I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
Thanks for that explanation but I still can't get my head around Conservatives "outperforming" can lead to Labour gaining seats over and above those gained in their bumper year of 2014.
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
Did you consider reading beyond the first sentence? The argument was that somebody who's very talented in one subject but sub-par in others gets dumped in a comprehensive and is therefore screwed throughout their entire education. Your point if anything reinforces that by saying, yes, the fact that they ended up in a comprehensive is going to disadvantage them at the university admissions stage too.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Labour did better in London, and worse outside London. London made up 40% of the seats contested in this cycle, but only makes up 14% of English constituencies, overall.
Thus, in order to work out NEV shares, you weight down the London results, and you weight up the results from outside London.
Conversely, the Conservatives lost seats in London, but gained more seats outside London than Labour and the Lib Dems combined. In London, they lost 91 seats, Outside London, they gained 58.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
Thanks for that explanation but I still can't get my head around Conservatives "outperforming" can lead to Labour gaining seats over and above those gained in their bumper year of 2014.
Labour performed disproportionately well in 'all-up' areas, where you can gain 3 seats in one ward. Meanwhile the Tories did better in areas that were electing by thirds, so not as many gains to be made.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Labour did better in London, and worse outside London. London made up 40% of the seats contested in this cycle, but only makes up 14% of English constituencies, overall.
Thus, in order to work out NEV shares, you weight down the London results, and you weight up the results from outside London.
Conversely, the Conservatives lost seats in London, but gained more seats outside London than Labour and the Lib Dems combined. In London, they lost 91 seats, Outside London, they gained 58.
The south coast cities were the other bright spot for Labour.
Peak Corbyn is a nursery comfort blanket for the sycophantic, the hubristic and the credulous – those that STILL afford far to much credence to the minutiae of midterm polling, despite the raft of evidence to the contrary in recent times.
But his personal poll rating for "best PM " has dropped substantially - that must be a concern ?
Not for me. I don't support his leadership. I just think all this hubristic Tory monomania over minor midterm polling details is pretty pathetic.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
That is not true.
The 11+ is effectively an iq test, if you are dim you will not pass it however rich your parents are and how much you are tutored
Whether the assessments are an accurate indicator of dimness or not (I doubt it personally), no-one likes to be told their kid is dim and therefore binned educationally. Telling parents we will give their kids the best education available goes down a lot better.
Peak Corbyn is a nursery comfort blanket for the sycophantic, the hubristic and the credulous – those that STILL afford far to much credence to the minutiae of midterm polling, despite the raft of evidence to the contrary in recent times.
But his personal poll rating for "best PM " has dropped substantially - that must be a concern ?
Not for me. I don't support his leadership. I just think all this hubristic Tory monomania over minor midterm polling details is pretty pathetic.
It's hardly unusual for party supporters to be pleased when their party is ahead.
If we can revoke, then surely in legal terms no leaving will have happened and the status quo ante will legally apply. Whether some concession is asked for by the EU to ease the passage and agreed on a political level is a different matter, money perhaps, controversial perhaps, but it won't be a full on overhaul of our relationship.
Any legal challenges will either be around the refusal of a revocation, or will come after the event, much as happened with the Brexit challenges (and will be similarly marginal on the course of events).
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
The problems for the Tories are that these seats were last contested on the day the only time Tories have won a majority in the last 27 years.
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
Not quite the Armageddon in London you were predicting though was it and hard Brexit is what many if not most Leave voters want
My prediction was for the Tories to make net gains outside of London and net losses in London.
I was right, 'twas ever thus
The Tories held all their councils in London Labour were targeting though and no London councils are up next year
I know. I did tip Labour not to take Barnet when they were the 1/8 favourites.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
Thanks for that explanation but I still can't get my head around Conservatives "outperforming" can lead to Labour gaining seats over and above those gained in their bumper year of 2014.
Labour lost seats to the Conservatives in Leavey areas like Newcastle-under-Lyme, Derby, Walsall (just to name three places relatively close to me). But they won plenty in London and more in other Remain areas like Norwich.
However there were fewer of the former areas up for election overall. If the whole country had been up then the NEV implies the Conservatives would have made more gains than Labour overall (both would probably have made net gains because of all the UKIP seats lost).
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
Did you consider reading beyond the first sentence? The argument was that somebody who's very talented in one subject but sub-par in others gets dumped in a comprehensive and is therefore screwed throughout their entire education. Your point if anything reinforces that by saying, yes, the fact that they ended up in a comprehensive is going to disadvantage them at the university admissions stage too.
If they are only really good in one subject they are likely only of average iq anyway overall but of course grammars have a sixth form entry if they perform well at GCSE.
