On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
It will be fascinating to see the post-politics May. If she's capable of loosening up when the responsibility is lifted, I'd love to hear her take on this period.
Yes quite a few memoirs from this period will be interesting in 10-20 years or so.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voter they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget. Of all the things rich people spend their cash on to buy better lives for their kids putting money into extra education spending is the one that bothers me least.
On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Agreed. I went to a prep school and then a grammar.
The problem with comps is that the best ones are paid for by the state but gameable by the middle classes. House prices determine selection.
She's stuck around to try and solve a difficult political situation.
More than certain posh boys ever did.
Members should back her.
I heard the same nonsense when IDS was in charge.
She made net seat losses against a Marxist IRA condoning tool.
One posh boy resigning because it was the honourable thing to do, the other one was forced out by Mrs May, if she had any class, she'd resign her seat and urge George to stand in her place.
PS - You sound like one of those boring lefty idiots I know, who keep on banging on the vileness of the class system despite having attended places like Winchester and Oxford.
The posh boys made net seat gains, something Mrs May will never achieve.
14million votes wins us the next election.
Something your faves never managed.
My faves won a majority.
A majority. A MAJORITY.
After two goes. Next time, I expect Mrs May will too.
How much you want to stake on Mrs May fighting the 2022 general election?
I don't think she's the leader if the next election is 2022.
May herself seems to think differently.
Well she she states differently at any rate.
I genuinely don't think she's going to go willingly. For all her flaws, she has the hide of a rhinoceros - she wouldn't have survived for so long at the top of politics for 20 years, all through the Tories' wilderness years in opposition, and also hanging on as Home Secretary for so long (through various media firestorms), if she wasn't. Plus, why would she want to retire? Without wanting to sound all Andrea Leadsom, it's not like May has a big family to keep her occupied, and she doesn't seem the type of person who'd want to go and make squillions of money. What's she got to lose by fighting til the bitter end?
So I think it would only be the party getting rid of her in a putsch that would do it, and that seems far from certain to me - not least because Tory MPs don't appear to see any potential leaders who would be better than her.
For my money, May is the favourite to be Tory leader at the next election.
On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
Presume you mean less able students? Private schools don't really do poor students at all do they?
They do help poor students with things like scholarships, one the vilest things Tony Blair did was to abolish the assisted places scheme.
I suspect that's akin the the erstwhile Society for Distressed Gentlefolk charity... really only open to posh people down on their luck. I would love to know what proportion of the country's children those much-vaunted scholarships cover. Given it's going to be <0.1% in all probablility, you could equally say that private schools are screwing 99.9% of poor students.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
She's stuck around to try and solve a difficult political situation.
More than certain posh boys ever did.
Members should back her.
I heard the same nonsense when IDS was in charge.
She made net seat losses against a Marxist IRA condoning tool.
One posh boy resigning because it was the honourable thing to do, the other one was forced out by Mrs May, if she had any class, she'd resign her seat and urge George to stand in her place.
PS - You sound like one of those boring lefty idiots I know, who keep on banging on the vileness of the class system despite having attended places like Winchester and Oxford.
The posh boys made net seat gains, something Mrs May will never achieve.
14million votes wins us the next election.
Something your faves never managed.
My faves won a majority.
A majority. A MAJORITY.
After two goes. Next time, I expect Mrs May will too.
How much you want to stake on Mrs May fighting the 2022 general election?
I don't think she's the leader if the next election is 2022.
May herself seems to think differently.
Well she she states differently at any rate.
I genuinely don't think she's going to go willingly. For all her flaws, she has the hide of a rhinoceros - she wouldn't have survived for so long at the top of politics for 20 years, all through the Tories' wilderness years in opposition, and also hanging on as Home Secretary for so long (through various media firestorms), if she wasn't. Plus, why would she want to retire? Without wanting to sound all Andrea Leadsom, it's not like May has a big family to keep her occupied, and she doesn't seem the type of person who'd want to go and make squillions of money. What's she got to lose by fighting til the bitter end?
So I think it would only be the party getting rid of her in a putsch that would do it, and that seems far from certain to me - not least because Tory MPs don't appear to see any potential leaders who would be better than her.
For my money, May is the favourite to be Tory leader at the next election.
Good summary - I suspect she will fight the next GE.
