Good to know the PM takes advice from someone who wrote this just over a year ago:
So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months. So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others.
Good to know the PM takes advice from someone who wrote this just over a year ago:
So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months. So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others.
Not really if we exit fully on the 29th March 2019 but of course that would be undesirable. However, it should be the objective for the end of the transition deal which everyone seems to think is likely
How anyone who treads this account can believe people like May and Davis should be given virtually unlimited powers to by-pass Parliament when making laws is beyond me.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
He won Lefty London twice, in 2008 and 2012. He was the reason my hand hovered over the Tory box for the very first time in 2008
Yes, he is also the best candidate to sell Brexit Britain after we leave in 2019 after all he was the principal campaigner for it
Cameron and Osborne's work in detoxifying the Tory Party was a long from complete. Arguably they should have given it a higher priority but no doubt they thought they had more time.
Cameron and Osborne toxified the Conservative party with everyone who graduates £50,000 in debt and with everyone who reaches 30 still renting a room.
They toxified the Conservative party with everyone who were told that net immigration would be reduced to the tens of thousands, who were told that Britain would have a "march of the makers", who were told that "we're all in this together", who were told that there would be no more Middle Eastern warmongering.
The grant situation is unsustainable and unacceptable. Where the money is going to come from to do something about it I really don't know. The deficit is going up again already.
The fundamental problem is the insistence that 50% of people should go to university.
That's an entirely arbitrary number.
The state should support those courses that it thinks add value to society. These will most likely be vocational (eg teacher training, nursing) or STEM, or a small number of purely academic pursuits for the most intelligent.
Beyond that anyone who wants to go to university and is willing to pay for it can.
But I don't understand why the state should pay for someone to spend three years enjoying themselves at the taxpayers expense while doing a degree that will add marginal value either to them or to society as a whole. That just seems to be an inefficient use of resources.
I doubt if more than 20% or so would benefit from going to university.
20% would put us substantially lower than our economic competitors, in the same ballpark as developing countries such as Mexico. Notably the only EU country in that range is Italy, not particularly a country we should emulate economically.
What we really need is for those degree courses to be well taught, contain useful content, and for the country to produce graduate level jobs. If the Swiss and South Koreans and others can do this, then why cannot we? Are Britons thicker than other nations?
How anyone who treads this account can believe people like May and Davis should be given virtually unlimited powers to by-pass Parliament when making laws is beyond me.
Given his record Davis is one of the few people in Parliament I might trust with them. But as a basic principle no one should be given such powers
Do you honestly think it was good ? When they had 20% poll leads , many on here me included saying it was a forgone conclusion.many predictions over 100 majority.Why not give us your insight rather inane bar charts.
You should rejoice that Comrade Corbyn won 55 more seats than Terrible Tessie! You should celebrate Jezza winning 2% more of the popular vote!
I see as usual you never answer the question.So I will ask again for your opinion.Do you think it was a good campaign ?
Cameron and Osborne's work in detoxifying the Tory Party was a long from complete. Arguably they should have given it a higher priority but no doubt they thought they had more time.
Cameron and Osborne toxified the Conservative party with everyone who graduates £50,000 in debt and with everyone who reaches 30 still renting a room.
They toxified the Conservative party with everyone who were told that net immigration would be reduced to the tens of thousands, who were told that Britain would have a "march of the makers", who were told that "we're all in this together", who were told that there would be no more Middle Eastern warmongering.
The grant situation is unsustainable and unacceptable. Where the money is going to come from to do something about it I really don't know. The deficit is going up again already.
The fundamental problem is the insistence that 50% of people should go to university.
That's an entirely arbitrary number.
The state should support those courses that it thinks add value to society. These will most likely be vocational (eg teacher training, nursing) or STEM, or a small number of purely academic pursuits for the most intelligent.
Beyond that anyone who wants to go to university and is willing to pay for it can.
But I don't understand why the state should pay for someone to spend three years enjoying themselves at the taxpayers expense while doing a degree that will add marginal value either to them or to society as a whole. That just seems to be an inefficient use of resources.
I doubt if more than 20% or so would benefit from going to university.
20% would put us substantially lower than our economic competitors, in the same ballpark as developing countries such as Mexico. Notably the only EU country in that range is Italy, not particularly a country we should emulate economically.
What we really need is for those degree courses to be well taught, contain useful content, and for the country to produce graduate level jobs. If the Swiss and South Koreans and others can do this, then why cannot we? Are Britons thicker than other nations?
There were seemingly sound reasons to assume May would trounce Corbyn, but deliberately avoiding things purely because the (successful)) predecessor, seems very foolish. It did seem notable that certain things, like not doing the debates, were presented as sensible by some purely because it was doing something different, as if difference itself was a good thing.
Cameron and Osborne's work in detoxifying the Tory Party was a long from complete. Arguably they should have given it a higher priority but no doubt they thought they had more time.
Cameron and Osborne toxified the Conservative party with everyone who graduates £50,000 in debt and with everyone who reaches 30 still renting a room.
They toxified the Conservative party with everyone who were told that net immigration would be reduced to the tens of thousands, who were told that Britain would have a "march of the makers", who were told that "we're all in this together", who were told that there would be no more Middle Eastern warmongering.
The grant situation is unsustainable and unacceptable. Where the money is going to come from to do something about it I really don't know. The deficit is going up again already.
The fundamental problem is the insistence that 50% of people should go to university.
That's an entirely arbitrary number.
The state should support those courses that it thinks add value to society. These will most likely be vocational (eg teacher training, nursing) or STEM, or a small number of purely academic pursuits for the most intelligent.
Beyond that anyone who wants to go to university and is willing to pay for it can.
But I don't understand why the state should pay for someone to spend three years enjoying themselves at the taxpayers expense while doing a degree that will add marginal value either to them or to society as a whole. That just seems to be an inefficient use of resources.
I doubt if more than 20% or so would benefit from going to university.
20% would put us substantially lower than our economic competitors, in the same ballpark as developing countries such as Mexico. Notably the only EU country in that range is Italy, not particularly a country we should emulate economically.
