The most enlightening thing is that all the mood music now emanating from the EU is free trade.
It depends on what one means by free trade. I suspect tarriff free trade, at least in a transition, but that is not the same as Single Market Membership.
Hard Brexit remains the default option if no agreement is made in the next 17 months. That is why it is likely. It is always harder to agree than disagree.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Not only would it be political suicide, her party would break apart. Its simply not going to happen.
If we leave with a free trade agreement it is very difficult to see what the upside would be for Labour in pushing this in the future either. Maybe if we didn't get one but even then.
That must be a Freudian slip given who it came from!
Edit - no, it seems deliberate.
However, Rayner is herself also less than honest with statsistics. The reality is of course that in only two counties (off the top of my head) have a compulsory 11-plus. In those counties (like say, Gloucestershire) which have an extensive grammar school system but where selection is not compulsory it is the pushier parents (who tend to be middle class) who put their children in for the exam, and therefore by an astonishing coincidence dominate the intake.
The counties that should be used for statistics are Buckinghamshire and Kent, not the country as a whole.
Point of information (about Bucks at least): the system is opt out, rather than opt in. It is also possible to apply from 'out of county'. It is not actually compulsory, although that is a decent short hand for the effect.
Thank you - so we're down to one unless Kent has a similar system. That out of county system could skew the stats even further.
However, even in the 1960s grammars had a reputation for middle-class dominance (deserved or not).
In my experience from attending a Boys' Grammar School in Pembrokeshire beginning in the mid-1960s, the social background of pupils was largely lower middle class and upper working class. Quite a few farmers' sons were there.
That was my experience a little earlier in South London. Most of the boys came off of the post-war council estates in Battersea, Wandsworth, Clapham and Streatham. There were very few if any scions of professional families. So grammar schools like mine then were not agents of embedding privilege, quite the reverse. Most boys went into the professions and of those who stayed on for the sixth form the overwhelming majority went onto to University with one or two each year gaining an open exhibition to Oxbridge.
Grammar schools then did not screw-over poor children, they provided a cracking education for bright children whose parents could not afford fees. However, the world has changed and the needs of society has changed. We need far more well educated children than grammar schools could ever cope with.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
That must be a Freudian slip given who it came from!
Edit - no, it seems deliberate.
However, Rayner is herself also less than honest with statsistics. The reality is of course that in only two counties (off the top of my head) have a compulsory 11-plus. In those counties (like say, Gloucestershire) which have an extensive grammar school system but where selection is not compulsory it is the pushier parents (who tend to be middle class) who put their children in for the exam, and therefore by an astonishing coincidence dominate the intake.
The counties that should be used for statistics are Buckinghamshire and Kent, not the country as a whole.
Point of information (about Bucks at least): the system is opt out, rather than opt in. It is also possible to apply from 'out of county'. It is not actually compulsory, although that is a decent short hand for the effect.
Thank you - so we're down to one unless Kent has a similar system. That out of county system could skew the stats even further.
However, even in the 1960s grammars had a reputation for middle-class dominance (deserved or not).
In my experience from attending a Boys' Grammar School in Pembrokeshire beginning in the mid-1960s, the social background of pupils was largely lower middle class and upper working class. Quite a few farmers' sons were there.
"The counties that should be used for statistics are Buckinghamshire and Kent, not the country as a whole."
Why ? No one is even remotely suggesting that we replicate their systems across the country. Their statistics will be least illuminating with regard to any policy May might propose.
That must be a Freudian slip given who it came from!
Edit - no, it seems deliberate.
However, Rayner is herself also less than honest with statsistics. The reality is of course that in only two counties (off the top of my head) have a compulsory 11-plus. In those counties (like say, Gloucestershire) which have an extensive grammar school system but where selection is not compulsory it is the pushier parents (who tend to be middle class) who put their children in for the exam, and therefore by an astonishing coincidence dominate the intake.
The counties that should be used for statistics are Buckinghamshire and Kent, not the country as a whole.
Point of information (about Bucks at least): the system is opt out, rather than opt in. It is also possible to apply from 'out of county'. It is not actually compulsory, although that is a decent short hand for the effect.
Thank you - so we're down to one unless Kent has a similar system. That out of county system could skew the stats even further.
However, even in the 1960s grammars had a reputation for middle-class dominance (deserved or not).
In my experience from attending a Boys' Grammar School in Pembrokeshire beginning in the mid-1960s, the social background of pupils was largely lower middle class and upper working class. Quite a few farmers' sons were there.
I was at a grammar in the 70's , we had a mix of students, lots of working class, lots from council estates (inc myself) - I can only really remember 1 lad who came from a reasonably well off family.
I cannot think why other people should not have the chance in life I got from attending a grammar.
Ex council house lad now in top few % of earners, sounds like a good reason to allow them from my POV.
Or don't we want people to aspire to better things nowadays?
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
The main impact of turnout differential will be to lower Melenchon's total and boost Fillon's, Macron and Le Pen's support is more spread across the age groups
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Not only would it be political suicide, her party would break apart. Its simply not going to happen.
If we leave with a free trade agreement it is very difficult to see what the upside would be for Labour in pushing this in the future either. Maybe if we didn't get one but even then.
