magic bullet, we should have embrace a range of things like KIPPS, School of One, Grammars, etc etc etc.
BBC's match report on Leicester's game reveals lack of editing: "This was only the ninth European match in Leicester's history, and their first win since a victory over Glenavon of Northern Ireland in the preliminary round of the 1961-62 Cup Winners' Cup - when 1966 World Cup winner Gordon Banks was in goal.
Needs a link from Banks line into the following sentence, or more context, so it doesn't jar.
Danny Drinkwater went close with a dipping volley struck on the turn with the ball almost at ground level from outside the box, while Robert Huth might have added a fourth from another of Hernandez's several long throws."
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude?
Because they will become defacto Secondary Moderns.
If you look at the schools nearest to Grammar schools they have pretty appalling results.
Grammar school fanboys should perhaps consider why both major parties, and nearly all education authorities fell over themselves in the rush to get rid of the 11+ in the Sixties and Seventies.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude?
Of course Grammars make neighbouring schools crap. They remove the brightest kids, remove the teachers who want to teach bright kids, remove the parents of bright kids and remove the marginal kids and their parents who aren't bright enough for Grammars by are bright enough that Middle Class fairy dust makes the difference. And by definition all the non grammar schools are full of failures. And as May is proposing three division points not just one at 11 a chunk of pupils in neighbouring schools will be competing to get out. Grammars make neighbouring schools worse.
Smith said he would maintain the special relationship with the US whoever wins, though he does not want Trump to, Corbyn says he wants a good relationship with every nation and attacks Trump but Faislam Islam cleverly points out they both have the same views on NATO, at which point Corbyn says 'he could have a conversation with anyone'
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans? Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.
The Netherlands as well, And I don't think it is even controversial there.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude?
Because they will become defacto Secondary Moderns.
If you look at the schools nearest to Grammar schools they have pretty appalling results.
Grammar school fanboys should perhaps consider why both major parties, and nearly all education authorities fell over themselves in the rush to get rid of the 11+ in the Sixties and Seventies.
Why do they have to though? Surely that is just defeatist. It sounds a lot like if we get to keep some poor bright kids we get to hide the fact we fail a load of others.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
Look at Poole where the non-grammar schools do not enter pupils for A levels and have poor figures for GCSE. Look at the large numbers of failing schools in Lincs or Kent.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
Exactly what I was going to say. Are you Trafford too HYUFD?
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
Look at Poole where the non-grammar schools do not enter pupils for A levels and have poor figures for GCSE. Look at the large numbers of failing schools in Lincs or Kent.
That is a disgrace on those non-grammar schools though. They are failing the kids.
And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".
Smith said he would maintain the special relationship with the US whoever wins, though he does not want Trump to, Corbyn says he wants a good relationship with every nation and attacks Trump but Faislam Islam cleverly points out they both have the same views on NATO, at which point Corbyn says 'he could have a conversation with anyone'
In the Labour party you should attack Trump for his flaws first, then be diplomatic.
And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".
There days 50% of kids go to Uni...employers care about what uni you went to and what degree you are going to get, they give no s##ts about if you got your 11 plus or not.
The single biggest social mobility policy the government could make (and the teaching unions will hate it), post A-Level result applications to uni. Then none of this nonsense of predicted grades and it is all based purely on achievement.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Why do they have to make them crap? Isn't that a bit of a defeatist attitude?
Of course Grammars make neighbouring schools crap. They remove the brightest kids, remove the teachers who want to teach bright kids, remove the parents of bright kids and remove the marginal kids and their parents who aren't bright enough for Grammars by are bright enough that Middle Class fairy dust makes the difference. And by definition all the non grammar schools are full of failures. And as May is proposing three division points not just one at 11 a chunk of pupils in neighbouring schools will be competing to get out. Grammars make neighbouring schools worse.
Not necessarily - pupils at non-Grammars in Trafford traditionally do better than the bottom 80% at comprehensives in socio-economically similar Stockport. My view is that both the existence of grammars and the success of pupils at non-grammars stems from the education authority valuing educational attainment highly.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.