What we really need is for those degree courses to be well taught, contain useful content, and for the country to produce graduate level jobs. If the Swiss and South Koreans and others can do this, then why cannot we? Are Britons thicker than other nations?
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Do you honestly think it was good ? When they had 20% poll leads , many on here me included saying it was a forgone conclusion.many predictions over 100 majority.Why not give us your insight rather inane bar charts.
You should rejoice that Comrade Corbyn won 55 more seats than Terrible Tessie! You should celebrate Jezza winning 2% more of the popular vote!
I see as usual you never answer the question.So I will ask again for your opinion.Do you think it was a good campaign ?
Corbyn ran a BRILLIANT Campaign, winning the election as the bar charts so empathically show us!
The decision to call an election was entirely sound. Its conduct, less so.
Elections are zero sum games. We all knew, or should have known, May had little going for her, but as long as Corbyn was clearly worse, she was safe. Who knew Corbyn would turn out to be an electoral asset? I certainly didn't!
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Teachers do as they are told. They teach to syllabus and they teach to get their pupils to pass the exams they are set. They have almost no leeway to do anything else. Secondary schools these days are exam factories. It's a terrible shame and is no doubt doing great harm.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
Callaghan was last Foreign Secretary to become PM directly in 1976.
Prior to that I think it was Eden in 1955.
Interestingly Alec Douglas-Home went from PM to Foreign Secretary within six years between 1964 and 1970
The decision to call an election was entirely sound. Its conduct, less so.
Elections are zero sum games. We all knew, or should have known, May had little going for her, but as long as Corbyn was clearly worse, she was safe. Who knew Corbyn would turn out to be an electoral asset? I certainly didn't!
He was basically neutral overall. He repelled a lot of older and working class voters in some Labour heartlands, but he mobilised a lot of new voters who had not previously engaged. Neutral, though, was a lot better than it looked like being. But what really helped Labour was the Tory rhetoric around Europe - especially No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
Callaghan was last Foreign Secretary to become PM directly in 1976.
Prior to that I think it was Eden in 1955.
Interestingly Alec Douglas-Home went from PM to Foreign Secretary within six years between 1964 and 1970
After Chancellor, Foreign Secretary is the second most frequent route to becoming PM when your party is in power, so on that basis the likely successor to May would be Hammond then Boris
For the 6th largest economy in the world those are truly atrocious numbers.
Why? It is GDP per capita that really matters not gdp and on that basis the UK is about 19th in the world according to the IMF last year so not that different to the 21st we took on average with PISA, just we have slightly more money than we have brains it seems but not much in it and with the current value of the £ we may even do better next year on PISA than we do with the IMF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
For the 6th largest economy in the world those are truly atrocious numbers.
Why? It is GDP per capita that really matters not gdp and on that basis the UK is about 19th in the world according to the IMF last year so not that different to the 21st we took on average with PISA, just we have slightly more money than we have brains it seems but not much in it and with the current value of the £ we may even do better next year on PISA than we do with the IMF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Sorry but for us to be so poor compared to other countries and particularly for us to have slipped so far compared to a few decades ago is a national scandal and not something to be excused or accepted.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
Callaghan was last Foreign Secretary to become PM directly in 1976.
Prior to that I think it was Eden in 1955.
Interestingly Alec Douglas-Home went from PM to Foreign Secretary within six years between 1964 and 1970
After Chancellor, Foreign Secretary is the second most frequent route to becoming PM when your party is in power, so on that basis the likely successor to May would be Hammond then Boris
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Teachers do as they are told. They teach to syllabus and they teach to get their pupils to pass the exams they are set. They have almost no leeway to do anything else. Secondary schools these days are exam factories. It's a terrible shame and is no doubt doing great harm.
Teachers - or at least their unions - have fought reform tooth and nail over the last 2 decades. They have certainly not helped make things better.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
Callaghan was last Foreign Secretary to become PM directly in 1976.
Prior to that I think it was Eden in 1955.
Interestingly Alec Douglas-Home went from PM to Foreign Secretary within six years between 1964 and 1970
Home was Foreign Secretary in 1963.
Before those I think you have to go back to Rosebery in 1894. However, Salisbury was PM and FS until 1900.
Edit - it is also worth remembering that May was the first incumbent Home Secretary to become PM since Palmerston in 1855. So historical precedent only takes you so far!
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Teachers do as they are told. They teach to syllabus and they teach to get their pupils to pass the exams they are set. They have almost no leeway to do anything else. Secondary schools these days are exam factories. It's a terrible shame and is no doubt doing great harm.
Teachers - or at least their unions - have fought reform tooth and nail over the last 2 decades. They have certainly not helped make things better.
There have been countless reforms. Probably too many. School is all about passing exams now. There is nothing else. We do need to look at this again from scratch, but the teachers are the foot soldiers who obey the orders they are given.
If it were me, I would start by ending our religious obsession with PISA. Singapore consistently features right at the top of its rankings, but all is not rosy there:
Churning out kids who are good at passing exams but have never been given the capacity to think, explore and problem solve independently is not a great idea.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
That's more or less what I think. An advisory committee with members drawn from PB should run the country ... or else all members of PB should apply to join the HoL.
May, Cameron, and Osborne all have tin ears in differing ways.
Yes, Osborne of course ran the 2010 campaign when the Tories did not win a majority either. In terms of winning records Boris, with 2 London Mayoral wins and an EU referendum win beats them all
Oh Yes! Boris Johnson! An unmitigated bounder, liar, farseur and cad...... The real face of the modern Conservative Party.... Bring him on!
Boris is still the public's choice to be next Tory leader in the polls and he does know how to win an election
Yes, bare-faced lying, brazening it out, making a joke of everything, and running away from all responsibility.....
And giving fat salaries to all his cronies, to do the work for him...
While he goes in for stunts and insulting all our friends.
Just what the country needs.
After Cameron resigned, Boris tried to replace him, then accepted the job of Foreign Secretary. How is that 'running away from all responsibility'?
Has anyone gone directly from the Foreign Office to become PM in remotely recent times ? Yes, I know Major did it indirectly. Surely acceptance of the Foreign Office is acknowledgment that one is going back down the greasy pole, not up.