Personally I doubt we will get a full FTA, certainly not by the time of Brexit in 2019, a few bilateral agreements in a few key sectors with the EU even post the transition period is the most we will get in my view, which leaves returning to the single market at least, even if not the full EU, as an option for Labour and the EU know that
That must be a Freudian slip given who it came from!
Edit - no, it seems deliberate.
However, Rayner is herself also less
The counties that should be used for statistics are Buckinghamshire and Kent, not the country as a whole.
Point of information (about Bucks at least): the system is opt out, rather than opt in. It is also possible to apply from 'out of county'. It is not actually compulsory, although that is a decent short hand for the effect.
Thank you - so we're down to one unless Kent has a similar system. That out of county system could skew the stats even further.
However, even in the 1960s grammars had a reputation for middle-class dominance (deserved or not).
In my experience from attending a Boys' Grammar School in Pembrokeshire beginning in the mid-1960s, the social background of pupils was largely lower middle class and upper working class. Quite a few farmers' sons were there.
That was my experience a little earlier in South London. Most of the boys came off of the post-war council estates in Battersea, Wandsworth, Clapham and Streatham. There were very few if any scions of professional families. So grammar schools like mine then were not agents of embedding privilege, quite the reverse. Most boys went into the professions and of those who stayed on for the sixth form the overwhelming majority went onto to University with one or two each year gaining an open exhibition to Oxbridge.
Grammar schools then did not screw-over poor children, they provided a cracking education for bright children whose parents could not afford fees. However, the world has changed and the needs of society has changed. We need far more well educated children than grammar schools could ever cope with.
In those days there were far fewer professional people, the country as a whole was much more composed of manual workers, and also a far higher percentage lived in council housing. Any figures on SE class of grammar school pupils in the fifties needs to be standardised to the contemporaneous population.
Is there any PBer who went to a Secondary Modern in the fifties who can comment on their schools social mix?
I'm interested to hear if those opposed to education by selection are equally opposed to education by the ability to pay.
Private schools are packed full of idiots with rich parents.
Good for them I say, its all about choice, but the hypocrisy stinks.
I sincerely hope my daughter gets into Henrietta Barnett, as she would get a staggeringly good education for free.
I also believe that the Grammar / Secondary Modern split that exists in Buckinghamshire and Kent fails the poorest*.
* It also fails those born in August relative to those born in September. As a late August baby that worries me.
As someone who passed the 11plus in Spring 1965, I recall being told by primary schoolmasters that some allowance was made for when a pupil had been born in terms of the academic year. No idea as to whether that was really true.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage... I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
That seems increasingly the case, from reading the educational press - but I think it likely there will be a package of new compulsory admissions rules as part of any May policy.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
Also, BBC livefeed of practice reckons we'll see a lot of development. Hope Red Bull can excel in that area (they tend to be quite good at development).
@Morris_Dancer and other F1 fans - I've just watched last weekend's Grand Prix of Long Beach in the IndyCar series. It puts F1 to shame. They still have refuelling in IndyCar and the race was a strategic battle between the two stoppers and three stoppers which is what we used to get in F1.
The only thing I don't like about IndyCar is they shut the pit lane when there is a safety car so it penalises those have not already stopped (as was the case in F1 in 2007 and 2008). But for those with BT Sport I would highly recommend watching it.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
When you have the 4 main candidates separated by 3% points and a fairly large number of "don't knows" or "won't says" it really is anyone's. Probably a market to lay rather than one to pick a winner in.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage... I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
That seems increasingly the case, from reading the educational press - but I think it likely there will be a package of new compulsory admissions rules as part of any May policy.
Presumably 3rd children from poor families would have a very high rate of FSM and PP, just would have problems affording uniform. The Tories give with one hand and take with the other.
It is very likely that if there is priority for poor kids in deprived areas then the intake would heavily be from second and third generation immigarants. Probably a good thing for integration, but perhaps less so for Tory voters in leafy suburbs and shires.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
Fillon must have hide of a rhinoceros to have stuck it out.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage... I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
That seems increasingly the case, from reading the educational press - but I think it likely there will be a package of new compulsory admissions rules as part of any May policy.
Presumably 3rd children from poor families would have a very high rate of FSM and PP, just would have problems affording uniform. The Tories give with one hand and take with the other.
It is very likely that if there is priority for poor kids in deprived areas then the intake would heavily be from second and tbird generation immigarants. Probably a good thong for integration, but perhaps less so for Tory voters in leafy suburbs and shires.
Personally I doubt we will get a full FTA, certainly not by the time of Brexit in 2019, a few bilateral agreements in a few key sectors with the EU even post the transition period is the most we will get in my view, which leaves returning to the single market at least, even if not the full EU, as an option for Labour and the EU know that
Corbyn's speech yesterday reads very much like someone looking forward to leaving the EU. British contracts for British companies.
We'll end up with something better than Canada because the EU's usual barriers on FTA's (auto/agriculture) are far more damaging to them than us.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
When you have the 4 main candidates separated by 3% points and a fairly large number of "don't knows" or "won't says" it really is anyone's. Probably a market to lay rather than one to pick a winner in.
MOE goes both ways, Macron and LePen are as likely to be clearly ahead by 6% as being in third place.
Considering matters French, HYUFD and I had a discussion the other day about the likelihood of Fillon reaching the last two. The strong performance by HYUFD among the 65+ age group (Fillon polling 37% according to IFOP) was used as an argument he (Fillon) might make the last two at the expense of Macron.