To my mind it is undeniable that TfL are running a politically-motivated vendetta against Uber. My evidence is very simple: earlier in the year, they tried to impose a condition that Uber drivers would have to have commercial insurance covering them even when they were using their own cars for their own private use. Naturally this extraordinarily unjustified nonsense was thrown out by the High Court, but how could TfL have even proposed such an absurdity if they weren't running a vendetta against Uber?
On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
Presume you mean less able students? Private schools don't really do poor students at all do they?
They do help poor students with things like scholarships, one the vilest things Tony Blair did was to abolish the assisted places scheme.
I suspect that's akin the the erstwhile Society for Distressed Gentlefolk charity... really only open to posh people down on their luck. I would love to know what proportion of the country's children those much-vaunted scholarships cover. Given it's going to be <0.1% in all probablility, you could equally say that private schools are screwing 99.9% of poor students.</p>
I think it's a pity they changed their name to the Elizabeth Fynn Trust.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like the one that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Nonsense, I was a working class Northerner whose antecedents were from The Punjab.
On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
Presume you mean less able students? Private schools don't really do poor students at all do they?
They do help poor students with things like scholarships, one the vilest things Tony Blair did was to abolish the assisted places scheme.
I suspect that's akin the the erstwhile Society for Distressed Gentlefolk charity... really only open to posh people down on their luck. I would love to know what proportion of the country's children those much-vaunted scholarships cover. Given it's going to be <0.1% in all probablility, you could equally say that private schools are screwing 99.9% of poor students.</p>
I think it's a pity they changed their name to the Elizabeth Fynn Trust.
Agreed, I thought there was something rather quaint about the former title... bet they weren't competing too well with the local hospice or Oxfam etc. in the money-raising stakes though!
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
On the subject of grammar schools, what is the logic of being against them but for private schools?
Private schools don't screw poor students in the way grammar schools do for starters.
Presume you mean less able students? Private schools don't really do poor students at all do they?
They do help poor students with things like scholarships, one the vilest things Tony Blair did was to abolish the assisted places scheme.
I suspect that's akin the the erstwhile Society for Distressed Gentlefolk charity... really only open to posh people down on their luck. I would love to know what proportion of the country's children those much-vaunted scholarships cover. Given it's going to be <0.1% in all probablility, you could equally say that private schools are screwing 99.9% of poor students.</p>
I think it's a pity they changed their name to the Elizabeth Fynn Trust.
Agreed, I thought there was something rather quaint about the former title... bet they weren't competing too well with the local hospice or Oxfam etc. in the money-raising stakes though!
They were a niche organisation, helping out professional people who had fallen on hard times. They had were in the top 100 charities by income.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Nonsense, I was a working class Northerner whose antecedents were from The Punjab.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Nonsense, I was a working class Northerner whose antecedents were from The Punjab.
Which makes you the exception. You must know that you were atypical - presume you got a scholarship, in which case well done; no real working class family could afford to fund a child through private education in this country.
@Benpointer Removing " Sham " charitable status would #1 Put the price of Public schools up not down making them more exclusive #2 End all the community benefits we currently screw out of them via enforcing the Charity test #3 Depending on how price inelastic public school places are not necessarily raise much cash to make up for point #2
As an aside in an age of £9K pa tuition fees do you oppose Charitable Status for universities as well ?
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
Add Grammar schools to foxhunting in the next Tory manifesto. It will add dozens of Labour seats.
@Benpointer Removing " Sham " charitable status would #1 Put the price of Public schools up not down making them more exclusive #2 End all the community benefits we currently screw out of them via enforcing the Charity test #3 Depending on how price inelastic public school places are not necessarily raise much cash to make up for point #2
As an aside in an age of £9K pa tuition fees do you oppose Charitable Status for universities as well ?
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Nonsense, I was a working class Northerner whose antecedents were from The Punjab.
Which makes you the exception. You must know that you were atypical - presume you got a scholarship, in which case well done; no real working class family could afford to fund a child through private education in this country.
TSE's dad is working class in the sense that Sam Cameron grew up on an estate in Humberside.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
Add Grammar schools to foxhunting in the next Tory manifesto. It will add dozens of Labour seats.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
Well my rural school took all sorts. Curiously used to be a state boarding school taking damaged kids from city. The most disadvantaged were the kids from tiny primary schools in farming villages. Possibly not a thing these days, but then isolation was real.
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Nonsense, I was a working class Northerner whose antecedents were from The Punjab.
Which makes you the exception. You must know that you were atypical - presume you got a scholarship, in which case well done; no real working class family could afford to fund a child through private education in this country.