Callaghan was last Foreign Secretary to become PM directly in 1976.
Prior to that I think it was Eden in 1955.
Interestingly Alec Douglas-Home went from PM to Foreign Secretary within six years between 1964 and 1970
Home was Foreign Secretary in 1963.
Before those I think you have to go back to Rosebery in 1894. However, Salisbury was PM and FS until 1900.
Edit - it is also worth remembering that May was the first incumbent Home Secretary to become PM since Palmerston in 1855. So historical precedent only takes you so far!
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
For the 6th largest economy in the world those are truly atrocious numbers.
Why? It is GDP per capita that really matters not gdp and on that basis the UK is about 19th in the world according to the IMF last year so not that different to the 21st we took on average with PISA, just we have slightly more money than we have brains it seems but not much in it and with the current value of the £ we may even do better next year on PISA than we do with the IMF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Sorry but for us to be so poor compared to other countries and particularly for us to have slipped so far compared to a few decades ago is a national scandal and not something to be excused or accepted.
Have we slipped so far? I don't even remember us ever being in the top 10 of the PISA rankings let alone first. As for being so poor we are relative to Singapore, Japan and Canada and Hong Kong and Estonia who are at or near the top of the rankings but there are also more countries below us than above us including Italy, Spain, the US and Israel in maths and also Austria and Switzerland in reading and France, Germany, Denmark and Norway in science
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
For the 6th largest economy in the world those are truly atrocious numbers.
Why? It is GDP per capita that really matters not gdp and on that basis the UK is about 19th in the world according to the IMF last year so not that different to the 21st we took on average with PISA, just we have slightly more money than we have brains it seems but not much in it and with the current value of the £ we may even do better next year on PISA than we do with the IMF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Sorry but for us to be so poor compared to other countries and particularly for us to have slipped so far compared to a few decades ago is a national scandal and not something to be excused or accepted.
Have we slipped so far? I don't even remember us ever being in the top 10 of the PISA rankings let alone first
The PISA rankings aren't even 20 years old and since they started many more countries have been added to them. There are no historical comparisons to make.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
That's more or less what I think. An advisory committee with members drawn from PB should run the country ... or else all members of PB should apply to join the HoL.
The problem is early years schooling is as much about childcare/economic efficiency, as it is about actually educating children.
Herding children into a group of 30 and paying one adult to look after them for a big chunk of the day - while both parents work - does fantastic things to the GDP figures.
We figured this out many decades ago. It's part of what our nations wealth is built on. If we want to change this set up and have kids start school at 7, the economy will take a hit.
For the 6th largest economy in the world those are truly atrocious numbers.
Why? It is GDP per capita that really matters not gdp and on that basis the UK is about 19th in the world according to the IMF last year so not that different to the 21st we took on average with PISA, just we have slightly more money than we have brains it seems but not much in it and with the current value of the £ we may even do better next year on PISA than we do with the IMF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Sorry but for us to be so poor compared to other countries and particularly for us to have slipped so far compared to a few decades ago is a national scandal and not something to be excused or accepted.
Have we slipped so far? I don't even remember us ever being in the top 10 of the PISA rankings let alone first
The PISA rankings aren't even 20 years old and since they started many more countries have been added to them. There are no historical comparisons to make.
15-20 years is still a fair number of years to make comparisons
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
Geez not leaving school until 20, I would have hated that. Childhood seems to be going on longer and longer as time goes on.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
When the national curriculum started, I remember Baker scoffing at Thatcher saying "she just wanted English, Maths and Sciences - I put in 27 core subjects". Perhaps we would get better results by concentrating efforts.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
So we can add Ken Clarke too then !
Or George Osborne should he take a peerage or Emma Dent Coad be forced to resign as MP for Kensington and he win the subsequent by-election?
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
Geez not leaving school until 20, I would have hated that. Childhood seems to be going on longer and longer as time goes on.
All for not starting school until 7 though.
I think we could be flexible and say that if one is going into apprenticeship or training you could leave at 18 so long as a certain standard had been achieved in core subjects.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
That's more or less what I think. An advisory committee with members drawn from PB should run the country ... or else all members of PB should apply to join the HoL.
Sounds good to me. Though I would probably have to pass as I suspect I would be the perfect example of power corrupting.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
So we can add Ken Clarke too then !
Or George Osborne should he take a peerage or Emma Dent Coad be forced to resign as MP for Kensington and he win the subsequent by-election?
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up is to postpone starting school until kids are 7. Give them a proper childhood and a chance to develop more before we start education. They would go the equivalent of GCSEs at 18 and A levels at 20. Then either university, college, training or apprenticeships to at least 23. With the increase in retirement age it seems daft not to address the problems at the start of life.
Respectfully I disagree. The reason some children do much better than others has nothing to do with inate intelligence most of the time but because of how they are taught by parents or others. My daughter is three and has been read to every day since she was born. She loves books and can count t 10, is learning her alphabet etc and is getting that from her mum and dad. Some parents however never read to their children and the first they see a book is at nursery or school.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that will require the teaching profession to accept there is something very wrong. I see no signs of that happening. And it still doesn't change the fact that having a target of 50% of school leavers going to university is just plain dumb. And has more to do with keeping them off the unemployment numbers than actually helping either the students or the country.
Teachers do as they are told. They teach to syllabus and they teach to get their pupils to pass the exams they are set. They have almost no leeway to do anything else. Secondary schools these days are exam factories. It's a terrible shame and is no doubt doing great harm.
Teachers - or at least their unions - have fought reform tooth and nail over the last 2 decades. They have certainly not helped make things better.
There have been countless reforms. Probably too many. School is all about passing exams now. There is nothing else. We do need to look at this again from scratch, but the teachers are the foot soldiers who obey the orders they are given.
If it were me, I would start by ending our religious obsession with PISA. Singapore consistently features right at the top of its rankings, but all is not rosy there:
Churning out kids who are good at passing exams but have never been given the capacity to think, explore and problem solve independently is not a great idea.
