But apart from a minor tax exemption, the poor aren't paying for private schools as they are with grammar schools.
Edit: And parents who are sending their kids to fee paying schools are doing the poor a favour, and making sure the government doesn't pay to educate their kids.
That money is spent on the poor kids.
I have no problem at all with fee paying schools.
But I do recognise how tin-earred it sounds to say to the poor that they cannot have the sort of aspiration that the elites can. The key to grammar schools is the aspirational factor.
This will never be disproved by 'useful' figures based on a now very small subset of the old grammar set up which happen to be in very wealthy areas.
Edit: Osbornite policy was often tin-earred - it alienated in it's smug superiority in a way Mayism doesn't at the moment....
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
TSE old chap - 'tin eared' at conference is a bit of an oxymoron
But apart from a minor tax exemption, the poor aren't paying for private schools as they are with grammar schools.
Edit: And parents who are sending their kids to fee paying schools are doing the poor a favour, and making sure the government doesn't pay to educate their kids.
That money is spent on the poor kids.
I have no problem at all with fee paying schools.
But I do recognise how tin-earred it sounds to say to the poor that they cannot have the sort of aspiration that the elites can. The key to grammar schools is the aspirational factor.
This will never be disproved by 'useful' figures based on a now very small subset of the old grammar set up which happen to be in very wealthy areas.
Edit: Osbornite policy was often tin-earred - it alienated in it's smug superiority in a way Mayism doesn't at the moment....
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
What about today's "comprehensive" policy whereby the affluent Middle Class can buy a house with the right sort of postcode to buy better education and then consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the ["better" postcode] schools?
But apart from a minor tax exemption, the poor aren't paying for private schools as they are with grammar schools.
Edit: And parents who are sending their kids to fee paying schools are doing the poor a favour, and making sure the government doesn't pay to educate their kids.
That money is spent on the poor kids.
I have no problem at all with fee paying schools.
But I do recognise how tin-earred it sounds to say to the poor that they cannot have the sort of aspiration that the elites can. The key to grammar schools is the aspirational factor.
This will never be disproved by 'useful' figures based on a now very small subset of the old grammar set up which happen to be in very wealthy areas.
Edit: Osbornite policy was often tin-earred - it alienated in it's smug superiority in a way Mayism doesn't at the moment....
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
The policy isn't ready yet - clearly - but rescinding the grammar schools ban is just what is needed, both practically and politically.
But apart from a minor tax exemption, the poor aren't paying for private schools as they are with grammar schools.
Edit: And parents who are sending their kids to fee paying schools are doing the poor a favour, and making sure the government doesn't pay to educate their kids.
That money is spent on the poor kids.
I have no problem at all with fee paying schools.
But I do recognise how tin-earred it sounds to say to the poor that they cannot have the sort of aspiration that the elites can. The key to grammar schools is the aspirational factor.
This will never be disproved by 'useful' figures based on a now very small subset of the old grammar set up which happen to be in very wealthy areas.
Edit: Osbornite policy was often tin-earred - it alienated in it's smug superiority in a way Mayism doesn't at the moment....
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
What about today's "comprehensive" policy whereby the affluent Middle Class can buy a house with the right sort of postcode to buy better education and then consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the ["better" postcode] schools?
But apart from a minor tax exemption, the poor aren't paying for private schools as they are with grammar schools.
Edit: And parents who are sending their kids to fee paying schools are doing the poor a favour, and making sure the government doesn't pay to educate their kids.
That money is spent on the poor kids.
I have no problem at all with fee paying schools.
But I do recognise how tin-earred it sounds to say to the poor that they cannot have the sort of aspiration that the elites can. The key to grammar schools is the aspirational factor.
This will never be disproved by 'useful' figures based on a now very small subset of the old grammar set up which happen to be in very wealthy areas.
Edit: Osbornite policy was often tin-earred - it alienated in it's smug superiority in a way Mayism doesn't at the moment....
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
What about today's "comprehensive" policy whereby the affluent Middle Class can buy a house with the right sort of postcode to buy better education and then consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the ["better" postcode] schools?
Gove and Cameron began the process to to sort that out, by improving state schools.
Mrs May intends to undo all that hard work.
We need fewer grammar schools and more Toby Youngs
Trump's accusation that Clinton was drugged up during the second debate and his call for them both to be drug tested before the third debate are quite clever.
She surely can't say yes. Then he would just demand something else.