The Netherlands as well, And I don't think it is even controversial there.
Mike Smithson goes further down the Liberal Democrat rabbit hole, squeezing water from a stone to create a whole thread out of one tweet. Ashdown is yesterday's man.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans? Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.
Grammar schools have a place as part of comprehensive academic reform of the kind outlined by Max. Improve technical and vocational training, and bring it into the schooling system, as they do in Germany. And don't make it a second class option.
But don't just graft grammar schools onto our existing system. Because the biggest problem we have in the UK is not the education of the top 25%, but of the next 75%.
can anybody remember, how did Witney voted in the referendum?
I know somebody did an analysis to estimate how each Parliamentary constituency voted, but can find it now.
West Oxfordshire was 53% + Remain. Don't know about Witney exactly.
To pretend that the hard core REMAIN fanatics is much higher than 20% is IMHO delusional. But Pantsdown is welcome to his scheming.
I think 15% (or even 10%) is a much more likely number.
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
At the moment it would appear that the Lib Dems are desperate to have a rerun of the referendum. They are wasting valuable time.
The problem for the LD is that there are very few Liberals left, this is no longer the 1970's.
Liberal ideology is on the wane for a long time now, it's policies discredited. Those who are fanatical europeans are few to find after the failure of the EU project.
Social liberalism remains widespread, it's just the appetite for the Lib Dems' chosen brand of centrism - Europhile, pro-immigration, and floating halfway between the big two on tax and spend - is somewhat limited. They've also had an appalling run of luck:
1. The 2010 election result, which essentially forced them to ally with the Tories and immediately caused most of their left-flank to fall off 2. The circumstances of the 2015 election, which encouraged Yellow Tory voters to desert en masse to help keep Miliband (propped up by the SNP, which is loathed by much of the English electorate) out of office 3. The decision of the wounded activist base to pick Tim Farron and pitch to the soft Left, since when middle class leftie radicals have discovered Corbyn, and May's election has potentially created an opportunity to win back the Yellow Tory vote which they are now ill-placed to capitalise upon
I believe that you're quite right about the public view of the EU though: most people are sceptical to some degree, even if many don't care about it much. I imagine a very large fraction of the Remain vote was made up of better off people who either didn't care about the EU at all, or thought it was a bit rubbish, but wanted to stay in anyway because having no change seemed the safer option for their personal finances.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.
The main difference, as we were saying a few days ago, is that most German grammar schools do not select their pupils. This means that the secondary-modern equivalents (Realschulen) need to provide an attractive technically-oriented education in other to convince parents of less academic children to send their kids to them.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans? Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.
Because everyone and their dog has been trying to do precisely that for 40 years without much success. The horrible truth is that a certain percentage of children aren't particularly academic and teaching them in the same classes as high-flyers doesn't seem to work.
And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".
The only students who get promoted after failing the 11+ will be those who get extra tuition as their schools will not coach for the re-test. Partly that will be because they are not oriented at that level academically, partly that those schools will not want to lose their best pupils. The only ones making late entry to grammars will be those getting extra tuition or at private schools. Near-miss poor kids will get the worst deal.
Indeed the fall back plan for any family for a child that is failed by the 11+ should be to pay for a few years of private education and get in on the 13+.
And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".
There days 50% of kids go to Uni...employers care about what uni you went to and what degree you are going to get, they give no s##ts about if you got your 11 plus or not.
Exactly ! Pupils with the A Levels go to University, people with good GCSEs get good A Levels, people with good test results at 11 or 14 get good GCSE's.... The corelation goes right the way back to early years. Even pregnancy. In many ways it predates conception. If we we're remotely serious about this we'd be looking at pregnancy to aged 2 for intervention. And that doesn't necessarily mean a left wing analysis of the solutions. Fiddling around at 11 let alone 14 or 16 is far, far too late.
But as this s about politics not helping children all my points above are irrelevant.
