Meanwhile Angela Rayner, Labour’s education spokesperson, told the Spectator magazine that Labour’s economic strategy was risky.
“It is a bit of a shit-or-bust strategy,” she said. “But all of Britain’s great advancements in the past have been because we’ve had the gumption to take a risk.”
I’m sorry. If a person is either so unintelligent or so uneducated that they could actually say those words out loud, they shouldn’t be anywhere near power. Is this really the best a party with a membership of 500,000 can do?
No but we will be by the time a second referendum becomes a possibility (2022)
By that point the terms of the referendum will be on the status quo (being outside the EU) or rejoining and accepting all of the craziness like the army, the currency, etc...
As an aside, can any medical professionals explain why so few doctors and nurses are even halfway competent at inserting cannulas ? In any other context the worst would be prosecuted for GBH.
While Ms Rayner (if quoted accurately) is almost incoherent, it is quite true that WWC boys are bottom of the heap educationally. I don't think she has anything useful to say beyond that.
Far more likely Labour will do something about this than the Tories. They’ve been in charge for nearly 8 years, spent their political capital and a decent proportion of the education budget on free schools for the middle class in the South of England - and are now planning to go back to grammar schools. Oh and cutting the schools budget per pupil.
Delusional.
Labour have been in charge of education in Wales since 1999. A generation of schoolchildren have grown up knowing nothing but Labour. Wales is bottom of the 4 countries comprising the UK in any educational table.
In Ebbw Vale, over 50 per cent of the residents have either no qualifications or qualifications equal to 1 or more GCSE at grade D or below.
Labour have been in charge for 18 years. We’re still waiting for them to do something.
Admittedly I know nothing about Wales and education other than I think they kept their version of sure start/head start.
Meanwhile Angela Rayner, Labour’s education spokesperson, told the Spectator magazine that Labour’s economic strategy was risky.
“It is a bit of a shit-or-bust strategy,” she said. “But all of Britain’s great advancements in the past have been because we’ve had the gumption to take a risk.”
I’m sorry. If a person is either so unintelligent or so uneducated that they could actually say those words out loud, they shouldn’t be anywhere near power. Is this really the best a party with a membership of 500,000 can do?
Meanwhile from a party, which doesn't release actual membership figures for some reason but informed guesses at now well under 100K, we have TMay, Boris, Hunt, Hammond, etc., etc.. Supposedly better educated, but......
A majority of Tory members back the death penalty for some serious crimes. Also big differences on whether austerity has gone too far and on whether big business acts in the interests of ordinary people as well as already mentioned on the EU between Tory, Labour, LD and SNP members in Tim Bale's party members poll
Good morning! And after 3 days of creaking sinuses and walking slantways, being able to breathe through my nose for the first time this year is indeed a good morning...
Blair goes onto Today to "urge Labour to fight Brexit". He does know that the party respects him enough to do the exact opposite of anything he says, no matter how sensible? He needs to game the nutters, call for Brexit NOW and watch the party swing firmly behind remain.
While Ms Rayner (if quoted accurately) is almost incoherent, it is quite true that WWC boys are bottom of the heap educationally. I don't think she has anything useful to say beyond that.
Far more likely Labour will do something about this than the Tories. They’ve been in charge for nearly 8 years, spent their political capital and a decent proportion of the education budget on free schools for the middle class in the South of England - and are now planning to go back to grammar schools. Oh and cutting the schools budget per pupil.
Delusional.
Labour have been in charge of education in Wales since 1999. A generation of schoolchildren have grown up knowing nothing but Labour. Wales is bottom of the 4 countries comprising the UK in any educational table.
In Ebbw Vale, over 50 per cent of the residents have either no qualifications or qualifications equal to 1 or more GCSE at grade D or below.
Labour have been in charge for 18 years. We’re still waiting for them to do something.
Admittedly I know nothing about Wales and education other than I think they kept their version of sure start/head start.
Take it from me Labour in Wales are in a mess on both the NHS and Education.
Indeed ITV Wales last night complimented Jeremy Hunt and the PM for appearing on the media and apologising for cancelled operations when the Welsh Labour Minister refused to be interviewed and did not even release a statement over the dreadful state of Wales A and E with six hours or more waiting times
Interesting intervention from Tony Blair and not a lot with which I, as a LEAVE voter, would disagree. I've always thought the final package should be subject to a vote (not a "second referendum" because it sounds like a re-run of 23/6/16) ideally with clarity on the consequences of a "No" vote (do we crash out with no deal, stay in with pre 23/6/16 terms or have a further round of negotiations).