I don't necessarily disagree with that but wecate currently churning out kids without the basic skills and ability for either work or university - as shown by the number of universities having to run remedial courses in stuff that should have been taught at school.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
So we can add Ken Clarke too then !
Or George Osborne should he take a peerage or Emma Dent Coad be forced to resign as MP for Kensington and he win the subsequent by-election?
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
Margaret Beckett - former Foreign Secreatry?
Yes - got her eventually, as an exasperated motorist said after 15 miles in low gear behind her caravan.
She should have been sacked over the RFPA fiasco, but was promoted because nobody else would agree to serve Blair.
I do not recall her eleven months in the role as one of our more fruitful diplomatic periods. That said, at least we didn't invade Iran.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
Did Harold Wilson hold any cabinet positions in the Attlee govt? I doubt it. He'd only have been 35 when Attlee left office. He became PM in 1964.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
Did Harold Wilson hold any cabinet positions in the Attlee govt? I doubt it. He'd only have been 35 when Attlee left office. He became PM in 1964.
Yes. He was the only member of the 1964 cabinet who had served in Cabinet before (as President of the Board of Trade).
But he was crucially Leader of the Opposition, which as noted is the single commonest route to being PM.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
So we can add Ken Clarke too then !
Or George Osborne should he take a peerage or Emma Dent Coad be forced to resign as MP for Kensington and he win the subsequent by-election?
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
The last peer we had as PM was Salisbury, Home renounced his peerage when he became PM. I also think Corbyn would fancy his chances of holding Kensington if Osborne was the Tory candidate (I think you meant Osborne's retirement not Johnson's)
Respectfully I disagree. The reason some children do much better than others has nothing to do with inate intelligence most of the time but because of how they are taught by parents or others. My daughter is three and has been read to every day since she was born. She loves books and can count t 10, is learning her alphabet etc and is getting that from her mum and dad. Some parents however never read to their children and the first they see a book is at nursery or school.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
I didn't say anything about not teaching your kids to read at home. It is a great joy.
But I see no need to send them off to glorified babysitting at such an early age. All the timings are wrong. We send them to school too early and then have them making decisions (on specialising in subjects) that will effect the rest of their lives too early as well. We then get them to sit GCSEs right in the middle of some of their most difficult years as far as biological and hormonal changes are concerned. The whole system was designed for the necessity of people working to 65 and dying at 70. That is no longer the case and we need to start to make changes that reflect longer lifespans.
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
So we can add Ken Clarke too then !
Or George Osborne should he take a peerage or Emma Dent Coad be forced to resign as MP for Kensington and he win the subsequent by-election?
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
The last peer we had as PM was Salisbury, Home renounced his peerage when he became PM. I also think Corbyn would fancy his chances of holding Kensington if Osborne was the Tory candidate (I think you meant Osborne's retirement not Johnson's)
Has anyone become PM who was not Home Secretary, Chancellor or Foreign Secretary in government in the last century or more? If not that means only Rudd, Hammond or Johnson are really in the running unless one of them is replaced. I know Churchill was 1st Lord of the Admiralty but he had been Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier in his career.
Yes.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War) Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council) Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty) Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
So we can add Ken Clarke too then !
Or George Osborne should he take a peerage or Emma Dent Coad be forced to resign as MP for Kensington and he win the subsequent by-election?
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
The last peer we had as PM was Salisbury, Home renounced his peerage when he became PM. I also think Corbyn would fancy his chances of holding Kensington if Osborne was the Tory candidate (I think you meant Osborne's retirement not Johnson's)
No, I meant Johnson - Alan Johnson.
But of course Osborne left at the same time.
Sorry, yes you were correct there he was Home Secretary of course
Surely, just remove examinations for most courses and just give out the bits of paper. No one cares. Let history teachers teach as they wish. Let geography teachers teach as they wish. If they foster an interest that is as much as you can ask.
Surely, just remove examinations for most courses and just give out the bits of paper. No one cares. Let history teachers teach as they wish. Let geography teachers teach as they wish. If they foster an interest that is as much as you can ask.
That would certainly make my life much easier and pleasanter! But it will sadly never happen.
I am off to bed in advance of another gruelling week. Good night to one and all.
I didn't say anything about not teaching your kids to read at home. It is a great joy.
But I see no need to send them off to glorified babysitting at such an early age. All the timings are wrong. We send them to school too early and then have them making decisions (on specialising in subjects) that will effect the rest of their lives too early as well. We then get them to sit GCSEs right in the middle of some of their most difficult years as far as biological and hormonal changes are concerned. The whole system was designed for the necessity of people working to 65 and dying at 70. That is no longer the case and we need to start to make changes that reflect longer lifespans.
My daughter has started going to nursery at 3. Not because we wanted a babysitter (with a 1 year old at home one of us still always has a child) but she loves it. She loves socialising with other children, playing games with them and her teachers, the art etc she makes there too. She is learning from them as well as us and is always excited to go back. I agree about making decisions too young, but I don't see a reason to cut out socialising and learning at the earlier age.
At the latter age I would tear up our current education system and go for something completely different. I would abolish the GCSE's altogether. Not delay them but scrap them. I can't think of an equivalent in many other nations - I grew up in Australia and there is nothing at 16 there.
For your exams at 18 I would scrap the concept of just having 3 or 4 subjects and go for a more rounded education. Maybe this is bias from what I did but I did the International Baccalaureate and besides it being challenging I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the IB. In that you have to study 6 subjects not 3. From memory your main language, a second language (can be at a foundation level for those who'd never studied it before), maths, a science, a humanities or social science subject and one other. By having to study a bit of everything you get a more rounded foundation and many by 18 want to study something different at uni than they did at 16.
I would keep uni for those who go to it at 18 as that is an international norm.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up
Respectfully I disagree. The reason some children do much better than others has nothing to do with inate intelligence most of the time but because of how they are taught by parents or others. My daughter is three and has been read to every day since she was born. She loves books and can count t 10, is learning her alphabet etc and is getting that from her mum and dad. Some parents however never read to their children and the first they see a book is at nursery or school.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
I agree, and Liz Kendall was a strong promoter of investment in early years education. There is not only evidence of educational benefit, but also wider issues such as social behaviour.