And at the debate, he's likely to accuse her directly of being drugged up, there and then, pointing out that she refused to be tested. "You're crazy, Donald." "Why are you blinking so much, Hillary?"
Many Trumpers believe crazy stuff about Clinton. I don't know how open the "middle" are to being led to such beliefs. Drug accusations could be the wedge. Clinton may be put into a position where it's difficult to win: too energetic, she's "on drugs"; too laid back, she's physically not up to it. It needs to be observed that it's unlikely she would be attacked in this kind of physical way if she were male.
If he asks her " are you on drugs ", she should reply " are you"? Easy. He's the one who's always sniffing anyway.
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
What about today's "comprehensive" policy whereby the affluent Middle Class can buy a house with the right sort of postcode to buy better education and then consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the ["better" postcode] schools?
Gove and Cameron began the process to to sort that out, by improving state schools.
Mrs May intends to undo all that hard work.
We need fewer grammar schools and more Toby Youngs
New Grammars can fit in with the improved state schools. Afterall if regular state schools are improved then that answers your question as to what happens to the kids that don't get in the grammar schools.
At least a kid that didn't get into a grammar school had a chance, however slim, unlike the kids whose parents can't afford a "better" school postcode.
Except he didn't "circulate them to a wide audience", he sent one article only to publication which was his finished piece. His original Brexit piece as revised following doing his own opposition piece.
Have you never tested a competing hypothesis or played devil's advocate? Are you a liar if you do either? He is a writer and did the literary equivalent.
Well, it seems to have reached the widest possible audience.
And as to putting your name to opinions you don't believe in, and circulating those opinions for whatever reason - no, I don't believe that is done by people with integrity. People with integrity don't put their names to opinions they don't believe in, whether in the sciences, the arts or any other serious field.
But maybe politicians may put their names to a variety of different courses and circulate them, in order to try to gauge which course may further their careers. In that case they can't complain when the truth comes out.
Except he didn't "circulate them to a wide audience", he sent one article only to publication which was his finished piece. His original Brexit piece as revised following doing his own opposition piece.
Have you never tested a competing hypothesis or played devil's advocate? Are you a liar if you do either? He is a writer and did the literary equivalent.
Well, it seems to have reached the widest possible audience.
And as to putting your name to opinions you don't believe in, and circulating those opinions for whatever reason - no, I don't believe that is done by people with integrity. People with integrity don't put their names to opinions they don't believe in, whether in the sciences, the arts or any other serious field.
But maybe politicians may put their names to a variety of different courses and circulate them, in order to try to gauge which course may further their careers. In that case they can't complain when the truth comes out.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
But apart from a minor tax exemption, the poor aren't paying for private schools as they are with grammar schools.
Edit: And parents who are sending their kids to fee paying schools are doing the poor a favour, and making sure the government doesn't pay to educate their kids.
That money is spent on the poor kids.
I have no problem at all with fee paying schools.
But I do recognise how tin-earred it sounds to say to the poor that they cannot have the sort of aspiration that the elites can. The key to grammar schools is the aspirational factor.
This will never be disproved by 'useful' figures based on a now very small subset of the old grammar set up which happen to be in very wealthy areas.
Edit: Osbornite policy was often tin-earred - it alienated in it's smug superiority in a way Mayism doesn't at the moment....
I'm with Team Gove, the best thing you can for the poor and the aspiring classes is to improve the state sector schools.
Gove showed it is possible.
At conference you'd be surprised how many people said May's grammar school policies was tin eared, as they seemed to consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the new grammar schools.
What about today's "comprehensive" policy whereby the affluent Middle Class can buy a house with the right sort of postcode to buy better education and then consistently ignore questions about what happens to the kids that don't get into the ["better" postcode] schools?
Gove and Cameron began the process to to sort that out, by improving state schools.
Mrs May intends to undo all that hard work.
We need fewer grammar schools and more Toby Youngs
As with all policies that are meant to 'eventually' help the poor but
a) also help the rich b) seem to help the rich first c) and do nothing to redress the balance between elite and poor because of lack of aspiration
they will not positively impact on the poor half as much, either as an idea or a reality, as they could or should. This usually happens because of cuts.
Osbornite politics was committed to featherbedding the client vote. It is no better than Brownism for that same very reason.
When IDS is pointing out your budget blunders, you know you're wrong...