Plus of course if they are really good at 1 subject the university they want to study at will still likely enable them to study that 1 subject as a degree
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
2017, when the Opposition did very well after suffering very poor local election results, is exceptional.
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
2017, when the Opposition did very well after suffering very poor local election results, is exceptional.
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
These general forecasting principles are all long since dead. They mean the square root of nothing any more, as your own example aptly demonstrates.
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
Did you consider reading beyond the first sentence? The argument was that somebody who's very talented in one subject but sub-par in others gets dumped in a comprehensive and is therefore screwed throughout their entire education. Your point if anything reinforces that by saying, yes, the fact that they ended up in a comprehensive is going to disadvantage them at the university admissions stage too.
If they are only really good in one subject they are likely only of average iq anyway overall but of course grammars have a sixth form entry if they perform well at GCSE.
Plus of course if they are really good at 1 subject the university they want to study at will still likely enable them to study that 1 subject as a degree
More conjecture from you presented as fact. I see you are again failing to engage with the argument and have once again simply pressed autopilot on the CCHQ spin machine.
" I said that if they issued a Summons instead of discussing possible dates like reasonable people, then it would be obvious they are not interested in friendly cooperation to uncover the truth. So I will not give evidence to this Committee under any circumstances. (I may to other Committees depending on behaviour.)
One of the many things about government that could be improved is changes to the Committee process and powers. They should, like in America, have the power to compel attendance (!), but they should also have processes that push them towards truth-seeking behaviour rather than the usual trivialising grandstanding. "
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
Thanks for that explanation but I still can't get my head around Conservatives "outperforming" can lead to Labour gaining seats over and above those gained in their bumper year of 2014.
Labour performed disproportionately well in 'all-up' areas, where you can gain 3 seats in one ward. Meanwhile the Tories did better in areas that were electing by thirds, so not as many gains to be made.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
2017, when the Opposition did very well after suffering very poor local election results, is exceptional.
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
These general forecasting principles are all long since dead. They mean the square root of nothing any more, as your own example aptly demonstrates.
Brexit has fundamentally changed things and the eventual Brexit resolution probably will too, so I agree with Keiran's basic thesis. But 2017 was truly exceptional in that it was the first ever case of a GE campaign making a huge difference (mostly to leader perceptions, which then fed into votes). It could of course happen again, but the longer-term trend in local elections is still worth quite a lot.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
2017, when the Opposition did very well after suffering very poor local election results, is exceptional.
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
These general forecasting principles are all long since dead. They mean the square root of nothing any more, as your own example aptly demonstrates.
Exceptional events are literally that, exceptional.
The Conservatives may be deluding themselves if they think we're past Peak Corbyn. But, Labour supporters would be deluding themselves if they think that polls and secondary election results don't matter.
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
2017, when the Opposition did very well after suffering very poor local election results, is exceptional.
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
These general forecasting principles are all long since dead. They mean the square root of nothing any more, as your own example aptly demonstrates.
Both Blair and Cameron had 10%+ local election leads before winning power
BIt of a long range prediction here, but I think the Tories will hold steady more or less against Labour whilst shipping wards to the Lib Dems. The big cities where Labour is really romping home are excluded from this round.
The problems for the Tories are that these seats were last contested on the day the only time Tories have won a majority in the last 27 years.
Lower turnout and 9 years into government usually means a high hiding for the governing party.
And these elections will be held a few weeks after we've left the EU.
A hard/WTO Brexit and it'll be like holding a round of locals a few days after Black Wednesday.
Not quite the Armageddon in London you were predicting though was it and hard Brexit is what many if not most Leave voters want
My prediction was for the Tories to make net gains outside of London and net losses in London.
I was right, 'twas ever thus
The Tories held all their councils in London Labour were targeting though and no London councils are up next year
I know. I did tip Labour not to take Barnet when they were the 1/8 favourites.
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
Did you consider reading beyond the first sentence? The argument was that somebody who's very talented in one subject but sub-par in others gets dumped in a comprehensive and is therefore screwed throughout their entire education. Your point if anything reinforces that by saying, yes, the fact that they ended up in a comprehensive is going to disadvantage them at the university admissions stage too.
If they are only really good in one subject they are likely only of average iq anyway overall but of course grammars have a sixth form entry if they perform well at GCSE.
Plus of course if they are really good at 1 subject the university they want to study at will still likely enable them to study that 1 subject as a degree
More conjecture from you presented as fact. I see you are again failing to engage with the argument and have once again simply pressed autopilot on the CCHQ spin machine.
No I was responding precisely to the argument that apparently grammars were not great for people who were only above average in 1 subject not across the board as those of high iq would be expected to be
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
" I said that if they issued a Summons instead of discussing possible dates like reasonable people, then it would be obvious they are not interested in friendly cooperation to uncover the truth. So I will not give evidence to this Committee under any circumstances. (I may to other Committees depending on behaviour.)