While it is recieved wisdom that too many are going to university, the governments analysis of 2008 graduates does show a surprisingly flat curve in terms of employment and earnings 5 years out by institute and subject. This applies pretty much across subjects and isn't even that different when looking at A level entry. Graduates on 240 points earn £2500 pa less than those on 360 five years out, a smaller difference than some might imagine. That is the difference between AAA and CCC as I recall.
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
My solution is free University for those who are 2 years post school leaving, and have paid UK income tax for at least 1 year of that 2 years.
University would then be a conscious choice rather than the default, and the students hsve prior work experience, as well as being more mature and certain what they want to do with their lives.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up
Respectfully I disagree. The reason some children do much better than others has nothing to do with inate intelligence most of the time but because of how they are taught by parents or others. My daughter is three and has been read to every day since she was born. She loves books and can count t 10, is learning her alphabet etc and is getting that from her mum and dad. Some parents however never read to their children and the first they see a book is at nursery or school.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
I agree, and Liz Kendall was a strong promoter of investment in early years education. There is not only evidence of educational benefit, but also wider issues such as social behaviour.
While it is recieved wisdom that too many are going to university, the governments analysis of 2008 graduates does show a surprisingly flat curve in terms of employment and earnings 5 years out by institute and subject. This applies pretty much across subjects and isn't even that different when looking at A level entry. Graduates on 240 points earn £2500 pa less than those on 360 five years out, a smaller difference than some might imagine. That is the difference between AAA and CCC as I recall.
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
Though 1 year after graduation the average medicine student with 360 A Level points is earning £36 000 compared to £12 500 for those with below 240 points who studied Creative arts and design, a substantial £23 500 difference
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up
Respectfully I disagree. The reason some children do much better than others has nothing to do with inate intelligence most of the time but because of how they are taught by parents or others. My daughter is three and has been read to every day since she was born. She loves books and can count t 10, is learning her alphabet etc and is getting that from her mum and dad. Some parents however never read to their children and the first they see a book is at nursery or school.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
I agree, and Liz Kendall was a strong promoter of investment in early years education. There is not only evidence of educational benefit, but also wider issues such as social behaviour.
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
Though 1 year after graduation the average medicine student with 360 A Level points is earning £36 000 compared to £12 500 for those with below 240 points who studied Creative arts and design, a substantial £23 500 difference
Sure, but those are the extreme points on the curve. Art School graduates are a fairly key part of our cultural industries, which are a major export.
Perhaps we should fix it, and the universities, rather than abandon international levels of tertiary education.
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
We should indeed fix it. But that
Agreed inappropriate educàtion and training has been used to keep young people of the unemployment register .Also at the other end of the scale people in their ,50 and 60s who have been made redundant and with a small pension are unable to claim.Hard to figure the true figure of unemployment and people seeking work.
My wonder solution that no one will ever pick up
Respectfully I disagree. The reason some children do much better than others has nothing to do with inate intelligence most of the time but because of how they are taught by parents or others. My daughter is three and has been read to every day since she was born. She loves books and can count t 10, is learning her alphabet etc and is getting that from her mum and dad. Some parents however never read to their children and the first they see a book is at nursery or school.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
I agree, and Liz Kendall was a strong promoter of investment in early years education. There is not only evidence of educational benefit, but also wider issues such as social behaviour.
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
Though 1 year after graduation the average medicine student with 360 A Level points is earning £36 000 compared to £12 500 for those with below 240 points who studied Creative arts and design, a substantial £23 500 difference
Sure, but those are the extreme points on the curve. Art School graduates are a fairly key part of our cultural industries, which are a major export.
I am not against those who study art by any means and a few like Damian Hirst go on to make a fortune but it is absurd that Creative Arts and Design at an ex polytechnic costs the same tuition fee as Medicine at Cambridge
I agree, and Liz Kendall was a strong promoter of investment in early years education. There is not only evidence of educational benefit, but also wider issues such as social behaviour.
While it is recieved wisdom that too many are going to university, the governments analysis of 2008 graduates does show a surprisingly flat curve in terms of employment and earnings 5 years out by institute and subject. This applies pretty much across subjects and isn't even that different when looking at A level entry. Graduates on 240 points earn £2500 pa less than those on 360 five years out, a smaller difference than some might imagine. That is the difference between AAA and CCC as I recall.
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
Almost every other country in Europe has kids starting school at 6 and Finland it is 7. They certainly do not seem to think that it is too old. And no, it is not beneficial. In fact an article in New Scientist a few years ago said that starting at 5 was 'harmful and misguided'.
there are a couple of good reasons for starting school/education early. I know these from experience as a parent and a professional in children's services.
1) childcare is pricy - 1 day a week child care costs around £200 / month. 2 children in childcare for 2 days per week (assuming one parent works 3 days per week) costs £800 per month. Getting a child in school or nursery takes pressure off families whose parent(s) have to work.
2) as mentioned earlier. Children are sponges and take on information they get. However, having worked with families where there is dysfunction, neglect, trauma and vulnerabilities (sometimes going back generations) then the happy picture of reading to a child every day is a long way off. Nurseries and schools can be a beacon of stability in young people's lives when home is not stable or predictable or even safe. schools and nurseries don't solve the problems at home but they can mitigate against them.
For older children its a tough one. i find our system quite inflexible and unimaginative, however, A levels are pretty thorough and I think a generally high standard. I am not convinced spreading more thinly at that age would be beneficial. I think greater opportunities to be creative/community activism at that age would be good.
there are a couple of good reasons for starting school/education early. I know these from experience as a parent and a professional in children's services.
1) childcare is pricy - 1 day a week child care costs around £200 / month. 2 children in childcare for 2 days per week (assuming one parent works 3 days per week) costs £800 per month. Getting a child in school or nursery takes pressure off families whose parent(s) have to work.
2) as mentioned earlier. Children are sponges and take on information they get. However, having worked with families where there is dysfunction, neglect, trauma and vulnerabilities (sometimes going back generations) then the happy picture of reading to a child every day is a long way off. Nurseries and schools can be a beacon of stability in young people's lives when home is not stable or predictable or even safe. schools and nurseries don't solve the problems at home but they can mitigate against them.