(Also please tell Mike there's no imminent Lib Dem resurgence. Love you bye)
I have moved on, my morning piece opens with this
Despite all the hype and bluster, the court case, and Parliamentary scrutiny, the United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union within the next few few years, and both will rapidly change because of Brexit.
Or will it? We'll see. Once the economic disaster becomes obvious, enough of the public will change their minds. You may be losing faith a little too early Mr TSE.
Translation - with any luck those die-hard remoaners who sadly still occupy our corridors of power will manage to spook the bovine hordes into thinking their flatscreens are at risk if we ever leave. A really loathsome hope; I do congratulate you.
A little harsh I think. I am more interested in what might happen than being right about these things. As a betting site we speculate on the future.
My two pence worth is that the negotiations will be an utter mess, little will be agreed for months and months, the EU will drag its feet, the British have no clear idea where we want to get to, different parts of UK government will be arguing for different outcomes, the economic clouds will darken ( the rubbish about how wonderfully well we are doing post-Brexit is just that, rubbish - all these things have a time lag) and so on.
One of the feel good factors about leaving will occur later this year if Nissan confirm the production of it's new car from their Sunderland factory as was indicated earlier this week with the CEO meeting with TM.
Also ING have announced it is relocating it's HQ to the City.
Both these if confirmed confound some of the many negatives we hear from the remainers
ING announced it was closing its Brussels trading floor and moving 50 people to London.
Good news?
Yes.
A sign that it was leaving the Netherlands and moving its headquarters to London?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Oh well no system is perfect including what we have today. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of improvement though.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
Personally, I have no problem with grammar schools.
The real issue is that not how the top 25% of people in the UK do academically. It is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by the education system. Grammar schools do not solve that problem.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
The most nonsensical argument I've ever read on this website. There's very little evidence that standards for the bottom 50% have improved since comprehensives were introduced.
Personally, I have no problem with grammar schools.
The real issue is that not how the top 25% of people in the UK do academically. It is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by the education system. Grammar schools do not solve that problem.
The real issue is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by their parents.
I'd love to see a solution to that problem. Comprehensive v Grammar though is entirely moot.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Oh well no system is perfect including what we have today. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of improvement though.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
Yeah but,
I really hope my eight year old daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, the local grammar school. But, you know what? She'll do fine whatever happens, If she goes to HB, her chance of going to Oxbridge pribably moves from 10% to 14% or whatever, and that's great.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Bring grammars in by all means. But we truly fail the next 75%, and our utter fixation on grammar schools does them no favours.
Personally, I have no problem with grammar schools.
The real issue is that not how the top 25% of people in the UK do academically. It is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by the education system. Grammar schools do not solve that problem.
The real issue is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by their parents.
I'd love to see a solution to that problem. Comprehensive v Grammar though is entirely moot.
Quality of teachers and the smaller class sizes of private schools is what we should hoping to replicate in the state sector.
I was fortunate my teachers had time for me, out of lessons, and in lessons, on those areas I needed help in.
I hear of state schools with class sizes of 30 plus, and I think, that's not very good for the pupils (or the teacher)
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
The most nonsensical argument I've ever read on this website. There's very little evidence that standards for the bottom 50% have improved since comprehensives were introduced.
Indeed. If a child is brought up without any books in the house, discouraged from education or work, discouraged from homework and with no respect in the house for education then whether the school system has grammars or not is neither here nor there.
Blocking grammar schools for those with ability and hard work due to those that aren't improved by a comprehensive system is self-defeating. Suggesting grammar schools must first fix an unrelated problem is setting them up to fail.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
The most nonsensical argument I've ever read on this website. There's very little evidence that standards for the bottom 50% have improved since comprehensives were introduced.
Clearly you don't read most of the posts.
It is also a total non sequitar.
Do the bottom 75% do better or worse - academically, and career wise - in grammar or comprehensive regions?
Personally, I have no problem with grammar schools.
The real issue is that not how the top 25% of people in the UK do academically. It is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by the education system. Grammar schools do not solve that problem.
The real issue is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by their parents.
I'd love to see a solution to that problem. Comprehensive v Grammar though is entirely moot.
Quality of teachers and the smaller class sizes of private schools is what we should hoping to replicate in the state sector.
I was fortunate my teachers had time for me, out of lessons, and in lessons, on those areas I needed help in.