TSE's dad is working class in the sense that Sam Cameron grew up on an estate in Humberside.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
Education is a field where no parent practises what they preach.
Add Grammar schools to foxhunting in the next Tory manifesto. It will add dozens of Labour seats.
Grammar schools were undoubtedly a Good Thing in their time, a major contribution to social mobility in the 1950s and 1960s - just look at the BBC big-wigs twenty or thirty years' later. They were the bright spot of an overall poor state education system. The vindictive, entirely destructive, abolition of them was a catastrophic mistake, the fall-out from which we are still suffering. It is so damned hard to build up a good school, but Crosland was desperate to destroy the good schools we had.
However, that was then. They are not the answer now, in an age where 50% of kids go to university.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
Well my rural school took all sorts. Curiously used to be a state boarding school taking damaged kids from city. The most disadvantaged were the kids from tiny primary schools in farming villages. Possibly not a thing these days, but then isolation was real.
At my Comp the same was true. The poorest were the kids of agricultural labourers.
Most now live in town as their villages have been priced out of their reach.
@Benpointer Removing " Sham " charitable status would #1 Put the price of Public schools up not down making them more exclusive #2 End all the community benefits we currently screw out of them via enforcing the Charity test #3 Depending on how price inelastic public school places are not necessarily raise much cash to make up for point #2
As an aside in an age of £9K pa tuition fees do you oppose Charitable Status for universities as well ?
I oppose the £9k pa tuition fees.
Sure but the shift from ' Free ' eduction started over 25 years ago. Should I be able to claim GiftAid ( as I do ) when I stick a couple of quid to my old University College ? It's a Charity but you have to pay for it's services and it's highly selective in who it admits.
Add Grammar schools to foxhunting in the next Tory manifesto. It will add dozens of Labour seats.
Grammar schools were undoubtedly a Good Thing in their time, a major contribution to social mobility in the 1950s and 1960s - just look at the BBC big-wigs twenty or thirty years' later. They were the bright spot of an overall poor state education system. The vindictive, entirely destructive, abolition of them was a catastrophic mistake, the fall-out from which we are still suffering. It is so damned hard to build up a good school, but Crosland was desperate to destroy the good schools we had.
However, that was then. They are not the answer now, in an age where 50% of kids go to university.
Didn't Mrs Thatcher close/merge a record number of grammar schools?
Then doubled up on her excellent decision and not open a single new grammar school when she was PM?
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
No more hypocritical than you, criticising others for not sending their kids to poor inner city schools when you sit in that appalling poverty ghetto the Sussex Weald. I'm sure you happily sent your own kids to Scumbag Comp...not.
Like some other moderate Tories I used to like on here & elsewhere, I'm sorry to say you seem to have turned from a voice of sanity in the EU referendum into a pompous patronising snob in the post 2016 political environment. Perhaps it is the fear at the inevitable left wing government to come that is turning many moderate Tories this way.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexsh*ters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Add Grammar schools to foxhunting in the next Tory manifesto. It will add dozens of Labour seats.
Grammar schools were undoubtedly a Good Thing in their time, a major contribution to social mobility in the 1950s and 1960s - just look at the BBC big-wigs twenty or thirty years' later. They were the bright spot of an overall poor state education system. The vindictive, entirely destructive, abolition of them was a catastrophic mistake, the fall-out from which we are still suffering. It is so damned hard to build up a good school, but Crosland was desperate to destroy the good schools we had.
However, that was then. They are not the answer now, in an age where 50% of kids go to university.
Didn't Mrs Thatcher close/merge a record number of grammar schools?
Then doubled up on her excellent decision and not open a single new grammar school when she was PM?
People from my sort of background needed Grammar schools to compete with children from privileged homes like Shirley Williams and Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
No more hypocritical than you, criticising others for not sending their kids to poor inner city schools when you sit in that appalling poverty ghetto the Sussex Weald. I'm sure you happily sent your own kids to Scumbag Comp...not.
Like some other moderate Tories I used to like on here & elsewhere, I'm sorry to say you seem to have turned from a voice of sanity in the EU referendum into a pompous patronising snob in the post 2016 political environment. Perhaps it is the fear at the inevitable left wing government to come that is turning many moderate Tories this way.
As it happens I don't have kids, but if I did I would unashamedly want the best for them. Zero hypocrisy about it. I am not criticising my friends for not sending their kids to poor inner city schools, I am criticising them for doing so whilst arguing that other parents should do differently. Do you perhaps have some difficulty understanding the word 'hypocrisy'?