And under May's plans pupils of Secondary Moderns will be triple failures in the eyes of employers. They'll have failed at 14 and 16 as well as 11. It will be subconscious but the stigma will be there. " They had 3 chances... ".
There days 50% of kids go to Uni...employers care about what uni you went to and what degree you are going to get, they give no s##ts about if you got your 11 plus or not.
Exactly ! Pupils with the A Levels go to University, people with good GCSEs get good A Levels, people with good test results at 11 or 14 get good GCSE's.... The corelation goes right the way back to early years. Even pregnancy. In many ways it predates conception. If we we're remotely serious about this we'd be looking at pregnancy to aged 2 for intervention. And that doesn't necessarily mean a left wing analysis of the solutions. Fiddling around at 11 let alone 14 or 16 is far, far too late.
But as this s about politics not helping children all my points above are irrelevant.
That is why I believe in KIPPs...but that is far too radical given the outcry from allowing a few schools to convert to Grammars.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
No they dont. See posts from various people pointing out that in places like Trafford the non grammar schools get better results than places like Stockport which has a similar demographic and no grammars.
Social liberalism remains widespread, it's just the appetite for the Lib Dems' chosen brand of centrism - Europhile, pro-immigration, and floating halfway between the big two on tax and spend - is somewhat limited. They've also had an appalling run of luck:
1. The 2010 election result, which essentially forced them to ally with the Tories and immediately caused most of their left-flank to fall off 2. The circumstances of the 2015 election, which encouraged Yellow Tory voters to desert en masse to help keep Miliband (propped up by the SNP, which is loathed by much of the English electorate) out of office 3. The decision of the wounded activist base to pick Tim Farron and pitch to the soft Left, since when middle class leftie radicals have discovered Corbyn, and May's election has potentially created an opportunity to win back the Yellow Tory vote which they are now ill-placed to capitalise upon
I'm with you on 1 and 2, but not 3. Corbyn's appeal is fading fast among middle-class leftie radicals except, bizarrely, in London where he still appears to have a following - but then much of London has been impervious to the LibDems anyway. Any LibDem recovery in the provinces and regions is only likely to be helped by Corbyn's incompetence.
Meanwhile, May had potentially created an opportunity to win back Yellow Tories, but now seems intent on squandering it with grammar schools and Priti Patel's pronouncements today on international aid, which are pretty much dog-whistle repellents to that audience.
If I were the LibDem campaign manager in Witney, I'd go hard on "you liked David Cameron, so vote for the party which gave him the policies you liked".
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.
The main difference, as we were saying a few days ago, is that most German grammar schools do not select their pupils. This means that the secondary-modern equivalents (Realschulen) need to provide an attractive technically-oriented education in other to convince parents of less academic children to send their kids to them.
Gymnasium is the German form of our grammar schools, their equivalent 11+ is sat whilst at Grundschule (primary school) during their fourth year, aged 10. The exam involves Maths and German dictation and written essay.
Smith said he would maintain the special relationship with the US whoever wins, though he does not want Trump to, Corbyn says he wants a good relationship with every nation and attacks Trump but Faislam Islam cleverly points out they both have the same views on NATO, at which point Corbyn says 'he could have a conversation with anyone'
In the Labour party you should attack Trump for his flaws first, then be diplomatic.
You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision
Sometimes I wonder if Juncker is the EU's Nicolae Ceaușescu, for the 21st Century.
Well Ceausescu relied upon IMF loans as much as the EU today.
Loans from the EU to the IMF exceed loans from the IMF to the EU (specifically, Greece) by more than eight times.
Through the IMF's entire history since Bretton Woods I presume ?
How much has the IMF loaned to Greece over these years, last that I remember is a figure north of $100 billion.
The total Greek bailout was close to EUR200bn, but only about 10% was the IMF, most of the rest was the ECB, and the EFSF.
The IMF had to be cajoled by Germany into taking part iirc. They were originally only looking to get involved if Greece left the Eurozone, seeing it as a Eurozone matter. Could explain their lack of exposure.