I hear of state schools with class sizes of 30 plus, and I think, that's not very good for the pupils (or the teacher)
My grammar school classes had 30-35. It was ok because the majority of us were motivated.
Grammar schools also attract private school teachers in a way that comps never have.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Oh well no system is perfect including what we have today. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of improvement though.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
Yeah but,
I really hope my eight year old daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, the local grammar school. But, you know what? She'll do fine whatever happens, If she goes to HB, her chance of going to Oxbridge pribably moves from 10% to 14% or whatever, and that's great.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Bring grammars in by all means. But we truly fail the next 75%, and our utter fixation on grammar schools does them no favours.
Maybe you should look beyond the M25 before considering Pret to be normal. It is not a failure of the education system (it may be one of the benefits system), the lack of Brits in Pret in Picadilly has absolutely nothing to do with grammar schools or the lack thereof.
Personally, I have no problem with grammar schools.
The real issue is that not how the top 25% of people in the UK do academically. It is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by the education system. Grammar schools do not solve that problem.
The real issue is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by their parents.
I'd love to see a solution to that problem. Comprehensive v Grammar though is entirely moot.
Quality of teachers and the smaller class sizes of private schools is what we should hoping to replicate in the state sector.
I was fortunate my teachers had time for me, out of lessons, and in lessons, on those areas I needed help in.
I hear of state schools with class sizes of 30 plus, and I think, that's not very good for the pupils (or the teacher)
And we should address that simultaneously to adding more grammar schools.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
The most nonsensical argument I've ever read on this website. There's very little evidence that standards for the bottom 50% have improved since comprehensives were introduced.
Indeed. If a child is brought up without any books in the house, discouraged from education or work, discouraged from homework and with no respect in the house for education then whether the school system has grammars or not is neither here nor there.
Blocking grammar schools for those with ability and hard work due to those that aren't improved by a comprehensive system is self-defeating. Suggesting grammar schools must first fix an unrelated problem is setting them up to fail.
Does the introduction of grammar schools meaningfully worsen the outcomes of the other 75%?
If not, go right ahead. You'd be mad not to,
But if it does, you're trying to solve a famine by taking a lucky few to tea at the Ritz.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Oh well no system is perfect including what we have today. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of improvement though.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
Yeah but,
I really hope my eight year old daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, the local grammar school. But, you know what? She'll do fine whatever happens, If she goes to HB, her chance of going to Oxbridge pribably moves from 10% to 14% or whatever, and that's great.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Bring grammars in by all means. But we truly fail the next 75%, and our utter fixation on grammar schools does them no favours.
Much as we enjoy your Pret investigative journalism, that is a very London centric company and a particularly cosmopolitan branch. It's not exactly the basis of an industrial strategy. The majority of the 75% you talk of should be aiming for more money than that per hour and a better level of education/skill attainment that what is required for those jobs.
But, in the spirit of Pret - I prefer the branch opposite Russell Square tube station. The manageress/supervisor is always very jolly - even at 6am on a Sunday.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
The most nonsensical argument I've ever read on this website. There's very little evidence that standards for the bottom 50% have improved since comprehensives were introduced.
Indeed. If a child is brought up without any books in the house, discouraged from education or work, discouraged from homework and with no respect in the house for education then whether the school system has grammars or not is neither here nor there.
Blocking grammar schools for those with ability and hard work due to those that aren't improved by a comprehensive system is self-defeating. Suggesting grammar schools must first fix an unrelated problem is setting them up to fail.
Does the introduction of grammar schools meaningfully worsen the outcomes of the other 75%?
If not, go right ahead. You'd be mad not to,
But if it does, you're trying to solve a famine by taking a lucky few to tea at the Ritz.
I'm not sure we have data to prove it either way - too much is unknown at the moment: for example new grammars should bring in new capacity that would allow for smaller class sizes in both grammars and either remaining comps or their replacements. It would probably also encourage a wider base for recruitment of motivated and better qualified teachers into the state sector. Most of my teachers told us they would never have worked in comps.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Oh well no system is perfect including what we have today. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of improvement though.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
Yeah but,
I really hope my eight year old daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, the local grammar school. But, you know what? She'll do fine whatever happens, If she goes to HB, her chance of going to Oxbridge pribably moves from 10% to 14% or whatever, and that's great.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Bring grammars in by all means. But we truly fail the next 75%, and our utter fixation on grammar schools does them no favours.