Twitter has doubled the character limit on tweets to allow its users to convey more meaning or emotion – or, in the case of Donald Trump, more elaborate war threats to North Korea.
“This is a small change, but a big move for us. 140 was an arbitrary choice based on the 160-character SMS limit,” said chief executive Jack Dorsey, announcing the update on Tuesday.
Add Grammar schools to foxhunting in the next Tory manifesto. It will add dozens of Labour seats.
Grammar schools were undoubtedly a Good Thing in their time, a major contribution to social mobility in the 1950s and 1960s - just look at the BBC big-wigs twenty or thirty years' later. They were the bright spot of an overall poor state education system. The vindictive, entirely destructive, abolition of them was a catastrophic mistake, the fall-out from which we are still suffering. It is so damned hard to build up a good school, but Crosland was desperate to destroy the good schools we had.
However, that was then. They are not the answer now, in an age where 50% of kids go to university.
Grammar school was great for me. The teachers had expectations, I was surrounded by kids who wanted to learn. But giving me what I got meant having a system where most kids got a second-rate, even cursory education. The wasted potential aside, that was OK when they all piled out of school at 15 into factories, mines and shipyards, but as you say it's a very different world now.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexshiters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Brexshiters? I hope this isn't going to become a regular thing.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
No more hypocritical than you, criticising others for not sending their kids to poor inner city schools when you sit in that appalling poverty ghetto the Sussex Weald. I'm sure you happily sent your own kids to Scumbag Comp...not.
Like some other moderate Tories I used to like on here & elsewhere, I'm sorry to say you seem to have turned from a voice of sanity in the EU referendum into a pompous patronising snob in the post 2016 political environment. Perhaps it is the fear at the inevitable left wing government to come that is turning many moderate Tories this way.
He would only be a hypocrite if he claimed to believe in something, while proving by his behaviour that he didn't believe in it at all.
@Benpointer Removing " Sham " charitable status would #1 Put the price of Public schools up not down making them more exclusive #2 End all the community benefits we currently screw out of them via enforcing the Charity test #3 Depending on how price inelastic public school places are not necessarily raise much cash to make up for point #2
As an aside in an age of £9K pa tuition fees do you oppose Charitable Status for universities as well ?
I oppose the £9k pa tuition fees.
Sure but the shift from ' Free ' eduction started over 25 years ago. Should I be able to claim GiftAid ( as I do ) when I stick a couple of quid to my old University College ? It's a Charity but you have to pay for it's services and it's highly selective in who it admits.
It's not something I would waste a lot of breath over tbh. If I had to choose, I'd take away charitable status from private schools and universities but it won't keep me awake at night if they retain them.
No more hypocritical than you, criticising others for not sending their kids to poor inner city schools when you sit in that appalling poverty ghetto the Sussex Weald. I'm sure you happily sent your own kids to Scumbag Comp...not.
Like some other moderate Tories I used to like on here & elsewhere, I'm sorry to say you seem to have turned from a voice of sanity in the EU referendum into a pompous patronising snob in the post 2016 political environment. Perhaps it is the fear at the inevitable left wing government to come that is turning many moderate Tories this way.
As it happens I don't have kids, but if I did I would unashamedly want the best for them. Zero hypocrisy about it. Do you perhaps have some difficulty understanding the word 'hypocrisy'?
Local comp is the best. Never met anyone educated privately who wasn't to some extent fucked up by it. Many waste their lives trying to live up to the privilege. Others get screwed up trying to give their kids the same.
Either way it's not worth it. You're better off spending your money on your kids directly.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexshiters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Brexshiters? I hope this isn't going to become a regular thing.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexshiters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Brexshiters? I hope this isn't going to become a regular thing.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexshiters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Brexshiters? I hope this isn't going to become a regular thing.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexshiters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Brexshiters? I hope this isn't going to become a regular thing.
Twitter has doubled the character limit on tweets to allow its users to convey more meaning or emotion – or, in the case of Donald Trump, more elaborate war threats to North Korea.
“This is a small change, but a big move for us. 140 was an arbitrary choice based on the 160-character SMS limit,” said chief executive Jack Dorsey, announcing the update on Tuesday.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Everyone gets a boost from coverage.
Even the Tories got a 5% lead with Yougov straight after the Quiet Man turned up the volume in 2003.