One of the many things about government that could be improved is changes to the Committee process and powers. They should, like in America, have the power to compel attendance (!), but they should also have processes that push them towards truth-seeking behaviour rather than the usual trivialising grandstanding. "
I take it Cummings has never watched a US hearing?
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
As my mother said ‘You’ll have the wedding of your dreams as soon as you have kids that get married’
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
The key metric is Labour v Tory; the fact rhat all parties had the additional opportunity to hoover up seats from smaller parties (principally ukip) doesn't change the fact that the opposition didn't lead the government in vote share.
But Tories lost a 100 seats and Labour gained 77 seats. So Labour must have done better than 2014.
Yes, I was confused by this too.
I'm not all convinced by the idea that opposition parties have to smash in midterm locals, and in particular have to significantly outperform last time when they were *also in opposition and polling really well*, in order to stand a chance in the next generals. It reminds me a lot of "always take the Tories' best poll and Labour's worst". Has anyone actually done any statistical analysis that shows we should be placing much significance on the locals?
2017, when the Opposition did very well after suffering very poor local election results, is exceptional.
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
These general forecasting principles are all long since dead. They mean the square root of nothing any more, as your own example aptly demonstrates.
Beyond judgement of the campaigns, I think 2017 was exceptional in that Brexit disrupted the whole government continuity vs opposition change calculation relative to almost every other election. Never mind that Labour's remain continuity credentials were shaky and their program fairly out there.
It may not all be sorted by 2022, but I think the government will more represent continuity than it did last year.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
Those people have been cut off the guest list because I don't want them there. I barely know them and haven't spoken to most of them for two or three years.
Of course, nobody should be dumped into a comprehensive...
Our local non-selective secondary co-exists with two local Grammar Schools and achieves excellent outcomes, top 5% nationally for pupils’ progress made... higher education destinations are good too, though we need to work hard to dispel the notion that Oxbridge is only for posh kids...
The issue with expansion of the Grammar Schools is that it creates more places in an area that already has surplus capacity... so if we lose five pupils to each Grammar that equates to nearly £1/4m lost funding... this will result in larger class sizes, counterintuitive I know, a narrowing of the curriculum and greater difficulty attracting excellent staff...
Of course, we will work our hardest to mitigate the impacts, but it’s bloody frustrating that it’s necessary just because some red meat has to be thrown to the Tory right.
He knows nothing. He also said the only reason it was in there was because they thought no one would ever use it. He also said that if they had known it might be used they would never have added the Article. If it gets to the point where we want to change our minds the legality of it will be decided by the ECJ.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
As my mother said ‘You’ll have the wedding of your dreams as soon as you have kids that get married’
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
Those people have been cut off the guest list because I don't want them there. I barely know them and haven't spoken to most of them for two or three years.
The crucial question is... what does your fiancee want to do ?
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
Those people have been cut off the guest list because I don't want them there. I barely know them and haven't spoken to most of them for two or three years.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
Self tutoring your kids!!!!
The horror! How dare parents take an interest in their children's education and help them to better themselves.
Of course good parents will do the best by their kids. The problem is how do you level the playing field for those children who had the misfortune to end up with feckless parents who couldn't give a toss?
You can't. If the parents won't help there is nothing the State can do to change that.
I got my A levels given to me by Brian Clough. It was at a time when there was a lot of concern about juvenile delinquency and schools were being blamed for it. At speech day he stood up in front of all the parents and pointed out that the schools had the kids for 7 hours a day and the parents had them for the other 17 hours. If the parents wanted someone to blame they should stop looking to the schools and start looking at themselves. He was absolutely right.
I've also had the "just because you are both paying for everything it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want at your wedding" talk from my mum. It took all of my patience not to start yelling at her.
Of course, nobody should be dumped into a comprehensive...
Our local non-selective secondary co-exists with two local Grammar Schools and achieves excellent outcomes, top 5% nationally for pupils’ progress made... higher education destinations are good too, though we need to work hard to dispel the notion that Oxbridge is only for posh kids...
The issue with expansion of the Grammar Schools is that it creates more places in an area that already has surplus capacity... so if we lose five pupils to each Grammar that equates to nearly £1/4m lost funding... this will result in larger class sizes, counterintuitive I know, a narrowing of the curriculum and greater difficulty attracting excellent staff...
Of course, we will work our hardest to mitigate the impacts, but it’s bloody frustrating that it’s necessary just because some red meat has to be thrown to the Tory right.
The laws of supply and demand dictate that if all the local comprehensives are excellent there will be less demand for expansion of grammar schools
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
Those people have been cut off the guest list because I don't want them there. I barely know them and haven't spoken to most of them for two or three years.