I argued Fillon's strong 37% polling among 65+ was in marked contrast to the 14% of Le Pen among the same age group and a disproportionately high turnout of the 65+ group would damage Le Pen rather than Macron and enhanced the likelihood of a Macron-Fillon run off.
Looking at the demographic balance of France which isn't too dissimilar to the UK (our figures in brackets):
In fact, there are slightly more older people in France than in the UK yet we argue (and polls show us) the overwhelming dominance of the Conservatives among older voters gives the blues an in-built advantage.
In France, it seems more complex and while Fillon polls well among older voters, it's not enough to overcome his poor showing among younger voters and the contrasts are stark with Le Pen who polls so much better (28% with the 55-64 age group).
I still think a Macron-Fillon run off is more likely than the odds suggest.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
The turnout differential is big enough to see Melenchon underperform his polling and Fillon outperform his
Mr. G, that turnout would suggest Macron's lower (than Fillon/Le Pen's) certainty to vote figure might not be as big a problem as it would be here.
The certainty to vote figures attributed to each candidate are not just certainty to vote in the election per se. They also reflect the certainty of not switching to another candidate. So in that respect, Macrons low certainty to vote figure is still a real factor.
Edit - That is the way I read the certainty to vote figure anyway. I may be wrong
Personally I doubt we will get a full FTA, certainly not by the time of Brexit in 2019, a few bilateral agreements in a few key sectors with the EU even post the transition period is the most we will get in my view, which leaves returning to the single market at least, even if not the full EU, as an option for Labour and the EU know that
Corbyn's speech yesterday reads very much like someone looking forward to leaving the EU. British contracts for British companies.
We'll end up with something better than Canada because the EU's usual barriers on FTA's (auto/agriculture) are far more damaging to them than us.
Corbyn maybe but the likes of Umunna, Starmer and Cooper etc would far rather the UK at least stayed in the single market
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
You make that sound like a bad thing, Doc.
I think it probably a good thing for all of Ireland.
Mr. 86, I used to really like refuelling in F1. The BBC had a brilliant Mole column, who basically analysed car weights and said how much fuel they had had in qualifying so you could then predict pit stop strategies in the race. I had some good results in 2009 (first year I started doing race-by-race tips).
Wish they'd bring it back but I don't think they will.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage... I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in Kent, but I think that individual grammars are perfectly defensible as part of a pluralist system.
The other point about existing statistics so frequently quoted is that they do not differentiate between the old style Kent system (where there is a kind of educational apartheid of the kind which created the resentment that destroyed the post war consensus), and the majority of England where there are relatively few surviving grammars.
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
That seems increasingly the case, from reading the educational press - but I think it likely there will be a package of new compulsory admissions rules as part of any May policy.
Presumably 3rd children from poor families would have a very high rate of FSM and PP, just would have problems affording uniform. The Tories give with one hand and take with the other.
It is very likely that if there is priority for poor kids in deprived areas then the intake would heavily be from second and third generation immigarants. Probably a good thing for integration, but perhaps less so for Tory voters in leafy suburbs and shires.
Most people are happy with the few existing grammars but don't necessarily want more. If there are to be more the government has to make efforts to ensure the new ones include a broader social mix
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
The turnout differential is big enough to see Melenchon underperform his polling and Fillon outperform his
Presumably polling companies already take this sort of differential into account when weighting their figures to produce the poll result in the first place.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
It would certainly be a remarkable irony if Irish unification took place because enough people decided they wished to live in a more left wing society than a right wing UK.
Something to bear in mind is that the turnout in French election is a lot higher than with UK elections, around 80% in 2012. Therefore the differential in the gap between younger and older voters will not be so great in France as it is in the UK
I've been thinking that too. The reason that our political parties fall over themselves to bribe pensioners is that they vote disproportionately. In France, not so much. I am not persuaded that Fillon's advantage is as significant as it would be here.
It is an easy mistake to make, to apply our way of thinking about UK elections (with which we are more familiar) to French Presidential elections. Not only is the turnout quite different, the voting system is different and Presidential elections appear to be as much, if not more, about personality than policies. That would favour Melenchon as he is regarded as the most popular politician in France in a recent poll.
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
When you have the 4 main candidates separated by 3% points and a fairly large number of "don't knows" or "won't says" it really is anyone's. Probably a market to lay rather than one to pick a winner in.
MOE goes both ways, Macron and LePen are as likely to be clearly ahead by 6% as being in third place.
F1: reminder not to take P1/P3 times that seriously as they happen during daylight, whereas P2, qualifying and the race are in twilight/nocturnal conditions and the temperature variance is significant.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage... I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
That seems increasingly the case, from reading the educational press - but I think it likely there will be a package of new compulsory admissions rules as part of any May policy.
Presumably 3rd children from poor families would have a very high rate of FSM and PP, just would have problems affording uniform. The Tories give with one hand and take with the other.
It is very likely that if there is priority for poor kids in deprived areas then the intake would heavily be from second and third generation immigarants. Probably a good thing for integration, but perhaps less so for Tory voters in leafy suburbs and shires.