Oh Dear. More psychological trauma for the Brexshiters. We launch our so called free trade crusade just as the world goes protectionist and on the back of protectionist votes. Still Trump will save us... Oh.
Brexshiters? I hope this isn't going to become a regular thing.
There we are. I've given you an asterisk on Edit. I reserve Brexsh*ters for major collapses in the core Leaver arguments. So it's regular feature but not in daily usage.
On topic though that decision has to be viewed via the prism of the Blitzkrieg renegotiation of NAFTA that's going on. Trump is an economic nationalist who spent his entire campaign telling a he was an economic nationalist. The idea he's going to give us a preferential trade deal is to absurd to rebut. Or it would be in normal times.
I've nothing against private schools (I went to one myself) but I'm not convinced that selecting by wealth is better for poor students than selecting by academic ability.
Labour supporters favour selection by house prices.
Hey! Leave us out of this internal Tory strife. Local comp and proud.
Local comp in a disadvantaged area, or one like that that my most extreme left-wing friends moved house to get their kids into?
Rural area, mixed ability, certainly no special move. Some of us just don't need special help.
Ah yes, rural area. My friends lived in South London. In theory they were entirely in favour of comprehensive education - indeed, vehemently so, on the spurious argument that having middle-class pushy parents would improve standards for everyone. But the local comprehensive was, how do you lot put it, vibrant and diverse, so they moved out, as they could afford to do. Hypocrisy, much?
No more hypocritical than you, criticising others for not sending their kids to poor inner city schools when you sit in that appalling poverty ghetto the Sussex Weald. I'm sure you happily sent your own kids to Scumbag Comp...not.
Like some other moderate Tories I used to like on here & elsewhere, I'm sorry to say you seem to have turned from a voice of sanity in the EU referendum into a pompous patronising snob in the post 2016 political environment. Perhaps it is the fear at the inevitable left wing government to come that is turning many moderate Tories this way.
He would only be a hypocrite if he claimed to believe in something, while proving by his behaviour that he didn't believe in it at all.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Yeah, from a news-management point of view, Conference has been a pretty big wasted opportunity. Whatever possessed John McD to volunteer that a run on the pound was possible if Labour got in, is beyond me.
On April 27, 2017 Boeing filed a petition charging Bombardier with dumping for selling 75+50 CS100s to Delta Air Lines for $19.6m each, below their $33.2m production cost. Aviation Week noted "The reaction to Boeing’s petition against Bombardier across much of the aerospace industry has been sharply negative". Flight Global qualified the move as "perhaps the most back-handed compliment one manufacturer can pay another". Delta Air Lines dismissed Boeing's allegations, claiming neither the larger 737-700 nor the MAX 7 were offered, but a combination of used Embraer E-190 and Boeing 717s, unavailable for the Delta timeline.
At the May, 18 United States International Trade Commission hearing, Boeing's vice-chairman Ray Conner stated "It will only take one or two lost sales involving US customers before commercial viability of the Max 7, and therefore the US industry's very future, becomes very doubtful" and "Bombardier has said it wants 50% of this market, which it will probably win at the prices it is offering. If Bombardier does that, we're looking at losing $330 million dollars in revenue every year". Bombardier Commercial Aircraft president Fred Cromer said "the Boeing numbers are not accurate, whether we’re talking about the sales price or the production cost,[...] early airplanes are expensive [to produce] and every manufacturer looks at the entire program" and the pricing to Delta was in the context of relaunching the program at the 2015 Paris Air Show and had to account for the "perceived risk" of ordering a new aircraft.
Boeing had to offer United Airlines very low prices for the 737-700 to undercut Bombardier, affecting the pricing of the MAX 7 and cascading on the rest of the 737 MAX family, threatening its future and ultimately the US aerospace industry. While the CS100 seats 110 in two-class, Bombardier responded to the 100-seat requirement by pricing it as a lite two-class 100-seater and charging for 10 more seats as needed. Bombardier was surprised when United ordered the larger 737-700 as the competition was believed to be the Embraer E190, possibly tied to other B787 or 777-300ER deals. The ITC should render a decision by mid-June.