In the end we invited quite a few of my parents' friends, and my wife's extended family, even though we hadn't seen some of them for years. Look at it from their (the guests') perspective - in many cases they've seen you grow up, maybe on a very frequent basis when you were very young. Your wedding is like a closure for them on the emotional investment they have in you.
Of course, it's your wedding, and you're paying for it, so do what you like. But it isn't a big deal to invite people you barely know, if they feel they know (a much younger) you. If it's just friends of your parents who've never known you, that's different. All imho, of course.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Hold firm - we had a cousins argument over all or none vs the ones we actually socialised with to some degree. And we argued over spending on a professional video recording, we chose to do that to avoid father-in-law prancing around the wedding with his. And I still had to accidentally on-purpose lock his camcorder away in a car boot at an opportune moment to prevent his doing just that.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
Those people have been cut off the guest list because I don't want them there. I barely know them and haven't spoken to most of them for two or three years.
The crucial question is... what does your fiancee want to do ?
She wants to keep the peace, of course. However, I want to draw a line now so my mum doesn't think she can interfere with our lives later on. She's already browbeaten my sister into having some kind of religious stuff in their house, I'm not heading down that path.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Hold firm - we had a cousins argument over all or none vs the ones we actually socialised with to some degree. And we argued over spending on a professional video recording, we chose to do that to avoid father-in-law prancing around the wedding with his. And I still had to accidentally on-purpose lock his camcorder away in a car boot at an opportune moment to prevent his doing just that.
Ah yes, my parents insisted on paying for the professional video guy.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Could you fit a few more into the reception even if not the wedding itself?
Those people have been cut off the guest list because I don't want them there. I barely know them and haven't spoken to most of them for two or three years.
In the end we invited quite a few of my parents' friends, and my wife's extended family, even though we hadn't seen some of them for years. Look at it from their (the guests') perspective - in many cases they've seen you grow up, maybe on a very frequent basis when you were very young. Your wedding is like a closure for them on the emotional investment they have in you.
Of course, it's your wedding, and you're paying for it, so do what you like. But it isn't a big deal to invite people you barely know, if they feel they know (a much younger) you. If it's just friends of your parents who've never known you, that's different. All imho, of course.
They already came to my sister's wedding and tbh, they acted pretty awfully, tried to drink all the beer and started fights/arguments with my brother-in-law's family. Another reason I don't want them there.
I've actually given my parents a table at the reception for their friends and I don't mind them because they are decent people. Plus it's closer to the relationship you describe that they've seen me grow up for so many years. The extended family haven't.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Hold firm - we had a cousins argument over all or none vs the ones we actually socialised with to some degree. And we argued over spending on a professional video recording, we chose to do that to avoid father-in-law prancing around the wedding with his. And I still had to accidentally on-purpose lock his camcorder away in a car boot at an opportune moment to prevent his doing just that.
We've paid for a photographer but not bothering with a videographer. My sister paid £4k for one and no one ever watches the recording. A photographer makes much more sense.
So far Labour have ousted council leaders in Sunderland, Harrow and Oldham. In Wigan and Greenwich the council leaders stood down. In Greenwich they selected the outgoing Deputy, so it is a sort of continuation.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
As my mother said ‘You’ll have the wedding of your dreams as soon as you have kids that get married’
I've told my mum to, politely, get lost.
Our 25th anniversary approaches - I'm truly blessed that my Wife has put up with me for so long. Our wedding photographer told me just before the ceremony - "Just remember. Today there are only two important people. The Bride and the Bride's Mother." Made me laugh
Of course, nobody should be dumped into a comprehensive...
Our local non-selective secondary co-exists with two local Grammar Schools and achieves excellent outcomes, top 5% nationally for pupils’ progress made... higher education destinations are good too, though we need to work hard to dispel the notion that Oxbridge is only for posh kids...
The issue with expansion of the Grammar Schools is that it creates more places in an area that already has surplus capacity... so if we lose five pupils to each Grammar that equates to nearly £1/4m lost funding... this will result in larger class sizes, counterintuitive I know, a narrowing of the curriculum and greater difficulty attracting excellent staff...
Of course, we will work our hardest to mitigate the impacts, but it’s bloody frustrating that it’s necessary just because some red meat has to be thrown to the Tory right.
The laws of supply and demand dictate that if all the local comprehensives are excellent there will be less demand for expansion of grammar schools
Agreed, the Government should focus its efforts and resources on ensuring that local comprehensives continue their progress in becoming outstanding...
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
As my mother said ‘You’ll have the wedding of your dreams as soon as you have kids that get married’
I've told my mum to, politely, get lost.