Maybe you should look beyond the M25 before considering Pret to be normal. It is not a failure of the education system (it may be one of the benefits system), the lack of Brits in Pret in Picadilly has absolutely nothing to do with grammar schools or the lack thereof.
I am not anti-grammar schools.
I want everyone to reach their potential.
And I believe that almost certainly involves academic selection.
But I think this utter myopia regarding grammar schools misses the point. We don't fail the top 25% of academic achievers, but we do fail the next 75%.
In Germany or Switzerland, the incomes of people at the 60% IQ percentile are more than 30% higher than in the UK, and the chance of unemployment or mental illness massively lower.
This is a question of priorities. I believe we need to work first on improving the outcomes of the bottom 75% of academic achievers, because that is where - on any international compare and contrast - that we do disastrously badly.
' It will be very easy to portray Boris as someone who puts his own ambitions ahead of the best interests of the country, that is something that should fatally damage his chances of ever leading his party or country.'
Which politicians haven't put their own ambitions ahead of the best interests of the country ?
Tony Blair for one,when he thought he had a chance of becoming EU President and gave away our rebate ?
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
The most nonsensical argument I've ever read on this website. There's very little evidence that standards for the bottom 50% have improved since comprehensives were introduced.
Indeed. If a child is brought up without any books in the house, discouraged from education or work, discouraged from homework and with no respect in the house for education then whether the school system has grammars or not is neither here nor there.
Blocking grammar schools for those with ability and hard work due to those that aren't improved by a comprehensive system is self-defeating. Suggesting grammar schools must first fix an unrelated problem is setting them up to fail.
Does the introduction of grammar schools meaningfully worsen the outcomes of the other 75%?
If not, go right ahead. You'd be mad not to,
But if it does, you're trying to solve a famine by taking a lucky few to tea at the Ritz.
I don't believe it does. Does banning grammars meaningfully improve the outcomes of the other 75%?
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Deciding which side to take on an issue of such consequence where your position has huge influence merely on the basis of which way the muse catches you isn't the sign of someone who has done any deep thinking.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
No. If it had just been about "shaping his own thoughts" , how on earth would we be reading it now? Obviously it was shown to other people too, to get their thoughts.
There's all the difference in the world between (1) writing a balanced summary of the pros and cons (2) writing a pro piece and an anti piece, and running with the one that gets the better reaction.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Is that bad? I mean, if you've got a job that doesn't need much language skill, and be picked up quickly, but requires you to be prepared to suck up working in central London on a lowish wage (so shitty living conditions or a horrible commute) it sounds like objectively it would be best filled by foreign language students or whatever. British people can take the equivalent jobs in Paris or wherever when they're in a similar situation.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Deciding which side to take on an issue of such consequence where your position has huge influence merely on the basis of which way the muse catches you isn't the sign of someone who has done any deep thinking.
The muse? We're not talking about creative writing here.
If a principled politician has done "deep thinking", that will determine the position s/he takes
But I can well believe that an unprincipled politician, who hasn't done much "deep thinging", might prepare two articles arguing different points of view, and then try to judge which plays better with the intended audience.
The problem with grammar schools is not the grammar schools.
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Oh well no system is perfect including what we have today. Don't let impossible perfection be the enemy of improvement though.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
Yeah but,
I really hope my eight year old daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, the local grammar school. But, you know what? She'll do fine whatever happens, If she goes to HB, her chance of going to Oxbridge pribably moves from 10% to 14% or whatever, and that's great.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Bring grammars in by all means. But we truly fail the next 75%, and our utter fixation on grammar schools does them no favours.
Incidentally, I was on the lookout today at the Pret a Manger in front of Victoria Station, and they don't have flags there - only different coloured badges with their names.
Shock! Chief Osborne spinner says lay Boris. He weighed up both sides of the argument (albeit with ink) and backed the case he deemed to have more weight.
(Also please tell Mike there's no imminent Lib Dem resurgence. Love you bye)
I have moved on, my morning piece opens with this
Despite all the hype and bluster, the court case, and Parliamentary scrutiny, the United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union within the next few few years, and both will rapidly change because of Brexit.
Or will it? We'll see. Once the economic disaster becomes obvious, enough of the public will change their minds. You may be losing faith a little too early Mr TSE.
The only way to reverse the vote would be to hold another one as per the dicktat of the EU if they don't agree with a Nations democracy. Just isn't going to happen
I'm not convinced. Everything could be such a mess with a couple of years or so that there is a popular demand for a change, referendum or not. Who knows? Politics is always more fluid than one thinks.