For older children its a tough one. i find our system quite inflexible and unimaginative, however, A levels are pretty thorough and I think a generally high standard. I am not convinced spreading more thinly at that age would be beneficial. I think greater opportunities to be creative/community activism at that age would be good.
The educational specialists quoted in the New Scientist article do not seem to agree with you. It is worth following the link to the letter 130 of them wrote to the Telegraph.
"Research does not support an early start to testing and quasi-formal teaching, but provides considerable evidence to challenge it. Very few countries have a school starting age as young as four, as we do in England. Children who enter school at six or seven – after several years of high quality nursery education – consistently achieve better educational results as well as higher levels of wellbeing."
How anyone who treads this account can believe people like May and Davis should be given virtually unlimited powers to by-pass Parliament when making laws is beyond me.
It didn't change my vote but I thought the response to the Terror attacks including floating the idea of changing the burden of proof were completely unacceptable. Outside of the actual need to get Brexit done and dusted I am certainly not willing to support such an authoritarian minded PM.
I don't support the PM and think she is entirely wrong, but Brexit, so we're all good...
My solution is free University for those who are 2 years post school leaving, and have paid UK income tax for at least 1 year of that 2 years.
University would then be a conscious choice rather than the default, and the students hsve prior work experience, as well as being more mature and certain what they want to do with their lives.
How anyone who treads this account can believe people like May and Davis should be given virtually unlimited powers to by-pass Parliament when making laws is beyond me.
It didn't change my vote but I thought the response to the Terror attacks including floating the idea of changing the burden of proof were completely unacceptable. Outside of the actual need to get Brexit done and dusted I am certainly not willing to support such an authoritarian minded PM.
I don't support the PM and think she is entirely wrong, but Brexit, so we're all good...
Nope. Everyone has priorities. Mine is securing Brexit. Without that any other policy becomes increasingly pointless as it will be increasingly controlled by the EU. Once we are out of the EU my vote will probably change quite radically.
there are a couple of good reasons for starting school/education early. I know these from experience as a parent and a professional in children's services.
1) childcare is pricy - 1 day a week child care costs around £200 / month. 2 children in childcare for 2 days per week (assuming one parent works 3 days per week) costs £800 per month. Getting a child in school or nursery takes pressure off families whose parent(s) have to work.
2) as mentioned earlier. Children are sponges and take on information they get. However, having worked with families where there is dysfunction, neglect, trauma and vulnerabilities (sometimes going back generations) then the happy picture of reading to a child every day is a long way off. Nurseries and schools can be a beacon of stability in young people's lives when home is not stable or predictable or even safe. schools and nurseries don't solve the problems at home but they can mitigate against them.
For older children its a tough one. i find our system quite inflexible and unimaginative, however, A levels are pretty thorough and I think a generally high standard. I am not convinced spreading more thinly at that age would be beneficial. I think greater opportunities to be creative/community activism at that age would be good.
Before our little 'un was born three years ago, the council gave us a standard goodie bag to tell us of services and give advice. Inside was a leaflet stating that it was a good idea to read to children, and what to do if you did not have any books in the house: things like going to the library or using a baby book service.
It was addressing people who had *no* books in the house, yet alone children's books.
I find it hard to imagine that there are people with no books, but a chat to the ladies at the children's centre told me that there are many, even in a relatively well-off area like ours (nr Cambridge).
Then again, with millions of people functionally illiterate in the UK, perhaps it's no surprise.
"Children who enter school at six or seven – after several years of high quality nursery education" is the key section to your sentence.
I had assumed you meant school started at 7 an children stayed at home until then. If there is high quality nursery provision up to the age of 7 then I am down for it as children can learn through play and don't need a formal curriculum and testing until much older in my view.
I would be very much against the majority of children staying at home until they are seven if that is your view. as i said, the cost alone in childcare is very high and I am concerned about how many children who would benefit from being in an education setting as that is more predictable and nourishing than home would miss out.
"Children who enter school at six or seven – after several years of high quality nursery education" is the key section to your sentence.
I had assumed you meant school started at 7 an children stayed at home until then. If there is high quality nursery provision up to the age of 7 then I am down for it as children can learn through play and don't need a formal curriculum and testing until much older in my view.
I would be very much against the majority of children staying at home until they are seven if that is your view. as i said, the cost alone in childcare is very high and I am concerned about how many children who would benefit from being in an education setting as that is more predictable and nourishing than home would miss out.
No I fully support nurseries for children. But the move has been increasingly to make them a part of early formal learning, for example by bringing them under OFSTED and that to me is entirely wrong.
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
"Children who enter school at six or seven – after several years of high quality nursery education" is the key section to your sentence.
I had assumed you meant school started at 7 an children stayed at home until then. If there is high quality nursery provision up to the age of 7 then I am down for it as children can learn through play and don't need a formal curriculum and testing until much older in my view.
I would be very much against the majority of children staying at home until they are seven if that is your view. as i said, the cost alone in childcare is very high and I am concerned about how many children who would benefit from being in an education setting as that is more predictable and nourishing than home would miss out.
No I fully support nurseries for children. But the move has been increasingly to make them a part of early formal learning, for example by bringing them under OFSTED and that to me is entirely wrong.
It's a protection racket designed to hurt independent child minders.
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
My solution is free University for those who are 2 years post school leaving, and have paid UK income tax for at least 1 year of that 2 years.
University would then be a conscious choice rather than the default, and the students hsve prior work experience, as well as being more mature and certain what they want to do with their lives.
That's rather an interesting suggestion.
It is indeed. Made me think.
Something pretty major needs to happen for University education to be either cheaper or the value of it sustainable...
I am already well ahead of you and thinking about the post Brexit political landscape. You are still stuck in the past trying desperately to stop it happening. You are a dinosaur that hasn't yet worked out it is soon to be extinct
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
No one, not even you, can have any idea how the EU will look years down the line.