Our 25th anniversary approaches - I'm truly blessed that my Wife has put up with me for so long. Our wedding photographer told me just before the ceremony - "Just remember. Today there are only two important people. The Bride and the Bride's Mother." Made me laugh
Our vicar warmed the church up by telling everyone what was going to happen. "It's very simple, only three things to remember. The bride will enter and proceed up the aisle. Then she will be joined by the groom at the altar. Then we will all sing the first hymn. Aisle. Altar. Hymn."
The problem with grammar schools is that they condemn the majority of pupils to schools that by definition are second rate. They are anti-aspirational in an environment where everyone expects their children to be educated and the majority want them to go to university. Being told by people who got their life chances as a matter of course that THEIR kids don't deserve the same chances goes down badly with parents. The aspirational thing is to make high quality education available to all.
Same with affordable housing. The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
Did you consider reading beyond the first sentence? The argument was that somebody who's very talented in one subject but sub-par in others gets dumped in a comprehensive and is therefore screwed throughout their entire education. Your point if anything reinforces that by saying, yes, the fact that they ended up in a comprehensive is going to disadvantage them at the university admissions stage too.
Completely ignoring the fact that the 11+ does not generally test by subject at all. The 2 components in Lincolnshire are verbal and non verbal reasoning. In some areas there is an additional maths paper. So being talented in one subject and sub par in another has no effect unless those subjects are basic fundamental skills needed for all education.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
That is not true.
The 11+ is effectively an iq test, if you are dim you will not pass it however rich your parents are and how much you are tutored
Whether the assessments are an accurate indicator of dimness or not (I doubt it personally), no-one likes to be told their kid is dim and therefore binned educationally. Telling parents we will give their kids the best education available goes down a lot better.
Except the Sutton Trust evidence is that kids who fail the 11+ are not 'binned' as the schools they go to instead are no better or worse whether they are alongside a Grammar school or not. Creaming does not effect the overall results of those schools.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Hold firm - we had a cousins argument over all or none vs the ones we actually socialised with to some degree. And we argued over spending on a professional video recording, we chose to do that to avoid father-in-law prancing around the wedding with his. And I still had to accidentally on-purpose lock his camcorder away in a car boot at an opportune moment to prevent his doing just that.
We've paid for a photographer but not bothering with a videographer. My sister paid £4k for one and no one ever watches the recording. A photographer makes much more sense.
Use the ultimate deterrent on your mother if she’s like most South Asian mothers.
Tell her to behave or there’ll be no grandchildren.
My parents are trying to fight back against our small wedding plans. Apparently we've cut the family guest list too far because loads of my more distant relatives aren't getting invited but loads of our friends are. Honestly, this is a nightmare. I feel like eloping.
Hold firm - we had a cousins argument over all or none vs the ones we actually socialised with to some degree. And we argued over spending on a professional video recording, we chose to do that to avoid father-in-law prancing around the wedding with his. And I still had to accidentally on-purpose lock his camcorder away in a car boot at an opportune moment to prevent his doing just that.
We've paid for a photographer but not bothering with a videographer. My sister paid £4k for one and no one ever watches the recording. A photographer makes much more sense.
Use the ultimate deterrent on your mother if she’s like most South Asian mothers.
Tell her to behave or there’ll be no grandchildren.
I read somewhere 80 guests. Only one zero missing.
The problem with grammar schools...The Conservatives are on the wrong side of the aspiration issue, which is why they struggle with the thirty and forty somethings.
Indeed grammar schooling is the ultimate anti-aspirational format of schooling. Even private schooling is a better model. Witness the promising mathematician condemned at age 11 because his English is crap (at age 11) or the precocious computer programmer dumped into a secondary modern because she can't spell. No way out. Done and dusted in in the shit before puberty. Ugh.
Rubbish. Grammar school pupils are represented in far bigger numbers as a percentage at Oxbridge and the top professions, law and medicine etc than those from comprehensives
How does that contradict the comment you were responding to?
As it refutes the idea grammars are anti aspriational
Did you consider reading beyond the first sentence? The argument was that somebody who's very talented in one subject but sub-par in others gets dumped in a comprehensive and is therefore screwed throughout their entire education. Your point if anything reinforces that by saying, yes, the fact that they ended up in a comprehensive is going to disadvantage them at the university admissions stage too.
Part of the answer to that is sixth form colleges - where thanks to the much larger intakes and economies of scale, single subject provision is often significantly superior to that in grammar school sixth forms.
I think the answer probably lies in a far more pluralist system - the choice between comprehensives for all at one extreme, and the Kent system at the other, is a false one.
In any event, the variability in quality of primary provision is arguably of greater significance for children's prospects.
The Tories gained 541 seats in 2015 and Labour lost 203 seats. Liberals lost 411. The Tories will have over 5500 seats up for re-election.