On June 9, the U.S. Trade Commission voted that there is a reasonable indication that the U.S. industry is threatened and will publish its report after July 10, 2017. The U.S. Department of Commerce will continue to conduct its investigations, with its preliminary countervailing duty determination due on July 21, 2017, and its antidumping duty determination due on October 4, 2017. Its detailed decision is heavily redacted, not allowing an observer to understand the ITC reasoning. As The Department of Commerce should announce eventual measures against Bombardier on September 25, Spirit Airlines and Sun Country Airlines presented their support of the CSeries, benefiting US travelers while Boeing doesn't offer any 100-140 seat aircraft.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Yeah, from a news-management point of view, Conference has been a pretty big wasted opportunity. Whatever possessed John McD to volunteer that a run on the pound was possible if Labour got in, is beyond me.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Everyone gets a boost from coverage.
Even the Tories got a 5% lead with Yougov straight after the Quiet Man turned up the volume in 2003.
The poll's fieldwork ended on Sunday though, before any serious coverage was given to the conference.
Blimey, SeanT won't like that! TfL and Khan look to have public opinion behind them.
I suspect Uber users feel more strongly about it, though it's interesting that even Uber users aren't that strongly opposed. I suspect that the Uber chair admitting that they got things wrong has dampened the opposition, and in due course they'll make various fixes and get their licence back.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
If paying hundreds of billions for projects which cost tens of millions to build is not an economic issue then I don't know what is.
.... But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. ...
If that is the theme, it sounds oddly tentative. Surely he should try to demonstrate that the government has already failed irretrievably?
Doesn't have to try, the government's doing that for him. But the fact remains he's stuck impotently on the opposition bench for the foreseeable future.
.... But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. ...
If that is the theme, it sounds oddly tentative. Surely he should try to demonstrate that the government has already failed irretrievably?
Doesn't have to try, the government's doing that for him. But the fact remains he's stuck impotently on the opposition bench for the foreseeable future.
Well, we'll see. I'm sure it will go down well in the hall.
Having watched the Conference special, from the floor response I would reckon Angela Rayner, or Emily Thornbury as next leader Starmer was wooden and received flatly, Ashworth a little overexciteable, Watson just a bit creepy.
Not going to collect for a while though. My Labour leader book is a mess.
Polls are pointless until all the party conferences have been completed, a Labour 4% lead halfway through their conference is nothing much to write home about. Others are also up 1% suggesting a slight boost to UKIP post Florence
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voters they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget.
Well there's something in that. They should have the their sham charitable status removed though.
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
Rubbish, that charitable status provides bursaries to many who would otherwise be unable to afford the fees
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voter they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget. Of all the things rich people spend their cash on to buy better lives for their kids putting money into extra education spending is the one that bothers me least.
Why is it any business of yours to dictate to parents in grammar school areas that they cannot do so? The only ballots that have been held in grammars on their future eg in Ripon have backed grammars
She's stuck around to try and solve a difficult political situation.
More than certain posh boys ever did.
Members should back her.
I heard the same nonsense when IDS was in charge.
She made net seat losses against a Marxist IRA condoning tool.
One posh boy resigning because it was the honourable thing to do, the other one was forced out by Mrs May, if she had any class, she'd resign her seat and urge George to stand in her place.
PS - You sound like one of those boring lefty idiots I know, who keep on banging on the vileness of the class system despite having attended places like Winchester and Oxford.
The posh boys made net seat gains, something Mrs May will never achieve.
14million votes wins us the next election.
Something your faves never managed.
My faves won a majority.
A majority. A MAJORITY.
After two goes. Next time, I expect Mrs May will too.
How much you want to stake on Mrs May fighting the 2022 general election?
I don't think she's the leader if the next election is 2022.
May herself seems to think differently.
Well she she states differently at any rate.
I genuinely don't think she's going to go willingly. For all her flaws, she has the hide of a rhinoceros - she wouldn't have survived for so long at the top of politics for 20 years, all through the Tories' wilderness years in opposition, and also hanging on as Home Secretary for so long (through various media firestorms), if she wasn't. Plus, why would she want to retire? Without wanting to sound all Andrea Leadsom, it's not like May has a big family to keep her occupied, and she doesn't seem the type of person who'd want to go and make squillions of money. What's she got to lose by fighting til the bitter end?
So I think it would only be the party getting rid of her in a putsch that would do it, and that seems far from certain to me - not least because Tory MPs don't appear to see any potential leaders who would be better than her.
For my money, May is the favourite to be Tory leader at the next election.