Interesting listening to Ken Clarke today accepting we are leaving the EU
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
The legal basis of the EU has to change. In the long term monetary union is not sustainable without political union.
I agree, and Liz Kendall was a strong promoter of investment in early years education. There is not only evidence of educational benefit, but also wider issues such as social behaviour.
While it is recieved wisdom that too many are going to university, the governments analysis of 2008 graduates does show a surprisingly flat curve in terms of employment and earnings 5 years out by institute and subject. This applies pretty much across subjects and isn't even that different when looking at A level entry. Graduates on 240 points earn £2500 pa less than those on 360 five years out, a smaller difference than some might imagine. That is the difference between AAA and CCC as I recall.
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
Almost every other country in Europe has kids starting school at 6 and Finland it is 7. They certainly do not seem to think that it is too old. And no, it is not beneficial. In fact an article in New Scientist a few years ago said that starting at 5 was 'harmful and misguided'.
We are at cross purposes, indeed in rare agreement. Until age 7 Nursery/Kindergarten should mostly be about learning via play, without formal curricula or assessment. The object is a diverse range of stimulation, including exploring nature, drawing, music, listening to stories etc. Pretty much anything that is not electronic, or on a screen. They need actual reality not virtual reality. They will get enough of that at home. I am happy for formal learning to start later at age 7, for much the same reasons that you give.
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
No one, not even you, can have any idea how the EU will look years down the line.
Interesting listening to Ken Clarke today accepting we are leaving the EU
PB, the Guardian and one mate on fb are the only places I hear anyone rejecting the referendum. Everyone else seems to have moved on.
Ahh. An outright lie from you Scott. Didn't take you long did it.
In fact I have made very clear on here repeatedly that I oppose the Henry VIII power grab. But of course your grasp on reality is so tenuous I am not surprised you missed rhat.
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
The legal basis of the EU has to change. In the long term monetary union is not sustainable without political union.
It's always been a political union. There isn't some transmogrification into a political union that will happen at some unspecified date in the future.
Even if monetary union will ultimately require a European treasury that just comes back to the question of money, which you refuse to engage with. The EU budget is currently around 1% of GDP. Realistically, how much of the state do you think will be taken up by 'the EU' in this future set up you're envisioning?
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
No one, not even you, can have any idea how the EU will look years down the line.
Interesting listening to Ken Clarke today accepting we are leaving the EU
PB, the Guardian and one mate on fb are the only places I hear anyone rejecting the referendum. Everyone else seems to have moved on.
Tony Blair did not help the remain cause with his dreadful embrace of Juncker and his comments today that the EU will change freedom of movement rules to keep us in
A solution to no existing problems, and creator of countless new ones.
Brexit trumps reason.
Only because you are in utter denial about the aims and ambitions of the EU. Thankfully your ignorance can no longer cause us any harm as we are leaving.
Suppose everything goes well for the EU and they fully realise their end state in 20 years time. What do you think the budget of the EU will be as a percentage of GDP?
No idea. And again you miss the point. It 8s not about money. It is about accountability and individual freedom.
The legal basis of the EU is not going to change - it's a system of treaties between sovereign states.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
The legal basis of the EU has to change. In the long term monetary union is not sustainable without political union.
It's always been a political union. There isn't some transmogrification into a political union that will happen at some unspecified date in the future.
Even if monetary union will ultimately require a European treasury that just comes back to the question of money, which you refuse to engage with. The EU budget is currently around 1% of GDP. Realistically, how much of the state do you think will be taken up by 'the EU' in this future set up you're envisioning?
Given the whole basis of your question is false I see no point in trying to answer it. Nor can you as the huge number of assumptions that would have to be made make it impossible.
My solution is free University for those who are 2 years post school leaving, and have paid UK income tax for at least 1 year of that 2 years.
University would then be a conscious choice rather than the default, and the students hsve prior work experience, as well as being more mature and certain what they want to do with their lives.
That's rather an interesting suggestion.
It is indeed. Made me think.
Something pretty major needs to happen for University education to be either cheaper or the value of it sustainable...
It is based on a conversation I had with some Dutch students in the Eighties. They pretty much had that system, though perhaps it was three years and incorporated 18 months national service.
The US GI bill, funding higher education for military veterans, is generally credited with the expansion and social spread of tertiary education there. Indeed that, and the healthcare via the VA system is still a major route out of poverty for Americans.
Comments
.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/10/police_urge_floridians_not_to_fire_their_guns_at_hurricane_irma.html
So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.
So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-tax-cuts-and-taking-time-before-triggering-article-50-a-brexit-economic-strategy-for-britain.html
Clueless then. Clueless now.
https://twitter.com/PascoSheriff/status/906712903868469249
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/12/06/oecd-pisa-report-does-uk-rank-international-school-league-tables/
Either that or continue import smart people with degrees from other countries.
Prior to that I think it was Eden in 1955.
Interestingly Alec Douglas-Home went from PM to Foreign Secretary within six years between 1964 and 1970
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita
Before those I think you have to go back to Rosebery in 1894. However, Salisbury was PM and FS until 1900.
Edit - it is also worth remembering that May was the first incumbent Home Secretary to become PM since Palmerston in 1855. So historical precedent only takes you so far!
If it were me, I would start by ending our religious obsession with PISA. Singapore consistently features right at the top of its rankings, but all is not rosy there:
https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/singapores-education-system-a-local-perspective-af7fce23789c
Churning out kids who are good at passing exams but have never been given the capacity to think, explore and problem solve independently is not a great idea.
Lloyd George 1916 (Secretary of State for War)
Bonar Law 1922 (backbencher, last government post Lord President of the Council)
Churchill 1940 (First Lord of the Admiralty)
Baldwin 1935 (Lord President of the Council).
But none since then, and you will rightly point out all of them were former Chancellors and in one case a former PM.
Incidentally since 1900 apart from Leader of the Opposition (eight times) I make Chancellor of the Exchequer the most common office immediately prior to No. 10 at six times - seven if you count Balfour, who was First Lord of the Treasury but not Chancellor.
Edited to correct LLG's office - he was of course Minister for War!