The NEV was Con 35%, Lab 29%, LD 11%, UKIP 13%.
UKIP still won 202 seats. I don't know how many are still councillors.
2019 could be interesting.
Logically it should be tough (2021 even tougher!). But if we have a difficult night we'll just post loads of memes showing that we won more councillors overall and questioning the integrity of the BBC and the rest of the MSM.
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
That is not true.
The 11+ is effectively an iq test, if you are dim you will not pass it however rich your parents are and how much you are tutored
Whether the assessments are an accurate indicator of dimness or not (I doubt it personally), no-one likes to be told their kid is dim and therefore binned educationally. Telling parents we will give their kids the best education available goes down a lot better.
Except the Sutton Trust evidence is that kids who fail the 11+ are not 'binned' as the schools they go to instead are no better or worse whether they are alongside a Grammar school or not. Creaming does not effect the overall results of those schools.
My comment was about perceptions and whether grammar schools are popular. I suggest they are unpopular with the wrong demographic from a Tory PoV.
The Sutton Trust research interesting and it's worth drilling into their reports. They think Grammar Schools do such a bad job of identifying smart but poor students that ironically it leaves them to improve average standards in non-selective schools. In most places there are not enough grammar schools to have a substantial negative effect on remaining schools. The conclusion from their 2016 report:
While the research is mixed on this issue, the consensus remains that grammar schools certainly don’t have a positive effect on overall attainment, and are likely to have a small negative effect, particularly in more selective areas, and for pupils from poorer backgrounds. As to the long term effects of selection on mobility, longitudinal research has also shown that selective education increases income inequality, with those on low incomes who were brought up in selective areas earning less than their counterparts in comprehensive areas.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
The Tories gained 541 seats in 2015 and Labour lost 203 seats. Liberals lost 411. The Tories will have over 5500 seats up for re-election.
The NEV was Con 35%, Lab 29%, LD 11%, UKIP 13%.
UKIP still won 202 seats. I don't know how many are still councillors.
2019 could be interesting.
Logically it should be tough (2021 even tougher!). But if we have a difficult night we'll just post loads of memes showing that we won more councillors overall and questioning the integrity of the BBC and the rest of the MSM.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
Doesn't it simply reflect the existing primary/secondary divide ?
Perhaps one of the more adventurous academy chains might want to look at that. "Cross phase" is becoming a fashionable concept, after all.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
It’s a perfect proxy for Brexit.
Anecdote, not data-led. Nostalgic, not progressive. Divisive, not consensual. Promoted with righteous indignation by certain noisy groups.
It seems a very pernicious belief, and no evidence seems to change minds.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
All of politics is currently driven by nostalgia. No one looks to the future .
I'm puzzled as to how it can be said that Labour did slightly worse last week than in 2014 when they gained a further 77 council seats on top of the 330 plus gains they made then.
A level result to 2014 would be better for Labour in London and slightly worse elsewhere compared to 2014.
I may not be the brightest of buttons but how can the 2014 results be better for Labour in London when 2018 was the best results for them in London since 1971? Also how can the results in the rest oc the country be slightly worse when they gained 17 seats on top of the ones they won in 2014? I just don't get it.
Broadly there are two factors delivering that - firstly the UKIP collapse effect, which I think is fairly obvious - everyone got to pick at a few bones (except the Lab leader of Derby council!)
Secondly there is the differential Brexit effect. Because the seats up were disproportionately Remain the headline numbers were better for Labour, but the nationally-adjusted results compensate for that. To be fair, it's more the Conservatives outperforming here than Labour doing that badly, but it's the differential that matters.
Thanks for that explanation but I still can't get my head around Conservatives "outperforming" can lead to Labour gaining seats over and above those gained in their bumper year of 2014.
Labour performed disproportionately well in 'all-up' areas, where you can gain 3 seats in one ward. Meanwhile the Tories did better in areas that were electing by thirds, so not as many gains to be made.
Does that provide something of an explanation?
Not really. No.
This is what happens when 11+ failures try posting on PB. Send her back to Labour Uncut.
"Richard Ned Lebow, 76, professor of international political theory at King’s College London, now faces disciplinary action over his self-confessed “lame” joke"
Grammar schools serve a useful purpose in stimulating the economy for tutoring and wine sales to stressed parents of 10 yr olds.
The admissions system is totally distorted by parents who self or pay for excessive tutoring.
Johnny Clever from the sink estate has no chance of beating dim but tutored Jemima from Acacia Avenue.
That is not true.
The 11+ is effectively an iq test, if you are dim you will not pass it however rich your parents are and how much you are tutored
Whether the assessments are an accurate indicator of dimness or not (I doubt it personally), no-one likes to be told their kid is dim and therefore binned educationally. Telling parents we will give their kids the best education available goes down a lot better.