Most people are happy with the few existing grammars but don't necessarily want more. If there are to be more the government has to make efforts to ensure the new ones include a broader social mix
In this I am rather socially conservative. The biggest bar to WWC and Afro-carribean boys doing well at school is the lack of male role models with an education and work ethic. Not a problem for most second generation migrants, and not something fixed by an 11 plus. Indeed as finances are a major cause of relationship breakdown, likely to worsen with the new ChB rules.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance. The split on those entitled to free school meals is an inevitable consequence of this and mucking around with the definitions is not going to help.
Having had this substantial advantage this is then enhanced by better teachers teaching in an environment that is more conducive to learning and where the ethos is positively directed to learning. The result is that the differential in performance between those who get in and those who don't goes from large to massive creating a level of difference that is unlikely to be overcome in the rest of the child's life.
I have sought to give my children this advantage by sending them to a private school and I can understand why some might think this unfair or not create an equal society. Personally, the answer to that is tough. I am willing to spend the money to give them their best chance in life.
But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
That's one view. Another is that the likely price of getting the policy through parliament will likely mean significant changes to the admissions policies of existing grammars to promote social mobility (e.g. priority for FSM pupils). Couple this with the fact that the number of new grammars is likely to be quite small, and the overall effects of the policy are likely to be marginally beneficial even from the perspective of those opposed to existing grammars.
The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
If the proposed National Funding Formula is implemented, it significantly amplifies the impact of additional funding given to disadvantaged kids (the Pupil Premium). In the school of which I am a Governor, a Y11 pupil with no disadvantages will see a cut in funding of 12% under the new rules, a pupil who left primary school with poor attainment will see a 13% uplift.
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
The evidence is pretty clear that grammar schools have been/are bad for social mobility. But that doesn't necessarily mean that more grammar schools will be similarly bad. Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment. Maybe by making alterations the policy can be improved and made to work.
That's the line i would take to defend grammar schools policy.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
It would certainly be a remarkable irony if Irish unification took place because enough people decided they wished to live in a more left wing society than a right wing UK.
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
If you want a really chilling example of evidence-free government innovation, read the white paper that preceded the Lansley health reforms..
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
If you want a really chilling example of evidence-free government innovation, read the white paper that preceded the Lansley health reforms..
Yes... And i think no one would say that they worked as intended.
But there is a danger that if you only do evidence based things... Then you actually restrict your set of options to a narrower subset of what is well understood and studied which may not produce the outcomes you need.
“The student has been brutally murdered by his fellow students,” said Niaz Saeed, a senior police official. “He was badly tortured after being shot at a close range… He was beaten with sticks, bricks and hands,” Saeed said, adding that hundreds of people had been involved in the attack.
A university official who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed teachers had been forced to intervene in the debate “in a bid to save him and his two other friends, but the mob of students attacked the room and tortured and killed him.” Khan was “disliked by other students for being liberal and secular and not following a religious code of life and not attending Friday prayers,” the official said.
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
The evidence is pretty clear that grammar schools have been/are bad for social mobility. But that doesn't necessarily mean that more grammar schools will be similarly bad. Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment. Maybe by making alterations the policy can be improved and made to work.
That's the line i would take to defend grammar schools policy.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
If Grammar schools were only available in poor areas, that may benefit poor kids as well as raising property prices. The best comprehensives in the richer parts of the country select by wealth. There is probably no way round that.
I didn't go to a Grammar school, but would like to have had the opportunity to.
Mr. 86, I used to really like refuelling in F1. The BBC had a brilliant Mole column, who basically analysed car weights and said how much fuel they had had in qualifying so you could then predict pit stop strategies in the race. I had some good results in 2009 (first year I started doing race-by-race tips).
Wish they'd bring it back but I don't think they will.
As I understand it F1 think it's too expensive to drag refuelling equipment around the world. IndyCar is a bit more rough and ready, but it certainly has better racing.
Grammar schools fortify privilege and class division because they accentuate the natural advantages that come from having parents who are well educated themselves, think education is important and are willing to dig into their own pockets to ensure that their child has every chance... But why should general taxation encourage such division in society or give such unfair advantages to those who are already overwhelmingly coming from an advantageous background? I really cannot see the justification. Grammars are theoretically a good thing but in practice divisive and embed privilege. I really wish the government would back off and leave this alone.
...The real justification for grammars (IMO, and FWIW), is that the price of holding back the very brightest kids is significant. I certainly don't think it justifies a full scale old style bipartite (the system was never really tripartite) system as still persists in
The school I teach at already has qualification for FSM as a point in favour for admission. Pupils who come with pupil premium are always welcome at any school.
If the proposed National Funding Formula is implemented, it significantly amplifies the impact of additional funding given to disadvantaged kids (the Pupil Premium). In the school of which I am a Governor, a Y11 pupil with no disadvantages will see a cut in funding of 12% under the new rules, a pupil who left primary school with poor attainment will see a 13% uplift.
There are some good arguments for the NFF, but implementing during years when there is a simultaneous general squeeze on school funding is going to be very painful indeed for quite a large number of schools. School planning must be a bit of a nightmare at the moment.
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
If you want a really chilling example of evidence-free government innovation, read the white paper that preceded the Lansley health reforms..
Yes... And i think no one would say that they worked as intended.
But there is a danger that if you only do evidence based things... Then you actually restrict your set of options to a narrower subset of what is well understood and studied which may not produce the outcomes you need.