Herding children into a group of 30 and paying one adult to look after them for a big chunk of the day - while both parents work - does fantastic things to the GDP figures.
We figured this out many decades ago. It's part of what our nations wealth is built on. If we want to change this set up and have kids start school at 7, the economy will take a hit.
All for not starting school until 7 though.
It is interesting to reflect that Clarke is the only former Chancellor in the Commons. In fact with Johnson's retirement is he the only former holder of a Great Office still in Parliament but not currently in the Cabinet?
Edit - no. Margaret Beckett. The only person in known history who was a less likely holder of a great office than BoJo.
Children naturally absorb more the earlier you teach them it. At her age my daughter is a sponge. By age 7 she will be long since reading and writing on her own. That won't mean she won't have had a proper childhood. Some other kids definitely will not.
A big problem is that teachers need to do the basics some parents can't or won't do.
She should have been sacked over the RFPA fiasco, but was promoted because nobody else would agree to serve Blair.
I do not recall her eleven months in the role as one of our more fruitful diplomatic periods. That said, at least we didn't invade Iran.
But he was crucially Leader of the Opposition, which as noted is the single commonest route to being PM.
But I see no need to send them off to glorified babysitting at such an early age. All the timings are wrong. We send them to school too early and then have them making decisions (on specialising in subjects) that will effect the rest of their lives too early as well. We then get them to sit GCSEs right in the middle of some of their most difficult years as far as biological and hormonal changes are concerned. The whole system was designed for the necessity of people working to 65 and dying at 70. That is no longer the case and we need to start to make changes that reflect longer lifespans.
But of course Osborne left at the same time.
I am off to bed in advance of another gruelling week. Good night to one and all.
At the latter age I would tear up our current education system and go for something completely different. I would abolish the GCSE's altogether. Not delay them but scrap them. I can't think of an equivalent in many other nations - I grew up in Australia and there is nothing at 16 there.
For your exams at 18 I would scrap the concept of just having 3 or 4 subjects and go for a more rounded education. Maybe this is bias from what I did but I did the International Baccalaureate and besides it being challenging I've never heard anyone say a bad word about the IB. In that you have to study 6 subjects not 3. From memory your main language, a second language (can be at a foundation level for those who'd never studied it before), maths, a science, a humanities or social science subject and one other. By having to study a bit of everything you get a more rounded foundation and many by 18 want to study something different at uni than they did at 16.
I would keep uni for those who go to it at 18 as that is an international norm.
While it is recieved wisdom that too many are going to university, the governments analysis of 2008 graduates does show a surprisingly flat curve in terms of employment and earnings 5 years out by institute and subject. This applies pretty much across subjects and isn't even that different when looking at A level entry. Graduates on 240 points earn £2500 pa less than those on 360 five years out, a smaller difference than some might imagine. That is the difference between AAA and CCC as I recall.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/graduate-outcomes-by-degree-subject-and-university
Of course these figures are across the spectrum. so will incorporate both the hamburger flipper, and the low paid clergy or post docs, and of course those working part time.
University would then be a conscious choice rather than the default, and the students hsve prior work experience, as well as being more mature and certain what they want to do with their lives.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435-000-too-much-too-young-should-schooling-start-at-age-7/
1) childcare is pricy - 1 day a week child care costs around £200 / month. 2 children in childcare for 2 days per week (assuming one parent works 3 days per week) costs £800 per month. Getting a child in school or nursery takes pressure off families whose parent(s) have to work.
2) as mentioned earlier. Children are sponges and take on information they get. However, having worked with families where there is dysfunction, neglect, trauma and vulnerabilities (sometimes going back generations) then the happy picture of reading to a child every day is a long way off. Nurseries and schools can be a beacon of stability in young people's lives when home is not stable or predictable or even safe. schools and nurseries don't solve the problems at home but they can mitigate against them.
For older children its a tough one. i find our system quite inflexible and unimaginative, however, A levels are pretty thorough and I think a generally high standard. I am not convinced spreading more thinly at that age would be beneficial. I think greater opportunities to be creative/community activism at that age would be good.
"Research does not support an early start to testing and quasi-formal teaching, but provides considerable evidence to challenge it. Very few countries have a school starting age as young as four, as we do in England. Children who enter school at six or seven – after several years of high quality nursery education – consistently achieve better educational results as well as higher levels of wellbeing."
I find this depressing. I don't support the PM and think she is entirely wrong, but Brexit, so we're all good...
It was addressing people who had *no* books in the house, yet alone children's books.
I find it hard to imagine that there are people with no books, but a chat to the ladies at the children's centre told me that there are many, even in a relatively well-off area like ours (nr Cambridge).
Then again, with millions of people functionally illiterate in the UK, perhaps it's no surprise.
Brexit trumps reason.
"Children who enter school at six or seven – after several years of high quality nursery education" is the key section to your sentence.
I had assumed you meant school started at 7 an children stayed at home until then. If there is high quality nursery provision up to the age of 7 then I am down for it as children can learn through play and don't need a formal curriculum and testing until much older in my view.
I would be very much against the majority of children staying at home until they are seven if that is your view. as i said, the cost alone in childcare is very high and I am concerned about how many children who would benefit from being in an education setting as that is more predictable and nourishing than home would miss out.
Edit: Brexit should be the start of the reform process not the end of it.
Money is measurable and allows you to quantify the scale of the extent to which you think we will be dominated by the EU. So what number do you think it will be?
Something pretty major needs to happen for University education to be either cheaper or the value of it sustainable...
Interesting listening to Ken Clarke today accepting we are leaving the EU
In fact I have made very clear on here repeatedly that I oppose the Henry VIII power grab. But of course your grasp on reality is so tenuous I am not surprised you missed rhat.
Even if monetary union will ultimately require a European treasury that just comes back to the question of money, which you refuse to engage with. The EU budget is currently around 1% of GDP. Realistically, how much of the state do you think will be taken up by 'the EU' in this future set up you're envisioning?
The US GI bill, funding higher education for military veterans, is generally credited with the expansion and social spread of tertiary education there. Indeed that, and the healthcare via the VA system is still a major route out of poverty for Americans.