Social liberalism remains widespread, it's just the appetite for the Lib Dems' chosen brand of centrism - Europhile, pro-immigration, and floating halfway between the big two on tax and spend - is somewhat limited. They've also had an appalling run of luck:
1. The 2010 election result, which essentially forced them to ally with the Tories and immediately caused most of their left-flank to fall off 2. The circumstances of the 2015 election, which encouraged Yellow Tory voters to desert en masse to help keep Miliband (propped up by the SNP, which is loathed by much of the English electorate) out of office 3. The decision of the wounded activist base to pick Tim Farron and pitch to the soft Left, since when middle class leftie radicals have discovered Corbyn, and May's election has potentially created an opportunity to win back the Yellow Tory vote which they are now ill-placed to capitalise upon
I believe that you're quite right about the public view of the EU though: most people are sceptical to some degree, even if many don't care about it much. I imagine a very large fraction of the Remain vote was made up of better off people who either didn't care about the EU at all, or thought it was a bit rubbish, but wanted to stay in anyway because having no change seemed the safer option for their personal finances.
Liberal policies have been discredited over the years, so even if the LD suffer, liberal strains in the Tory and Labour parties have suffered too:
Liberal economic policy produced the financial crisis, sky high income inequality and the euro. Liberal foreign policy has caused multiple wars and the EU. Liberal social policy has caused the immigration and refugee crisis.
Liberals have to blame themselves for the trouble, as they have been in the driving seat of the West since the end of the Cold War.
*Checks Patel's ' Next Tory Leader ' Betfair price. *
I don't know how long May will last. Her inability to charm or build a support base will leave her friendless if Brexit goes wrong, and I do not think much of her negotiating skills. Her health is not good either.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
Look at Poole where the non-grammar schools do not enter pupils for A levels and have poor figures for GCSE. Look at the large numbers of failing schools in Lincs or Kent.
Actually the local high school where I grew up in Kent has just been rated outstanding. Look at Bucks which has well above average GCSEs too, indeed even Kent and Lincolnshire sometimes have above average GCSE results despite having slightly below average house prices
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Germany has grammars and almost no-one there seems to have a problem with it, including very left-wing politicians. I wonder what the explanation for that is.
The main difference, as we were saying a few days ago, is that most German grammar schools do not select their pupils. This means that the secondary-modern equivalents (Realschulen) need to provide an attractive technically-oriented education in other to convince parents of less academic children to send their kids to them.
Gymnasium is the German form of our grammar schools, their equivalent 11+ is sat whilst at Grundschule (primary school) during their fourth year, aged 10. The exam involves Maths and German dictation and written essay.
That's certainly not the case in most of Germany. Typically, the primary schools recommend which type of school would be most suitable for a child on the basis of their overall performance at school, and the parents take this recommendation into account (or not) when deciding which secondary school to send their child to.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
Exactly what I was going to say. Are you Trafford too HYUFD?
No, Essex (which also has a few excellent grammars in Chelmsford)
"Though many of them are reluctant to say so in public, they argue that a Trump presidency would fracture their party, decimate the conservative movement, and wreak havoc on the global economy (not to mention their own industry)....The adviser added that most Republican donors will hedge their bets and contribute to Trump if the race is close, but he said they are generally less wary of a Clinton White House. “If she wins, they aren’t going to love it, but they’re not going to be facing the apocalypse either — and by apocalypse, I mean actual nuclear warfare.”
“I live in a swing state,” said one consultant. “If it’s close, I’ll vote for Hillary Clinton. I’ll regret doing it. It’ll be the first time on a presidential level that I’ll be voting for a Democrat. But I feel like it’s my obligation as an American to do it.” Another strategist in a similar situation said he recently found himself engaging in a wishful Google search: “How late can you replace a major-party nominee?” “I think Joe Biden would be a slam dunk, right?” he mused, in a tone that sounded almost affectionate. “Wouldn’t that be an amazing track for Biden’s career? Saving the free world by stopping Donald Trump.”
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans? Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.