Agreed; I'm a strong believer in a pluralist system, with a fair degree of autonomy for schools (or groups of schools).
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
It would certainly be a remarkable irony if Irish unification took place because enough people decided they wished to live in a more left wing society than a right wing UK.
Is Ireland more left wing than UK?
I'd say there's quite a strong trend in societies that were historically very conservatively Catholic, like Wallonia, Massachussets, Quebec, to adopt left wing politics when they abandon religious belief, and I think Ireland is moving in that direction.
Most of these people are in Market St. It is a short street running up to Picadilly. Some of ygese reports sound lke Manchester is undergoing the zombie apocalypse.
O/T but German polls are now showing the CDU pulling away from the SPD, with the CDU, FPD, and AFD polling above 50% in total.
Is the FDP above the 5% threshold? It did seam to be stuck on 3-4% for a long time, which IIRC meant that it did not get any seats under the German form of PR.
O/T but German polls are now showing the CDU pulling away from the SPD, with the CDU, FPD, and AFD polling above 50% in total.
Is the FDP above the 5% threshold? It did seam to be stuck on 3-4% for a long time, which IIRC meant that it did not get any seats under the German form of PR.
Averaging 5-7% now. Centre-right voters won't make the mistake of shutting them out this time.
On current polling, a left wing coalition would be impossible.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Ireland now faces it's Brexit dilemma - is the country solely run for the benefit of the well off in the capital? Where does Ireland do it's trade?
I think Ireland will stick with the EU because:
1. The EU is broadly popular, and Ireland has prospered over the last two decades 2. Ireland is in the Euro, and leaving that adds an extra layer of complication 3. There are a lot of US firms with substantial Irish presences, because it is a low tax, low regulation and low cost entry point into the EU (and they speak English). A lot of them would go. 4. If you look at what Ireland exports you don't see a lot of agricultural products - it's less than 5% of the total.
Even some Ulster Unionists are considering whether being part of the larger (EU) union is better than being part of the smaller rUK Union. Paticularly so if rUK without Scotland.
Overall, about 75% of Unionists voted Leave. Few of the 25% have any desire to join the Republic. But, Alex Kane is surely right that Brexit creates both challenges and opportunities for Unionists.
He seems a thoughtful fellow, and voted Brexit himself as well as being a Unionist in the NI sense, but nonetheless went to speak as a Sein Fein conference on how RoI would have to change to make a united Ireland a possibility.
I don't think most Unionists would find a left-wing secular Irish Republic much more appealing than the State created by De Valera. In general, their outlook is similar to that of right wing Conservatives and UKIP.
His point is that it would only take around 20% of the current Unionist population to see a devolved NI within a secular Ireland and in the EU as better than being in rUK to win a border poll.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Not only would it be political suicide, her party would break apart. Its simply not going to happen.
You seem to be suffering from the illusion the Tory party unity and Theresa May's career are compelling drivers of world events. They are not.
@stodge , @Hyufd . Thank you for your discussion earlier in this thread about French Presidential 2017[1] which I found interesting. I agree with your points which were closely argued. But I also note that you did not point to a *definite* conclusion that person X would win, instead adding caveats and words like "tight". I think @DavidL has a valid point that in a market this tight, any bet on a winner (as opposed to a value bet) would be a classic gamble.
[1] Much better than the usual Brexit bobbins, btw...
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Not only would it be political suicide, her party would break apart. Its simply not going to happen.
You seem to be suffering from the illusion the Tory party unity and Theresa May's career are compelling drivers of world events. They are not.
You seem to be suffering under the illusion that political realities do not drive national politics - many are the times political parties push moves well past the point they should, because they need to to remain united, to win elections. May has shown herself to be as shy of any hint of rebellion as any PM, and politics, particularly partisan politics, is full of taking poor choices rather than face up to difficulty, or tell the public a change in course is needed.
You seem to be suffering from the illusion the Tory party unity and Theresa May's career are compelling drivers of world events. They are not.
You seem to be suffering under the illusion that political realities do not drive national politics - many are the times political parties push moves well past the point they should, because they need to to remain united, to win elections. May has shown herself to be as shy of any hint of rebellion as any PM, and politics, particularly partisan politics, is full of taking poor choices rather than face up to difficulty, or tell the public a change in course is needed.
Political expediency can only trump reality when there is a way of kicking the can down the road. The article 50 process does not allow that to happen. The pressure will build until the political case for Brexit is blown apart and the Tory Europobes will have to face up to 40 wasted years.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Not only would it be political suicide, her party would break apart. Its simply not going to happen.
You seem to be suffering from the illusion the Tory party unity and Theresa May's career are compelling drivers of world events. They are not.
You seem to be suffering under the illusion that political realities do not drive national politics - many are the times political parties push moves well past the point they should, because they need to to remain united, to win elections. May has shown herself to be as shy of any hint of rebellion as any PM, and politics, particularly partisan politics, is full of taking poor choices rather than face up to difficulty, or tell the public a change in course is needed.
Political expediency can only trump reality when there is a way of kicking the can down the road. The article 50 process does not allow that to happen. The pressure will build until the political case for Brexit is blown apart and the Tory Europobes will have to face up to 40 wasted years.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
I've always thought The Purge was unfairly overlooked as an option...