This is the problem - if you vote "No" what do you want ? Better not to have the option, keep your head down and hope against hope May and Davis come up with something semi-palatable which the bulk of the Conservative Party (and that's the only electorate that matters to the Government) can support.
After all, if the GE happens in 2022 and they lose, it'll be someone else's problem and if they win it'll be seen as an endorsement of the deal.
Blair, for all the contempt in which he is held, wasn't a bad political operator in his day and his advice to Labour isn't bad either in my view though it won't be followed because of Labour's contempt for him.
Even if, as Nick P has opined, A50 isn't seen as the defining issue for Labour in the same way as it is for many Conservatives, it is still the key political issue for now. May's promises to safeguard existing workers' rights are already coming under attack from the "globalists" who witter on about Britain being "open for business" which translates as "rich people, please come here and spend your money. We have a docile work force who will clean your cars and pour your coffee for pittance wages". I didn't vote LEAVE for London to become Dysontopia and I'm sure Labour will fight a race to the bottom in terms of abolishing things like holiday and sick pay for part time workers.
Meanwhile Angela Rayner, Labour’s education spokesperson, told the Spectator magazine that Labour’s economic strategy was risky.
“It is a bit of a shit-or-bust strategy,” she said. “But all of Britain’s great advancements in the past have been because we’ve had the gumption to take a risk.”
I’m sorry. If a person is either so unintelligent or so uneducated that they could actually say those words out loud, they shouldn’t be anywhere near power. Is this really the best a party with a membership of 500,000 can do?
Brexit is a shit-or-bust strategy. The people promulgating it are not merely near power. They are in power. We can trade insults to reflect our prejudices but Tory insults of Labour's economic policies won't have a big effect, much as I agree with your disparagement of them.
Interesting fact from today's Nationwide house price report:
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used regional income data to calculate where in the income distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their (single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England, this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
Interesting fact from today's Nationwide house price report:
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used regional income data to calculate where in the income distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their (single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England, this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
Though in London and the South East most first time buyers will also have parental support to get a deposit
Interesting fact from today's Nationwide house price report:
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used regional income data to calculate where in the income distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their (single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England, this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
Just to make sure that I've understood it: the modeled FTB in Scotland/North is below average income, while they are in the top 10% of income in London?
While Ms Rayner (if quoted accurately) is almost incoherent, it is quite true that WWC boys are bottom of the heap educationally. I don't think she has anything useful to say beyond that.
Far more likely Labour will do something about this than the Tories. They’ve been in charge for nearly 8 years, spent their political capital and a decent proportion of the education budget on free schools for the middle class in the South of England - and are now planning to go back to grammar schools. Oh and cutting the schools budget per pupil.
Labour did all of that as well - to a much greater extent in many cases. Indeed, many inner city schools were closed in those years as part of their academy programme. Meanwhile the number of pupils in grammar schools increased by 20% in absolute terms, more in real terms.
The funding cuts they imposed from 1997-2001 were savage. Except that they also repeatedly lied about it. Even when they changed course and started putting more money into schools, you may be surprised to learn they provided just one pound in every twenty of the extra money they promised. The rest had to be met form council tax, which is one reason why it rose so rapidly. Moreover even that money all had to be spent on increased pay for teachers meaning money for various other resources was reduced in real terms, leading many schools to get deeply into debt.
I am about halfway through a book chapter on Labour's education policies from 1997-2010 and what I have found actually shocked me. Although I realised their record was bad, I had no idea it was that bad.
I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.
Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.
While Ms Rayner (if quoted accurately) is almost incoherent, it is quite true that WWC boys are bottom of the heap educationally. I don't think she has anything useful to say beyond that.
Far more likely Labour will do something about this than the Tories. They’ve been in charge for nearly 8 years, spent their political capital and a decent proportion of the education budget on free schools for the middle class in the South of England - and are now planning to go back to grammar schools. Oh and cutting the schools budget per pupil.
Delusional.
Labour have been in charge of education in Wales since 1999. A generation of schoolchildren have grown up knowing nothing but Labour. Wales is bottom of the 4 countries comprising the UK in any educational table.
In Ebbw Vale, over 50 per cent of the residents have either no qualifications or qualifications equal to 1 or more GCSE at grade D or below.
Labour have been in charge for 18 years. We’re still waiting for them to do something.
Admittedly I know nothing about Wales and education other than I think they kept their version of sure start/head start.
Take it from me Labour in Wales are in a mess on both the NHS and Education.