Boris will take over before the next general election as Tory members ensure the transition is not permanent
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. I also found that in the earlier years, whilst OGH's political views were obvious (albeit different from mine), they did not affect the objectiveness of the articles, whereas now TSE (whom I remember first joining the site and with whose views I often tend to agree) seems intent to turn the site into a George Osborne fan site. I rather agree with him about GO's political prowess, but post after post after post on the point, on the uselessness of the current PM, is tedious. It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I oppose Grammars as they are a damaging and stupid waste of taxpayers money. As a taxpayer and voter they are my business. I don't oppose Public Schools because what folk spend their own money on is their business unless it fails Mill's ' Harm Test '. In addition as a left liberal public schools for UK citizens are a mild sort of double taxation. Folk that buy places at them pay extra into the overall education budget while reducing pressure on the state education budget. Of all the things rich people spend their cash on to buy better lives for their kids putting money into extra education spending is the one that bothers me least.
Why is it any business of yours to dictate to parents in grammar school areas that they cannot do so? The only ballots that have been held in grammars on their future eg in Ripon have backed grammars
Because State education in England is legislated for and funded by Westminster you dim wit.
Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits.
Twitter has doubled the character limit on tweets to allow its users to convey more meaning or emotion – or, in the case of Donald Trump, more elaborate war threats to North Korea.
“This is a small change, but a big move for us. 140 was an arbitrary choice based on the 160-character SMS limit,” said chief executive Jack Dorsey, announcing the update on Tuesday.
Apologies for being off topic - and apologies if some think I am making points that I am not entitled to make. I am the quintessential lurker. I have followed this site for well over a decade - indeed Mark Senior's death struck a huge chord with me, given that he seemed to have been here as long as I have, and it was lovely to read those who also mentioned SBS. But I have posted maybe only five or six times. I read for enjoyment - and tips - but not to get on my hobby horse. I am worried that the Brexit vote and its aftermath has spoiled this site. Once upon a time, there was repartee, back-and-forward exchanges in which people tried to change one another's minds - mainly with a view to mutual profit on the betting markets. Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits. Debate has turned to abuse: one just needs to look at the tedious exchange earlier today between Alastair & CasinoRoyale. I'm sorry for OGH but these people are making the site utterly tedious and unpleasant to read, regardless of what side of the Brexit divide one may find oneself. I also found that in the earlier years, whilst OGH's political views were obvious (albeit different from mine), they did not affect the objectiveness of the articles, whereas now TSE (whom I remember first joining the site and with whose views I often tend to agree) seems intent to turn the site into a George Osborne fan site. I rather agree with him about GO's political prowess, but post after post after post on the point, on the uselessness of the current PM, is tedious. It is also pretty stupid for a site based on betting and the identification of value to be dominated by individuals who seem obsessed by partisan one-upmanship... Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so. I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out... PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!
I don't know if I fall into your tedious category or not, but I do take vacations from this site from time to time in order to recover my liking for it and purge the feelings you are exhibiting.
Today, one has to ignore and scroll by a significant number of commentators because his or her comment will be obvious or trite: Brexit is disastrous, May is the worst premier in history, or there are nothing but bright sunlit uplands in front of us. Both sides - and regular readers will know of whom I speak - have their worst culprits.
I don't know if I fall into your tedious category or not, but I do take vacations from this site from time to time in order to recover my liking for it and purge the feelings you are exhibiting.
You don't fall into that category - and, apart from a few serial offenders, I probably did not choose the best form of words, for which I apologise. Your suggestion is a good one but one that I have failed to implement: I get the shakes if I can't read PB for more than a couple of days!
Comments
Yes quite a few memoirs from this period will be interesting in 10-20 years or so.
There was a December election as "recently" as 1923
The problem with comps is that the best ones are paid for by the state but gameable by the middle classes. House prices determine selection.
So I think it would only be the party getting rid of her in a putsch that would do it, and that seems far from certain to me - not least because Tory MPs don't appear to see any potential leaders who would be better than her.
For my money, May is the favourite to be Tory leader at the next election.
Best PM
Theresa May 37
Jeremy Corbyn 29
Corbyn on 29 for next PM
And TM will be replaced in time
Wow.
http://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/uk/news/commercial-vehicles/uber-wins-case-against-london-insurance-rules-61960.aspx
The biggest issue is that they perpetuate privilege down through the generations. Aligned to that they mean that we don't necessarily have the brightest and the best in the most influential jobs (just the most expensively educated and best connected)
As an aside in an age of £9K pa tuition fees do you oppose Charitable Status for universities as well ?
His dad is one of my profession.
(or "Redbridge" if you prefer)
https://twitter.com/jonostrower/status/912804984445575168
However, that was then. They are not the answer now, in an age where 50% of kids go to university.