As A50 will have been served there is no way back
How do we know. No country has ever used it. These international agreements have a habit of being flexible.
Tusk implied as much in his speech outlining the alternative to 'Hard Brexit' was 'No Brexit'.....while he has the measure of our elite, I don't think he has the measure of the country....
Home Affairs Select Committee In a cross-party report agreed unanimously without division, the Home Affairs Committee calls on all political leaders to tackle the growing prevalence of this pernicious form of hate. It notes that "the failure of the Labour Party consistently to deal with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic".....
Shami (now Baroness) Chakrabarti's report into antisemitism in the Labour Party is ultimately compromised by its failure to deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations, to provide a definition of antisemitism, or to suggest effective ways of dealing with antisemitic incidents. In addition, her decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Labour Leader, along with her recent appointment to Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, has thrown into question the independence of the Labour Party's inquiry.
Despite his proud record on fighting racism, the Committee is not persuaded that Mr Corbyn fully appreciates the distinct nature of contemporary antisemitism, and the fact that it is perfectly possible for an 'anti-racist campaigner' to express antisemitic views. His lack of consistent leadership on this issue has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people, exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism.
Shock! Chief Osborne spinner says lay Boris. He weighed up both sides of the argument (albeit with ink) and backed the case he deemed to have more weight.
'an attempt by Johnson to convince himself that the case for staying in was weak...."
Theresa May cannot do what the Remainers want her to do, namely to set out the kind of deal she hopes to reach with the European Union when we leave......
On both occasions, the two opposition parties, Labour and the Tory Remainers (led by Kenneth Clarke, Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Dominic Grieve), demanded that the Prime Minister put her negotiating stance to the Commons for scrutiny and possibly even a vote.
There is no way that she could contemplate doing something so stupid.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Deciding which side to take on an issue of such consequence where your position has huge influence merely on the basis of which way the muse catches you isn't the sign of someone who has done any deep thinking.
The muse? We're not talking about creative writing here.
If a principled politician has done "deep thinking", that will determine the position s/he takes
But I can well believe that an unprincipled politician, who hasn't done much "deep thinging", might prepare two articles arguing different points of view, and then try to judge which plays better with the intended audience.
Is it any bloody wonder people don't go into politics? You try and rationalise the pros and cons of the biggest decision of your political career - and get ordure like this heaped upon you.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Deciding which side to take on an issue of such consequence where your position has huge influence merely on the basis of which way the muse catches you isn't the sign of someone who has done any deep thinking.
The muse? We're not talking about creative writing here.
If a principled politician has done "deep thinking", that will determine the position s/he takes
But I can well believe that an unprincipled politician, who hasn't done much "deep thinging", might prepare two articles arguing different points of view, and then try to judge which plays better with the intended audience.
Is it any bloody wonder people don't go into politics? You try and rationalise the pros and cons of the biggest decision of your political career - and get ordure like this heaped upon you.
He didn't try to rationalise the pros and cons; he tried to evangelise them and looked at the reaction on the faces of his congregation to judge which sermon to preach.
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Deciding which side to take on an issue of such consequence where your position has huge influence merely on the basis of which way the muse catches you isn't the sign of someone who has done any deep thinking.
The muse? We're not talking about creative writing here.
If a principled politician has done "deep thinking", that will determine the position s/he takes
But I can well believe that an unprincipled politician, who hasn't done much "deep thinging", might prepare two articles arguing different points of view, and then try to judge which plays better with the intended audience.
Is it any bloody wonder people don't go into politics? You try and rationalise the pros and cons of the biggest decision of your political career - and get ordure like this heaped upon you.
He didn't try to rationalise the pros and cons; he tried to evangelise them and looked at the reaction on the faces of his congregation to judge which sermon to preach.
Whatever. The only thing of interest in all this is the source for this document. Did he share it with Gove?
So you would never test out a hypothesis that you don't believe in, and then circulate the findings to colleagues saying that the hypothesis was a failure and these are your results?
I am not a subscriber to the Times and I have no intention of becoming one. I have only read what is in the extract above.
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
That's not what happened. Where do you get from the extract that it was circulated? The extract specifies that only one was published.
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Deciding which side to take on an issue of such consequence where your position has huge influence merely on the basis of which way the muse catches you isn't the sign of someone who has done any deep thinking.