Indeed ITV Wales last night complimented Jeremy Hunt and the PM for appearing on the media and apologising for cancelled operations when the Welsh Labour Minister refused to be interviewed and did not even release a statement over the dreadful state of Wales A and E with six hours or more waiting times
I don’t mean this in a rude way but You’re probably the most partisan poster on here!
Interesting fact from today's Nationwide house price report:
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used regional income data to calculate where in the income distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their (single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England, this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
Just to make sure that I've understood it: the modeled FTB in Scotland/North is below average income, while they are in the top 10% of income in London?
That feels intuitively correct.
so you can afford to buy a house on an average salary in Scotland whereas in the cesspit you are limited to a garden shed on top whack salaries.
While Ms Rayner (if quoted accurately) is almost incoherent, it is quite true that WWC boys are bottom of the heap educationally. I don't think she has anything useful to say beyond that.
Far more likely Labour will do something about this than the Tories. They’ve been in charge for nearly 8 years, spent their political capital and a decent proportion of the education budget on free schools for the middle class in the South of England - and are now planning to go back to grammar schools. Oh and cutting the schools budget per pupil.
Labour did all of that as well - to a much greater extent in many cases. Indeed, many inner city schools were closed in those years as part of their academy programme. Meanwhile the number of pupils in grammar schools increased by 20% in absolute terms, more in real terms.
The funding cuts they imposed from 1997-2001 were savage. Except that they also repeatedly lied about it. Even when they changed course and started putting more money into schools, you may be surprised to learn they provided just one pound in every twenty of the extra money they promised. The rest had to be met form council tax, which is one reason why it rose so rapidly. Moreover even that money all had to be spent on increased pay for teachers meaning money for various other resources was reduced in real terms, leading many schools to get deeply into debt.
I am about halfway through a book chapter on Labour's education policies from 1997-2010 and what I have found actually shocked me. Although I realised their record was bad, I had no idea it was that bad.
I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.
Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.
Mr. 43, leaving was a decision made by the electorate. Unfair to criticise the Government for enacting a policy the electorate chose in a referendum.
If Labour get elected, their government will aim to enact a policy the electorate chose in a general election. Will that prevent you critcising their policy?
Edit. The Party of Leave need to deliver a successful Brexit, as their people promised. It's shit-or-bust really.
Interesting fact from today's Nationwide house price report:
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used regional income data to calculate where in the income distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their (single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England, this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
Just to make sure that I've understood it: the modeled FTB in Scotland/North is below average income, while they are in the top 10% of income in London?
That feels intuitively correct.
It's highly variable in Scotland. Edinburgh City is unaffordable for people with ordinary jobs. Aberdeen used to be - I'm not sure where it is now, as house prices there are correlated with the state of the oil industry. Cross the river to Fife to places like Leven, which isn't horrible, and you can buy a house for a fraction of the cost of an equivalent in Edinburgh.
Interesting fact from today's Nationwide house price report:
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used regional income data to calculate where in the income distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their (single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England, this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
Just to make sure that I've understood it: the modeled FTB in Scotland/North is below average income, while they are in the top 10% of income in London?
That feels intuitively correct.
so you can afford to buy a house on an average salary in Scotland whereas in the cesspit you are limited to a garden shed on top whack salaries.
I might be wrong but I don’t think opening new grammar schools were part of Labours policy - in fact I think they passed the legislation stopping new grammar schools from opening. Free schools obviously came in under Gove.
Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.
1) They didn't allow new grammars to open but existing ones massively expanded, at a time when the overall numbers of students was declining. So your first point is irrelevant.
2) Labour did not 'massively increase spending'. They claimed they did but amazingly, they were not telling the truth (who'd have thought it, eh)? They made commitments on spending - almost invariably on teachers' pay - which they (a) announced up to four times and (b) did not then fund, leaving local authorities to make up the difference. Even if I accepted your view on their record on education spending - which I don't - I would point out that a rise of from 5% to 5.6% of GDP in over thirteen years is hardly 'massive,' and in 2000 that dipped as low as 4.5%.
Far too many people take Labour's hype and spin at face value. As I say, I was shocked when I started burrowing into the details. It turned out to be all smoke and mirrors - and not many mirrors either.
Mr. 43, leaving was a decision made by the electorate. Unfair to criticise the Government for enacting a policy the electorate chose in a referendum.
If Labour get elected, their government will aim to enact a policy the electorate chose in a general election. Will that prevent you critcising their policy?
Edit. The Party of Leave need to deliver a successful Brexit, as their people promised. It's shit-or-bust really.
Labour under Corbyn is a party of Leave too.
If you want that to change, then Labour had better bring back Blair.....