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
I've always thought The Purge was unfairly overlooked as an option...
Lindsay Anderson's 'If' is perhaps a more targeted solution ?
O/T but German polls are now showing the CDU pulling away from the SPD, with the CDU, FPD, and AFD polling above 50% in total.
Is the FDP above the 5% threshold? It did seam to be stuck on 3-4% for a long time, which IIRC meant that it did not get any seats under the German form of PR.
Averaging 5-7% now. Centre-right voters won't make the mistake of shutting them out this time.
On current polling, a left wing coalition would be impossible.
Thanks for the Update, Shan.
For what its worth, I see the FDP as being Moderately Libertarian/classical Liberals, and improve whichever government they join.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Wouldn't it be easier just to shoot the 7%, in order to create opportunities for the rest?
Since a wise man like you is proposing this, it should be given serious thought.
Given that there has been no consolidation of support behind Brexit and we haven't even started to face up to the hard choices yet, and seen the real betrayal of those who believed in the promises of the campaign, I think I'm on safe ground once you strip away any rhetorical excess.
Read Justine Greening's speech yesterday... she admits "We don’t have the nuts and bolts - the information - we need...to provide a clearer analysis of the situation. Of how these children of ordinary working people are faring in our education system". Yet, in almost the same breath she declares that more grammar schools are the solution.
The evidence is pretty clear that grammar schools have been/are bad for social mobility. But that doesn't necessarily mean that more grammar schools will be similarly bad. Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment. Maybe by making alterations the policy can be improved and made to work.
That's the line i would take to defend grammar schools policy.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
If Grammar schools were only available in poor areas, that may benefit poor kids as well as raising property prices. The best comprehensives in the richer parts of the country select by wealth. There is probably no way round that.
I didn't go to a Grammar school, but would like to have had the opportunity to.
I suspect that's not what will happen - but at least you are making an attempt to engage with the evidence and adjust the policy.
You seem to be suffering from the illusion the Tory party unity and Theresa May's career are compelling drivers of world events. They are not.
You seem to be suffering under the illusion that political realities do not drive national politics - many are the times political parties push moves well past the point they should, because they need to to remain united, to win elections. May has shown herself to be as shy of any hint of rebellion as any PM, and politics, particularly partisan politics, is full of taking poor choices rather than face up to difficulty, or tell the public a change in course is needed.
Political expediency can only trump reality when there is a way of kicking the can down the road. The article 50 process does not allow that to happen. The pressure will build until the political case for Brexit is blown apart and the Tory Europobes will have to face up to 40 wasted years.
The political case for Brexit is no more capable of being blown apart than the scientific case that heavier than air machines are capable of flight, because we had a vote about it. There were many campaigning opportunities prior to the vote.
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day. "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward." "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!" "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple. "I won't!" said Alice. "Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved. "Who cares for you?" said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
"I see no good reason..." Well there is the personal freedom argument - and also the overseas earnings, as quite a large slug of students are foreign.
O/T but German polls are now showing the CDU pulling away from the SPD, with the CDU, FPD, and AFD polling above 50% in total.
Is the FDP above the 5% threshold? It did seam to be stuck on 3-4% for a long time, which IIRC meant that it did not get any seats under the German form of PR.
Averaging 5-7% now. Centre-right voters won't make the mistake of shutting them out this time.
On current polling, a left wing coalition would be impossible.
Thanks for the Update, Shan.
For what its worth, I see the FDP as being Moderately Libertarian/classical Liberals, and improve whichever government they join.
Rather stupidly, the CDU set out to maximise their vote share in 2013, resulting in their FDP allies just falling under 5%, and narrowly costing the centre right a majority.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
Not going to happen. We will not accept freedom of movement nor supranationality of jurisdiction. The government has been crystal clear that these are both red lines for them and rightly so.
Let us be clear Mr L - the Norway option is a stupid one. It is a really one-sided EU membership and way worse than what we have now.
But it is way, way, way better than diamond hard brexit - which is why realpolitik may win out in the end.
Well I am glad we agree on Norway.
I expect us to have a free trade arrangement, to be out of the customs union (which will create some paperwork for exports with imported components), to have special transitional arrangements allowing easy access of EU citizens to the UK, possibly with some minimum earning requirement, to have an acceptable equivalence to UK and EU financial regulation, to continue working with the EU on security, aviation, IP rights and possibly a few other things (which will include continuing to pay our share of the cost of such things) and generally for this to seem a bit of a damp squib in the short to medium term. I don't see diamond hard Brexits as the alternative, not at all.
Given the Norway option requires no new controls on free movement and no reductions in contributions to the EU I cannot see May agreeing to it without committing political suicide. However it may be an option for a future Labour government if they finally move on from Corbynism
Not only would it be political suicide, her party would break apart. Its simply not going to happen.
You seem to be suffering from the illusion the Tory party unity and Theresa May's career are compelling drivers of world events. They are not.
They are compelling drivers of UK government policy, for now, though.
Given that there has been no consolidation of support behind Brexit and we haven't even started to face up to the hard choices yet, and seen the real betrayal of those who believed in the promises of the campaign, I think I'm on safe ground once you strip away any rhetorical excess.
I don't want to be rude, but I think you're just trying to pretend to yourself that defeat is really victory. Brexit is the new normal.