Because everyone and their dog has been trying to do precisely that for 40 years without much success. The horrible truth is that a certain percentage of children aren't particularly academic and teaching them in the same classes as high-flyers doesn't seem to work.
So let's enshrine that by removing the non high-flyers to a whole different school and they can flick ink pellets at each other all day.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
The point is that Grammars do make neighbouring schools crap.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
Not true, look at Trafford which has excellent high schools and above average GCSE results
Look at Poole where the non-grammar schools do not enter pupils for A levels and have poor figures for GCSE. Look at the large numbers of failing schools in Lincs or Kent.
Actually the local high school where I grew up in Kent has just been rated outstanding. Look at Bucks which has well above average GCSEs too, indeed even Kent and Lincolnshire sometimes have above average GCSE results despite having slightly below average house prices
That well known lefty rag the Daily Mail points out that while 41 areas have no failing schools, Lincs and Kent have more than 20 each:
You only have to read juncker to day to know that Brexit is the correct decision
Sometimes I wonder if Juncker is the EU's Nicolae Ceaușescu, for the 21st Century.
Well Ceausescu relied upon IMF loans as much as the EU today.
Loans from the EU to the IMF exceed loans from the IMF to the EU (specifically, Greece) by more than eight times.
Through the IMF's entire history since Bretton Woods I presume ?
How much has the IMF loaned to Greece over these years, last that I remember is a figure north of $100 billion.
The total Greek bailout was close to EUR200bn, but only about 10% was the IMF, most of the rest was the ECB, and the EFSF.
The IMF had to be cajoled by Germany into taking part iirc. They were originally only looking to get involved if Greece left the Eurozone, seeing it as a Eurozone matter. Could explain their lack of exposure.
That's absolutely right. Essentially, Merkel made the call that bailing out the French and German banks the Greek government was only possible if the IMF was involved as well to give political cover.
The result of her call has been to utterly poison relations between the IMF and the EU (and in particular Germany). They (the IMF) feel battered and betrayed by the Europeans, who who created the mess and then wanted someone else to sort it out.
The consequence of which was that the IMF tried very hard when Syriza and Tsipras first came to power to encourage Grexit, because they felt the only way to enable restructuring of the loans in a sensible way was outside the Eurozone. But Tsipras (and it really was Tsipras, there was no one else) bottled it.
The horrible truth is that a certain percentage of children aren't particularly academic and teaching them in the same classes as high-flyers doesn't seem to work.
That's an argument for setting or streaming, not for grammars.
Setting is common in comprehensives but universal in private schools (because yes, there are thick kids at private schools - usually thick rich kids, at least at the one I went to). Below the age of 13 it has pros and cons, but upwards of 13 I don't see why you'd do anything else.
There are lots of pros / cons to Grammar schools, but I always find this argument (that Corbyn / Smith have both just given) about Grammar schools those that don't pass 11 plus have to go to comprehensives and they are disadvantaged for doing so, so everybody should go to a comprehensive a slightly weird one.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
People love grammar schools. They hate secondary moderns.
Why can't we make secondary moderns better so nobody moans? Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.
Because everyone and their dog has been trying to do precisely that for 40 years without much success. The horrible truth is that a certain percentage of children aren't particularly academic and teaching them in the same classes as high-flyers doesn't seem to work.
So let's enshrine that by removing the non high-flyers to a whole different school and they can flick ink pellets at each other all day.
Actually the proposal earlier today (sorry I forget who made it), to select by behaviour would be much better. If the disruptive pupils were removed and put in heavily staffed schools that could address their behavioural issues in a supportive and theraputic way, then other schools could make a lot of progress whatever their academic mix.
But what does it mean - "the people must have a say on the Brexit deal"? Haven't the people done enough damage already? Most of us don't know our arse from our elbow, EU-wise. The people will have a say at the general election. What we need now is for MPs not to shirk their responsibilites - MPs should have a vote on Brexit, and Cabinet should have a vote on Brexit. If either vote is against Brexit they should reassess whether we should go through with it.