Comments
Watching this tweet with sound off, Theresa looks by turns terrified, bored and angry.
Social media Tory style!
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/948606757437427713
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/948839451161178112
Utterly, utterly shameless!
https://www.ft.com/content/c79786e8-f0a2-11e7-b220-857e26d1aca4?desktop=true
Meanwhile Angela Rayner, Labour’s education spokesperson, told the Spectator magazine that Labour’s economic strategy was risky.
“It is a bit of a shit-or-bust strategy,” she said. “But all of Britain’s great advancements in the past have been because we’ve had the gumption to take a risk.”
I’m sorry. If a person is either so unintelligent or so uneducated that they could actually say those words out loud, they shouldn’t be anywhere near power. Is this really the best a party with a membership of 500,000 can do?
I did read this book over Christmas, though, which was mildly diverting. A nice break from the Scarlet Letter...
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/06/kill-president-sam-bourne-review
By that point the terms of the referendum will be on the status quo (being outside the EU) or rejoining and accepting all of the craziness like the army, the currency, etc...
In any other context the worst would be prosecuted for GBH.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PickardJE/status/948844573832474624
Blair goes onto Today to "urge Labour to fight Brexit". He does know that the party respects him enough to do the exact opposite of anything he says, no matter how sensible? He needs to game the nutters, call for Brexit NOW and watch the party swing firmly behind remain.
Which will give PBers something to talk about.
Indeed ITV Wales last night complimented Jeremy Hunt and the PM for appearing on the media and apologising for cancelled operations when the Welsh Labour Minister refused to be interviewed and did not even release a statement over the dreadful state of Wales A and E with six hours or more waiting times
Interesting intervention from Tony Blair and not a lot with which I, as a LEAVE voter, would disagree. I've always thought the final package should be subject to a vote (not a "second referendum" because it sounds like a re-run of 23/6/16) ideally with clarity on the consequences of a "No" vote (do we crash out with no deal, stay in with pre 23/6/16 terms or have a further round of negotiations).
This is the problem - if you vote "No" what do you want ? Better not to have the option, keep your head down and hope against hope May and Davis come up with something semi-palatable which the bulk of the Conservative Party (and that's the only electorate that matters to the Government) can support.
After all, if the GE happens in 2022 and they lose, it'll be someone else's problem and if they win it'll be seen as an endorsement of the deal.
Blair, for all the contempt in which he is held, wasn't a bad political operator in his day and his advice to Labour isn't bad either in my view though it won't be followed because of Labour's contempt for him.
Even if, as Nick P has opined, A50 isn't seen as the defining issue for Labour in the same way as it is for many Conservatives, it is still the key political issue for now. May's promises to safeguard existing workers' rights are already coming under attack from the "globalists" who witter on about Britain being "open for business" which translates as "rich people, please come here and spend your money. We have a docile work force who will clean your cars and pour your coffee for pittance wages". I didn't vote LEAVE for London to become Dysontopia and I'm sure Labour will fight a race to the bottom in terms of abolishing things like holiday and sick pay for part time workers.
' To explore how this is impacting potential buyers we used
regional income data to calculate where in the income
distribution a prospective purchaser would lie if they were
purchasing the typical first time buyer property in each
region, with a 20% deposit and borrowing four times their
(single) income.
The picture that emerges is that this ‘typical buyer’ moves
up the income spectrum as you move from the north to the
south of the country. In Scotland and the North of England,
this buyer would lie in the 30th income percentile, while in
the South East they would be at the 80th percentile and
above the 90th percentile in London (the closest percentile
with available data). '
Remember that George Osborne was an advocate of ever rising house prices and ever rising student debt.
That feels intuitively correct.
Your figures on funding seem designed to obscure the simple fact that Labor increased spending on education significantly over their time in office.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education
Edit. The Party of Leave need to deliver a successful Brexit, as their people promised. It's shit-or-bust really.
2) Labour did not 'massively increase spending'. They claimed they did but amazingly, they were not telling the truth (who'd have thought it, eh)? They made commitments on spending - almost invariably on teachers' pay - which they (a) announced up to four times and (b) did not then fund, leaving local authorities to make up the difference. Even if I accepted your view on their record on education spending - which I don't - I would point out that a rise of from 5% to 5.6% of GDP in over thirteen years is hardly 'massive,' and in 2000 that dipped as low as 4.5%.
Far too many people take Labour's hype and spin at face value. As I say, I was shocked when I started burrowing into the details. It turned out to be all smoke and mirrors - and not many mirrors either.
I have to go. Have a good morning.
If you want that to change, then Labour had better bring back Blair.....