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
"I see no good reason..." Well there is the personal freedom argument - and also the overseas earnings, as quite a large slug of students are foreign.
Personal freedoms in practice are restricted when the interests of society as a whole demand it - ie firearm possession - use of recreational drugs etc. On the whole. I think it would be a 'price worth paying' - and am inclined to say the same about Health and the Justice system.
Interesting article about a (newly alarming) piece of history:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/04/able_archer_almost_started_a_nuclear_war_with_russia_in_1983.html Reagan did not see these approaches as contradictory. He believed that candor about America’s intentions, which he saw as self-apparently noble, and candor about Soviet intentions, which he believed were obviously nefarious, would show the communists that aggression was futile and that their system of government was ultimately doomed, thus ending the Cold War. It is one of the Reagan administration’s greatest ironies that his effort at clarity so confused the Soviet Union that in 1983 its leaders became convinced the United States was planning a nuclear first strike...
With bleakly amusing (if you're not a resident) detail: (Both sides embraced the idea of “nuclear signaling” during the Cold War. According to David Abshire, the U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, the Americans’ preferred “signal city” was Kiev and the Soviets’ was Boston.)
@DavidL - I don't see how societal divisions are acceptable if parents are prepared to pay for it out of their own pockets. Perhaps we should abolish state education, and then those without kids can save some money and those with kids can vote with their feet as to what kind of education they want for their children.
I think societal divisions that arise from parents paying out of their own pockets are an inevitable consequence of having a free society where we are able to choose our priorities with our own resources and that the alternatives are worse but I don't deny they cause problems. I just don't see why the State should add to those problems.
Many argue that society would benefit from depriving the wealthy 7% of the right to buy great advantage for their offspring, whilst at the same time doing great damage to the vast majority who lack the resources to be able to consider such an option. I can well understand why those who belong to the powerful elite would wish to self perpetuate their positions, but see no good reason why everybody else should tolerate it.I suspect that most private schools have little impact beyond those who attend them, but the continued existence of the Top Public Schools - Eton - Harrow- Winchester - Westminster - Haileybury et al - imposes massive social costs via the networks they seek to sustain.
The rich and powerful will be rich and powerful with or without private schools and will seek to help their offspring regardless. You may succeed in pushing them to using private tuition and expensive activities after school with the 'right sort' of kids but you won't manage to stop them passing on massive advantages by banning private schools. Certainly we should tax them as the businesses they are.
O/T but German polls are now showing the CDU pulling away from the SPD, with the CDU, FPD, and AFD polling above 50% in total.
Is the FDP above the 5% threshold? It did seam to be stuck on 3-4% for a long time, which IIRC meant that it did not get any seats under the German form of PR.
Averaging 5-7% now. Centre-right voters won't make the mistake of shutting them out this time.
On current polling, a left wing coalition would be impossible.
Thanks for the Update, Shan.
For what its worth, I see the FDP as being Moderately Libertarian/classical Liberals, and improve whichever government they join.
Rather stupidly, the CDU set out to maximise their vote share in 2013, resulting in their FDP allies just falling under 5%, and narrowly costing the centre right a majority.
Bit like our Tories in 2015. I wonder whether the FDP, assuming the get over the 5%, will be prepared to back the CDU in government. Can’t see Farron being prepared to have much to do with the Tories if there’s a hung parliament next time.
Interesting article about a (newly alarming) piece of history:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/04/able_archer_almost_started_a_nuclear_war_with_russia_in_1983.html Reagan did not see these approaches as contradictory. He believed that candor about America’s intentions, which he saw as self-apparently noble, and candor about Soviet intentions, which he believed were obviously nefarious, would show the communists that aggression was futile and that their system of government was ultimately doomed, thus ending the Cold War. It is one of the Reagan administration’s greatest ironies that his effort at clarity so confused the Soviet Union that in 1983 its leaders became convinced the United States was planning a nuclear first strike...
With bleakly amusing (if you're not a resident) detail: (Both sides embraced the idea of “nuclear signaling” during the Cold War. According to David Abshire, the U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, the Americans’ preferred “signal city” was Kiev and the Soviets’ was Boston.)
This was the basis for a gripping television drama - Deutchland 83 - about a year ago on Channel 4.
Comments
Hard Brexit remains the default option if no agreement is made in the next 17 months. That is why it is likely. It is always harder to agree than disagree.
If we leave with a free trade agreement it is very difficult to see what the upside would be for Labour in pushing this in the future either. Maybe if we didn't get one but even then.
Grammar schools then did not screw-over poor children, they provided a cracking education for bright children whose parents could not afford fees. However, the world has changed and the needs of society has changed. We need far more well educated children than grammar schools could ever cope with.
Why ?
No one is even remotely suggesting that we replicate their systems across the country. Their statistics will be least illuminating with regard to any policy May might propose.
I cannot think why other people should not have the chance in life I got from attending a grammar.
Ex council house lad now in top few % of earners, sounds like a good reason to allow them from my POV.
Or don't we want people to aspire to better things nowadays?
http://dataviz.ifop.com:8080/IFOP_ROLLING/IFOP_13-04-2017.pdf.
The main impact of turnout differential will be to lower Melenchon's total and boost Fillon's, Macron and Le Pen's support is more spread across the age groups
Is there any PBer who went to a Secondary Modern in the fifties who can comment on their schools social mix?