Comments
That being said, if the LibDems were smart, they'd campaign on "We want a relationship like Switzerland or Norway has with the EU; just look at how rich they are. Don't risk going with the Conservatives and their Hard Brexit Albania option."
He should have a word with Dan...
@DanielJHannan: If you're told that "Brexit was all about immigration," you can be almost certain that you're talking to a Remain voter.
Some of them are wobbling towards Trump (like David Frum and Ross Douthat), some have gone straight in calling Hillary a superman and a genius (like Josh Barro)
The National Review and the Weekly Standard are particularly wobbling, if Trump cuts the Putin stuff I believe they may join him.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/09/the-boundary-proposals-are-just-the-beginning-of-what-could-be-a-painful-process-for-all-involved.html
http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/the-1922-committee-proposes-to-beef-up-incumbency-protections-for-mps-threatened-by-the-boundary-changes.html
Trump Leads in
NEVADA
OHIO
NORTH CAROLINA
PENNSYLVANIA
IOWA
FLORIDA (+10!!!!)
TIES NEW HAMPHSIRE
Clinton leads in
COLORADO
MISSOURI
WISCONSIN
RHODE ISLAND
Caution: Poll size often very small / State.
In the case of Google, Hillary with a lead of just 6% in D.C.
Remain: 35,236 (53.66%)
Leave: 30,435 (46.34%)
http://www.westoxon.gov.uk/media/1436954/EU-Referendum-Result-23-June-2016.pdf
FWIW, I disagree. I think May believes in grammars but hasn't yet worked out you can't control everything as PM and nor can you dictate to your cabinet colleagues.
May is going to need to become better at the politics of the politics.
30 votes against should be enough to sink the proposals, but 20 or less and they could clear the Commons, with support from the NI Unionists, Carswell and a small handful of Labour rebels.
Liberal ideology is on the wane for a long time now, it's policies discredited.
Those who are fanatical europeans are few to find after the failure of the EU project.
I have an idea for a guest thread.
CNN/ORC, Florida
Trump 47
Hillary 44
Johnson 6
Stein 1
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/14/floridapoll.pdf
CNN/ORC, Ohio
Trump 46
Hillary 41
Johnson 8
Stein 2
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/14/ohiopoll.pdf
I think it's case closed that for now Trump is leading by a margin in Florida and Ohio.
I want to know what is going on in Wisconsin and Michigan.
Isn't that basically admitting there are lots of s##t comprehensive schools...shouldn't we be ensuring that there aren't any crap schools?
Wales voted Leave 52.5 to 47.5. But, Labour Wales voted Leave by a much more substantial margin.
The constituencies that voted Remain were Arfon and Dwyfor Meirionnydd (both Plaid Cymru), Ceredigion (LibDem), Vale of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire (both Tory). The only Welsh Labour constituencies that voted Remain were the Cardiff ones. Every other Labour constituency in Wales voted Leave.
So, Owen's position is suicidal for Welsh Labour.
It is essentially an argument of what is best for the individual vs the greatest good of the greatest number.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37369011
They hate secondary moderns.
I'm not sure even then. He might need to be physically dragged from his desk and, to his dying day, still might never get it.
It seems to me part of the argument against is steeped in a time when we did have schools were kids were told at 11 you won't be doing A-Levels.
One of the biggest scandals in state system is actually we do have schools were teachers tell kids things like Oxbridge isn't for people like you.
My person take is for a range of schools. Grammars aren't a magic bullet, we should have embrace a range of things like KIPPS, School of One, Grammars, etc etc etc.
"This was only the ninth European match in Leicester's history, and their first win since a victory over Glenavon of Northern Ireland in the preliminary round of the 1961-62 Cup Winners' Cup - when 1966 World Cup winner Gordon Banks was in goal.
Needs a link from Banks line into the following sentence, or more context, so it doesn't jar.
Danny Drinkwater went close with a dipping volley struck on the turn with the ball almost at ground level from outside the box, while Robert Huth might have added a fourth from another of Hernandez's several long throws."
If you look at the schools nearest to Grammar schools they have pretty appalling results.