Except the Sutton Trust evidence is that kids who fail the 11+ are not 'binned' as the schools they go to instead are no better or worse whether they are alongside a Grammar school or not. Creaming does not effect the overall results of those schools.
My comment was about perceptions and whether grammar schools are popular. I suggest they are unpopular with the wrong demographic from a Tory PoV.
The Sutton Trust research interesting and it's worth drilling into their reports. They think Grammar Schools do such a bad job of identifying smart but poor students that ironically it leaves them to improve average standards in non-selective schools. In most places there are not enough grammar schools to have a substantial negative effect on remaining schools. The conclusion from their 2016 report:
While the research is mixed on this issue, the consensus remains that grammar schools certainly don’t have a positive effect on overall attainment, and are likely to have a small negative effect, particularly in more selective areas, and for pupils from poorer backgrounds. As to the long term effects of selection on mobility, longitudinal research has also shown that selective education increases income inequality, with those on low incomes who were brought up in selective areas earning less than their counterparts in comprehensive areas.
I went to a grammar school, as did my brother. Grammar schools were very popular with my and my brother's friends' parents right up until their children reached the age of eleven and for the most part failed to pass the 11-plus. Then most of them had a change of mind.
There's a reason why there was a consensus up until the late 70s across both main parties to abolish grammar schools.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
It’s a perfect proxy for Brexit.
Anecdote, not data-led. Nostalgic, not progressive. Divisive, not consensual. Promoted with righteous indignation by certain noisy groups.
It seems a very pernicious belief, and no evidence seems to change minds.
Maybe because the extensive evidence I have been quoting actually supports Grammar schools rather than detracts from them. Of course the real analogy might be between Remainers and those who oppose Grammar schools, both of whom are happy to ignore evidence when it fails to support their case.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
It’s a perfect proxy for Brexit.
Anecdote, not data-led. Nostalgic, not progressive. Divisive, not consensual. Promoted with righteous indignation by certain noisy groups.
It seems a very pernicious belief, and no evidence seems to change minds.
Maybe because the extensive evidence I have been quoting actually supports Grammar schools rather than detracts from them. Of course the real analogy might be between Remainers and those who oppose Grammar schools, both of whom are happy to ignore evidence when it fails to support their case.
As with Brexit, there is evidence (and decent arguments) on both sides. The hardliners only see what they want to see.
The weird thing about the grammar school discussion is that selecting at 11 is obviously a bit mad, but you can make a decent case for selecting around 14, which lots of countries do, with pretty much the same kind of arguments.
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
It’s a perfect proxy for Brexit.
Anecdote, not data-led. Nostalgic, not progressive. Divisive, not consensual. Promoted with righteous indignation by certain noisy groups.
It seems a very pernicious belief, and no evidence seems to change minds.
Maybe because the extensive evidence I have been quoting actually supports Grammar schools rather than detracts from them. Of course the real analogy might be between Remainers and those who oppose Grammar schools, both of whom are happy to ignore evidence when it fails to support their case.
Do you think the alumni of grammars were more leave or remain?
"Richard Ned Lebow, 76, professor of international political theory at King’s College London, now faces disciplinary action over his self-confessed “lame” joke"
Comments
Thus, in order to work out NEV shares, you weight down the London results, and you weight up the results from outside London.
Conversely, the Conservatives lost seats in London, but gained more seats outside London than Labour and the Lib Dems combined. In London, they lost 91 seats, Outside London, they gained 58.
Does that provide something of an explanation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44047859
Any legal challenges will either be around the refusal of a revocation, or will come after the event, much as happened with the Brexit challenges (and will be similarly marginal on the course of events).
However there were fewer of the former areas up for election overall. If the whole country had been up then the NEV implies the Conservatives would have made more gains than Labour overall (both would probably have made net gains because of all the UKIP seats lost).
Plus of course if they are really good at 1 subject the university they want to study at will still likely enable them to study that 1 subject as a degree
Generally, if an Opposition does not perform well in local elections, it will not perform well in a subsequent general election.
https://dominiccummings.com/2018/05/10/on-the-referendum-24g-grandstanding-mps-and-the-zoolander-inquiry/
" I said that if they issued a Summons instead of discussing possible dates like reasonable people, then it would be obvious they are not interested in friendly cooperation to uncover the truth. So I will not give evidence to this Committee under any circumstances. (I may to other Committees depending on behaviour.)
One of the many things about government that could be improved is changes to the Committee process and powers. They should, like in America, have the power to compel attendance (!), but they should also have processes that push them towards truth-seeking behaviour rather than the usual trivialising grandstanding. "
Brexit has fundamentally changed things and the eventual Brexit resolution probably will too, so I agree with Keiran's basic thesis. But 2017 was truly exceptional in that it was the first ever case of a GE campaign making a huge difference (mostly to leader perceptions, which then fed into votes). It could of course happen again, but the longer-term trend in local elections is still worth quite a lot.