I don't think that the advantage Fillon has with older voters is going to be very significant. However, I am wary of shy Fillon support. I am sure there are at least one or two per cent who will vote for him but will be wary of admitting that to pollsters, given his alleged wrong-doings.
In an ever tightening race, one or two per cent of shy Fillon voters can make all the difference.
Also, BBC livefeed of practice reckons we'll see a lot of development. Hope Red Bull can excel in that area (they tend to be quite good at development).
The only thing I don't like about IndyCar is they shut the pit lane when there is a safety car so it penalises those have not already stopped (as was the case in F1 in 2007 and 2008). But for those with BT Sport I would highly recommend watching it.
It is very likely that if there is priority for poor kids in deprived areas then the intake would heavily be from second and third generation immigarants. Probably a good thing for integration, but perhaps less so for Tory voters in leafy suburbs and shires.
a good thong for integration
The mind boggles.
We'll end up with something better than Canada because the EU's usual barriers on FTA's (auto/agriculture) are far more damaging to them than us.
When does the French poll ban start?
Edit - That is the way I read the certainty to vote figure anyway. I may be wrong
Wish they'd bring it back but I don't think they will.
Did anybody read about the plan to start very lo cost Private Schools in the UK? £2,600 per year?
https://capx.co/how-to-liberate-education-from-the-states-stifling-grip/
it sounds similar to a chain that has started in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOJiayZoNDI&t=13s&index=1&list=PLBuns9Evn1w9niUHq6ywpV0c3jmtQGZ9w
I don't know if it will work, and if it does it may just cater for a small market.
But it does have the petechial to shake things up and I for one wish them well.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that more grammar schools will be similarly bad. Government should be prepared to do things we don't have evidence for, to innovate and experiment. Maybe by making alterations the policy can be improved and made to work.
That's the line i would take to defend grammar schools policy.
Regrettably this government is just fiddling the statistics and ignoring the evidence because it is doesn't fit their beliefs.
Pre-qualifying article should be up late tomorrow (probably around 1-2pm).
Labour - what a fecking mess.
You don't say :-)
But there is a danger that if you only do evidence based things... Then you actually restrict your set of options to a narrower subset of what is well understood and studied which may not produce the outcomes you need.
http://newsweekpakistan.com/student-mob-in-mardan-beats-liberal-classmate-to-death/
“The student has been brutally murdered by his fellow students,” said Niaz Saeed, a senior police official. “He was badly tortured after being shot at a close range… He was beaten with sticks, bricks and hands,” Saeed said, adding that hundreds of people had been involved in the attack.
A university official who spoke on condition of anonymity confirmed teachers had been forced to intervene in the debate “in a bid to save him and his two other friends, but the mob of students attacked the room and tortured and killed him.” Khan was “disliked by other students for being liberal and secular and not following a religious code of life and not attending Friday prayers,” the official said.
I didn't go to a Grammar school, but would like to have had the opportunity to.
School planning must be a bit of a nightmare at the moment.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3323596/support-for-brexit-is-as-strong-as-ever-with-new-poll-revealing-majority-of-brits-think-we-were-right-to-leave-the-eu/
Sorry if this has been posted already. Still no sign of Bregret!
https://twitter.com/thesun/status/852846902517301248
' Experts have predicted big gains for both the Conservatives and LibDems, with Labour suffering losses of up to 50 seats. '
The difference between these predictions and what's going to happen in three weeks is getting bigger.
What effect that will have on Corbyn's leadership and the reputations of these experts we'll have to see.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/14/parody-real-thing-bake-viewers-unimpressed-picture-new-line/
Blenkinsop is a liar not many constituents welcome him at their door, I saw an old Woman throw a branch at him and tell him to p*** off
On current polling, a left wing coalition would be impossible.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3331446/jeremy-corbyn-comes-around-to-brexit-and-says-cutting-ties-with-the-eu-can-give-more-powers-to-support-businesses/
[1] Much better than the usual Brexit bobbins, btw...
For what its worth, I see the FDP as being Moderately Libertarian/classical Liberals, and improve whichever government they join.
"Let the jury consider their verdict," the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
"No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence first–verdict afterward."
"Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!"
"Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple.
"I won't!" said Alice.
"Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
"Who cares for you?" said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) "You're nothing but a pack of cards!"
"I see no good reason..."
Well there is the personal freedom argument - and also the overseas earnings, as quite a large slug of students are foreign.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/cover_story/2017/04/able_archer_almost_started_a_nuclear_war_with_russia_in_1983.html
Reagan did not see these approaches as contradictory. He believed that candor about America’s intentions, which he saw as self-apparently noble, and candor about Soviet intentions, which he believed were obviously nefarious, would show the communists that aggression was futile and that their system of government was ultimately doomed, thus ending the Cold War. It is one of the Reagan administration’s greatest ironies that his effort at clarity so confused the Soviet Union that in 1983 its leaders became convinced the United States was planning a nuclear first strike...
With bleakly amusing (if you're not a resident) detail:
(Both sides embraced the idea of “nuclear signaling” during the Cold War. According to David Abshire, the U.S. ambassador to NATO at the time, the Americans’ preferred “signal city” was Kiev and the Soviets’ was Boston.)