Grammar school fanboys should perhaps consider why both major parties, and nearly all education authorities fell over themselves in the rush to get rid of the 11+ in the Sixties and Seventies.
Education reform is needed, since the present system is not producing results for 40 years now.
Posturing first is important.
The single biggest social mobility policy the government could make (and the teaching unions will hate it), post A-Level result applications to uni. Then none of this nonsense of predicted grades and it is all based purely on achievement.
But don't just graft grammar schools onto our existing system. Because the biggest problem we have in the UK is not the education of the top 25%, but of the next 75%.
1. The 2010 election result, which essentially forced them to ally with the Tories and immediately caused most of their left-flank to fall off
2. The circumstances of the 2015 election, which encouraged Yellow Tory voters to desert en masse to help keep Miliband (propped up by the SNP, which is loathed by much of the English electorate) out of office
3. The decision of the wounded activist base to pick Tim Farron and pitch to the soft Left, since when middle class leftie radicals have discovered Corbyn, and May's election has potentially created an opportunity to win back the Yellow Tory vote which they are now ill-placed to capitalise upon
I believe that you're quite right about the public view of the EU though: most people are sceptical to some degree, even if many don't care about it much. I imagine a very large fraction of the Remain vote was made up of better off people who either didn't care about the EU at all, or thought it was a bit rubbish, but wanted to stay in anyway because having no change seemed the safer option for their personal finances.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/78950/tory-minister-priti-patel-reveals-she-no-longer-backs-death
How much has the IMF loaned to Greece over these years, last that I remember is a figure north of $100 billion.
I think he'll like it.
Indeed the fall back plan for any family for a child that is failed by the 11+ should be to pay for a few years of private education and get in on the 13+.
"Pneumonia Virus Terrified After Remembering What Clintons Capable Of"
But as this s about politics not helping children all my points above are irrelevant.
Meanwhile, May had potentially created an opportunity to win back Yellow Tories, but now seems intent on squandering it with grammar schools and Priti Patel's pronouncements today on international aid, which are pretty much dog-whistle repellents to that audience.
If I were the LibDem campaign manager in Witney, I'd go hard on "you liked David Cameron, so vote for the party which gave him the policies you liked".
Liberal economic policy produced the financial crisis, sky high income inequality and the euro.
Liberal foreign policy has caused multiple wars and the EU.
Liberal social policy has caused the immigration and refugee crisis.
Liberals have to blame themselves for the trouble, as they have been in the driving seat of the West since the end of the Cold War.
I think Corbyn will see off another Tory leader.
“I live in a swing state,” said one consultant. “If it’s close, I’ll vote for Hillary Clinton. I’ll regret doing it. It’ll be the first time on a presidential level that I’ll be voting for a Democrat. But I feel like it’s my obligation as an American to do it.”
Another strategist in a similar situation said he recently found himself engaging in a wishful Google search: “How late can you replace a major-party nominee?”
“I think Joe Biden would be a slam dunk, right?” he mused, in a tone that sounded almost affectionate. “Wouldn’t that be an amazing track for Biden’s career? Saving the free world by stopping Donald Trump.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3411179/The-250-000-pupils-languishing-failing-schools-300-institutions-failed-ensure-students-got-five-good-GCSE-grades-met-Government-standards.html
No excuse for Northants though....
The result of her call has been to utterly poison relations between the IMF and the EU (and in particular Germany). They (the IMF) feel battered and betrayed by the Europeans, who who created the mess and then wanted someone else to sort it out.
The consequence of which was that the IMF tried very hard when Syriza and Tsipras first came to power to encourage Grexit, because they felt the only way to enable restructuring of the loans in a sensible way was outside the Eurozone. But Tsipras (and it really was Tsipras, there was no one else) bottled it.
Setting is common in comprehensives but universal in private schools (because yes, there are thick kids at private schools - usually thick rich kids, at least at the one I went to). Below the age of 13 it has pros and cons, but upwards of 13 I don't see why you'd do anything else.