The muse? We're not talking about creative writing here.
If a principled politician has done "deep thinking", that will determine the position s/he takes
But I can well believe that an unprincipled politician, who hasn't done much "deep thinging", might prepare two articles arguing different points of view, and then try to judge which plays better with the intended audience.
Is it any bloody wonder people don't go into politics? You try and rationalise the pros and cons of the biggest decision of your political career - and get ordure like this heaped upon you.
He didn't try to rationalise the pros and cons; he tried to evangelise them and looked at the reaction on the faces of his congregation to judge which sermon to preach.
Whatever. The only thing of interest in all this is the source for this document. Did he share it with Gove?
IIRC at the time it was stated Gove helped him sharpen the argument of his LEAVE piece- but AFAIK nothing was said about this one.
re Boris's article. This is old hat. I recall Boris ruminating about his position eight months ago. This article should be read by anyone who thinks Boris is a chancer: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/boris-johnsons-secret-article-not-quite-smoking-gun-critics-hoped/ and by the way I don't think I've ever read such an honest and forensic account of a live policy dilemma by a leading politician. People who call Boris a buffoon or unprincipled are grossly underestimating the man.
Comments
This is where NeverGrammars get a bit evasive....
Mrs May intends to undo all that hard work.
We need fewer grammar schools and more Toby Youngs
In my opinion she should skip it anyway.
At least a kid that didn't get into a grammar school had a chance, however slim, unlike the kids whose parents can't afford a "better" school postcode.
And as to putting your name to opinions you don't believe in, and circulating those opinions for whatever reason - no, I don't believe that is done by people with integrity. People with integrity don't put their names to opinions they don't believe in, whether in the sciences, the arts or any other serious field.
But maybe politicians may put their names to a variety of different courses and circulate them, in order to try to gauge which course may further their careers. In that case they can't complain when the truth comes out.
a) also help the rich
b) seem to help the rich first
c) and do nothing to redress the balance between elite and poor because of lack of aspiration
they will not positively impact on the poor half as much, either as an idea or a reality, as they could or should. This usually happens because of cuts.
Osbornite politics was committed to featherbedding the client vote. It is no better than Brownism for that same very reason.
When IDS is pointing out your budget blunders, you know you're wrong...
The problem is that they do nothing for the 50+% that are left behind. Indeed, they do worse than nothing,
Good news?
Yes.
A sign that it was leaving the Netherlands and moving its headquarters to London?
No.
Comprehensive education fails our best and our worst. It is the ultimate 'managed decline' policy that ought to be abandoned.
It's funny when I was a uni student at the start of the century when fees were first being introduced the NUS etc were actively campaigning that university should be about "ability" and not "ability to pay".
But for schooling going to a better school due to "ability to pay" for a better post code is perfectly acceptable but getting into a better school due to "ability" is anathema.
The real issue is that not how the top 25% of people in the UK do academically. It is that there is a significant minority of people who are utterly failed by the education system. Grammar schools do not solve that problem.
I'd love to see a solution to that problem. Comprehensive v Grammar though is entirely moot.
I really hope my eight year old daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, the local grammar school. But, you know what? She'll do fine whatever happens, If she goes to HB, her chance of going to Oxbridge pribably moves from 10% to 14% or whatever, and that's great.
But the real problem is that we have businesses, like Pret a Manger on Picadilly, that pay 11.50/hour and have no British employees. None.
That's the real disaster. That's the total failure of our education and benefits system.
Bring grammars in by all means. But we truly fail the next 75%, and our utter fixation on grammar schools does them no favours.
I was fortunate my teachers had time for me, out of lessons, and in lessons, on those areas I needed help in.
I hear of state schools with class sizes of 30 plus, and I think, that's not very good for the pupils (or the teacher)
Blocking grammar schools for those with ability and hard work due to those that aren't improved by a comprehensive system is self-defeating. Suggesting grammar schools must first fix an unrelated problem is setting them up to fail.
It is also a total non sequitar.
Do the bottom 75% do better or worse - academically, and career wise - in grammar or comprehensive regions?
Grammar schools also attract private school teachers in a way that comps never have.
If not, go right ahead. You'd be mad not to,
But if it does, you're trying to solve a famine by taking a lucky few to tea at the Ritz.
But, in the spirit of Pret - I prefer the branch opposite Russell Square tube station. The manageress/supervisor is always very jolly - even at 6am on a Sunday.