The Conservatives may be deluding themselves if they think we're past Peak Corbyn. But, Labour supporters would be deluding themselves if they think that polls and secondary election results don't matter.
It may not all be sorted by 2022, but I think the government will more represent continuity than it did last year.
Of course, nobody should be dumped into a comprehensive...
Our local non-selective secondary co-exists with two local Grammar Schools and achieves excellent outcomes, top 5% nationally for pupils’ progress made... higher education destinations are good too, though we need to work hard to dispel the notion that Oxbridge is only for posh kids...
The issue with expansion of the Grammar Schools is that it creates more places in an area that already has surplus capacity... so if we lose five pupils to each Grammar that equates to nearly £1/4m lost funding... this will result in larger class sizes, counterintuitive I know, a narrowing of the curriculum and greater difficulty attracting excellent staff...
Of course, we will work our hardest to mitigate the impacts, but it’s bloody frustrating that it’s necessary just because some red meat has to be thrown to the Tory right.
I got my A levels given to me by Brian Clough. It was at a time when there was a lot of concern about juvenile delinquency and schools were being blamed for it. At speech day he stood up in front of all the parents and pointed out that the schools had the kids for 7 hours a day and the parents had them for the other 17 hours. If the parents wanted someone to blame they should stop looking to the schools and start looking at themselves. He was absolutely right.
Of course, it's your wedding, and you're paying for it, so do what you like. But it isn't a big deal to invite people you barely know, if they feel they know (a much younger) you. If it's just friends of your parents who've never known you, that's different. All imho, of course.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/particulates/surface/level/overlay=suexttau/orthographic=-9.35,51.84,1106/loc=150.341,17.821
I've actually given my parents a table at the reception for their friends and I don't mind them because they are decent people. Plus it's closer to the relationship you describe that they've seen me grow up for so many years. The extended family haven't.
In Wigan and Greenwich the council leaders stood down. In Greenwich they selected the outgoing Deputy, so it is a sort of continuation.
https://twitter.com/skinnock/status/994886481499119616?s=21
However today it is working ok.
https://russ.garrett.co.uk/election-2018/
Tell her to behave or there’ll be no grandchildren.
The NEV was Con 35%, Lab 29%, LD 11%, UKIP 13%.
UKIP still won 202 seats. I don't know how many are still councillors.
2019 could be interesting.
(There is also the rather more controversial policy of specialist maths schools...
https://www.tes.com/news/all-students-should-receive-excellent-maths-teaching-not-just-those-specialist-maths-schools )
I think the answer probably lies in a far more pluralist system - the choice between comprehensives for all at one extreme, and the Kent system at the other, is a false one.
In any event, the variability in quality of primary provision is arguably of greater significance for children's prospects.
[Edit: Besides which, men do not have shoes, just a canoe-like structure they wrap their feet in. Very dull.... ]
Mrs C, morris dancers have shoes with bells on
Dull doesn't quite capture the essence.
The Sutton Trust research interesting and it's worth drilling into their reports. They think Grammar Schools do such a bad job of identifying smart but poor students that ironically it leaves them to improve average standards in non-selective schools. In most places there are not enough grammar schools to have a substantial negative effect on remaining schools. The conclusion from their 2016 report:
While the research is mixed on this issue, the consensus remains that grammar schools certainly don’t have a positive effect on overall attainment, and are likely to have a small negative effect, particularly in more selective areas, and for pupils from poorer backgrounds. As to the long term effects of selection on mobility, longitudinal research has also shown that selective education increases income inequality, with those on low incomes who were brought
up in selective areas earning less than their counterparts in comprehensive areas.
https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Gaps-in-Grammar_For-website.pdf
https://twitter.com/hashtag/SpainishGP
Byyeeee!!!!
What the fixation on selecting at 11 tells me is that the whole thing is about nostalgia, not education.
Perhaps one of the more adventurous academy chains might want to look at that. "Cross phase" is becoming a fashionable concept, after all.
Anecdote, not data-led.
Nostalgic, not progressive.
Divisive, not consensual.
Promoted with righteous indignation by certain noisy groups.
It seems a very pernicious belief, and no evidence seems to change minds.
"Richard Ned Lebow, 76, professor of international political theory at King’s College London, now faces disciplinary action over his self-confessed “lame” joke"
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/994883563995660288
There's a reason why there was a consensus up until the late 70s across both main parties to abolish grammar schools.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44006176
We could get rid of it and spend the money on the NHS
Fourth floor. Ladies underware. Going down.
I'll get me cards.