Most now live in town as their villages have been priced out of their reach.
Then doubled up on her excellent decision and not open a single new grammar school when she was PM?
Like some other moderate Tories I used to like on here & elsewhere, I'm sorry to say you seem to have turned from a voice of sanity in the EU referendum into a pompous patronising snob in the post 2016 political environment. Perhaps it is the fear at the inevitable left wing government to come that is turning many moderate Tories this way.
- M. H. Thatcher, speech to the Conservative Party Conference (14 October, 1977)
Twitter has doubled the character limit on tweets to allow its users to convey more meaning or emotion – or, in the case of Donald Trump, more elaborate war threats to North Korea.
“This is a small change, but a big move for us. 140 was an arbitrary choice based on the 160-character SMS limit,” said chief executive Jack Dorsey, announcing the update on Tuesday.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/sep/26/twitter-increases-character-limit-trump-north-korea?CMP=twt_gu
Either way it's not worth it. You're better off spending your money on your kids directly.
On topic, do we know when the poll was taken? Presumably up to Monday? People here were assuring us only on the last thread that the conference wasn't going to help Labour at all.
I don't think that the messaging has been great up to now - too many pet left-wing issues like PFI, not enough on the economy and personal finance. But the reported theme of Corbyn's speech "Pull yourselves together, Tories, or make way" sounds exactly right. Even quite apolitical people are really tired of the way the rival figures in the Government are handling Brexit like a soap opera.
Arlene and the DUP wanted Mrs May to get Trump to sort this out.
Even the Tories got a 5% lead with Yougov straight after the Quiet Man turned up the volume in 2003.
On topic though that decision has to be viewed via the prism of the Blitzkrieg renegotiation of NAFTA that's going on. Trump is an economic nationalist who spent his entire campaign telling a he was an economic nationalist. The idea he's going to give us a preferential trade deal is to absurd to rebut. Or it would be in normal times.
At the May, 18 United States International Trade Commission hearing, Boeing's vice-chairman Ray Conner stated "It will only take one or two lost sales involving US customers before commercial viability of the Max 7, and therefore the US industry's very future, becomes very doubtful" and "Bombardier has said it wants 50% of this market, which it will probably win at the prices it is offering. If Bombardier does that, we're looking at losing $330 million dollars in revenue every year". Bombardier Commercial Aircraft president Fred Cromer said "the Boeing numbers are not accurate, whether we’re talking about the sales price or the production cost,[...] early airplanes are expensive [to produce] and every manufacturer looks at the entire program" and the pricing to Delta was in the context of relaunching the program at the 2015 Paris Air Show and had to account for the "perceived risk" of ordering a new aircraft.
Boeing had to offer United Airlines very low prices for the 737-700 to undercut Bombardier, affecting the pricing of the MAX 7 and cascading on the rest of the 737 MAX family, threatening its future and ultimately the US aerospace industry. While the CS100 seats 110 in two-class, Bombardier responded to the 100-seat requirement by pricing it as a lite two-class 100-seater and charging for 10 more seats as needed. Bombardier was surprised when United ordered the larger 737-700 as the competition was believed to be the Embraer E190, possibly tied to other B787 or 777-300ER deals. The ITC should render a decision by mid-June.
On June 9, the U.S. Trade Commission voted that there is a reasonable indication that the U.S. industry is threatened and will publish its report after July 10, 2017. The U.S. Department of Commerce will continue to conduct its investigations, with its preliminary countervailing duty determination due on July 21, 2017, and its antidumping duty determination due on October 4, 2017. Its detailed decision is heavily redacted, not allowing an observer to understand the ITC reasoning. As The Department of Commerce should announce eventual measures against Bombardier on September 25, Spirit Airlines and Sun Country Airlines presented their support of the CSeries, benefiting US travelers while Boeing doesn't offer any 100-140 seat aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_CSeries
G'night all.
Not going to collect for a while though. My Labour leader book is a mess.
Anyhow, I said that this was off-topic and I apologise again for that. It was just the observation of somebody who has been reading this site for many years but has seen it decline rapidly - not in the quality of headers but in the tedium of the comments - in the last year or so.
I quite expect to receive the advice that I can collect my refund on the way out...
PS I particularly enjoyed the discussion the other day about an AC/DC powered kettle to address the problems of the US domestic voltage supply. If these discussions continue then, despite my moans above, I will keep returning to this unique site!