I want everyone to reach their potential.
And I believe that almost certainly involves academic selection.
But I think this utter myopia regarding grammar schools misses the point. We don't fail the top 25% of academic achievers, but we do fail the next 75%.
In Germany or Switzerland, the incomes of people at the 60% IQ percentile are more than 30% higher than in the UK, and the chance of unemployment or mental illness massively lower.
This is a question of priorities. I believe we need to work first on improving the outcomes of the bottom 75% of academic achievers, because that is where - on any international compare and contrast - that we do disastrously badly.
Time for bed. Some of us grammar school lads have had to work retail jobs today....
Which politicians haven't put their own ambitions ahead of the best interests of the country ?
Tony Blair for one,when he thought he had a chance of becoming EU President and gave away our rebate ?
If it does it may be worth considering.
If not, you're trying to solve a famine by taking an axe to the most successful farmers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe#Land_redistribution
Forgive me, but the concept of putting my name to something I don't believe and circulating it for comment is one that I don't in the least understand. It isn't something I would do, and I would distrust anyone who would do it.
It would suggest to me that that person in question was willing to advocate policies he didn't believe in, if he thought the reaction would be favourable, and the result would be beneficial to him. That sounds to me like an adequate description of a dishonest politician.
The comp nearest me - https://www.schoolguide.co.uk/schools/wales-high-school-sheffield
£12k a year private school (School actually closest to me) - https://www.schoolguide.co.uk/schools/mount-st-marys-college-sheffield
Writing an opposition draft is standard in any form of debating etc let alone while shaping your own thoughts.
Looks a bit short to me.
There's all the difference in the world between (1) writing a balanced summary of the pros and cons (2) writing a pro piece and an anti piece, and running with the one that gets the better reaction.
If a principled politician has done "deep thinking", that will determine the position s/he takes
But I can well believe that an unprincipled politician, who hasn't done much "deep thinging", might prepare two articles arguing different points of view, and then try to judge which plays better with the intended audience.
Chief Osborne spinner says lay Boris.
He weighed up both sides of the argument (albeit with ink) and backed the case he deemed to have more weight.
Home Affairs Select Committee
In a cross-party report agreed unanimously without division, the Home Affairs Committee calls on all political leaders to tackle the growing prevalence of this pernicious form of hate. It notes that "the failure of the Labour Party consistently to deal with antisemitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally anti-Semitic".....
Shami (now Baroness) Chakrabarti's report into antisemitism in the Labour Party is ultimately compromised by its failure to deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations, to provide a definition of antisemitism, or to suggest effective ways of dealing with antisemitic incidents. In addition, her decision to join the Labour Party in April and accept a peerage as a nominee of the Labour Leader, along with her recent appointment to Jeremy Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet, has thrown into question the independence of the Labour Party's inquiry.
Despite his proud record on fighting racism, the Committee is not persuaded that Mr Corbyn fully appreciates the distinct nature of contemporary antisemitism, and the fact that it is perfectly possible for an 'anti-racist campaigner' to express antisemitic views. His lack of consistent leadership on this issue has created what some have referred to as a 'safe space' for those with vile attitudes towards Jewish people, exacerbated by the Party’s demonstrable incompetence at dealing with members accused of antisemitism.
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/news-parliament-2015/antisemitism-report-published-16-17/
Naz Shah
Mr Chuka Umunna
Mr David Winnick
On both occasions, the two opposition parties, Labour and the Tory Remainers (led by Kenneth Clarke, Anna Soubry, Nicky Morgan and Dominic Grieve), demanded that the Prime Minister put her negotiating stance to the Commons for scrutiny and possibly even a vote.
There is no way that she could contemplate doing something so stupid.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-will-probably-get-a-good-brexit-deal-but-nobody-can-say-so-a7363026.html
Ah.. expanding the picture helps!
Because I know a number of Labour members who have their hopes for the future of the Labour Party invested in him.
And because everyone else has had plenty of time to prove they have been a bit rubbish. Starmer has not yet had that time...
This article should be read by anyone who thinks Boris is a chancer:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/boris-johnsons-secret-article-not-quite-smoking-gun-critics-hoped/
and by the way I don't think I've ever read such an honest and forensic account of a live policy dilemma by a leading politician. People who call Boris a buffoon or unprincipled are grossly underestimating the man.