That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
It's not the "traffic offence" it's "perverting the course of justice" the Courts get appropriately draconian about.
Perverting the course of justice is one of those classic crimes which range from things we decide not to prosecute through to very serious situations.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
I think life sentence is designed for those that engage in witness intimidation
Thanks (and @CarlottaVance too). Is it too late for me to start studying law? Sounds interesting.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
It's not the "traffic offence" it's "perverting the course of justice" the Courts get appropriately draconian about.
Perverting the course of justice is one of those classic crimes which range from things we decide not to prosecute through to very serious situations.
Very, very serious if you are a qualified solicitor.....
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
I think life sentence is designed for those that engage in witness intimidation
Thanks (and @CarlottaVance too). Is it too late for me to start studying law? Sounds interesting.
i) France, The Netherlands, Denmark will want to get us OUT of it due to their fishery concerns. ii) Spain will want to keep us IN it potentially over Gibraltar.
That's a nice set of internal competing EU interests internally which may well help us move on to the trade deal actually.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
Conspiracy to commit an offence has an unlimited sentence, even if the offence is trivial. If you and I are the only passengers in a railway carriage and I ask if you mind me having a quick smoke, if you say "go ahead" we are both (in theory) liable to life imprisonment.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
I agree but...
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
It's not the "traffic offence" it's "perverting the course of justice" the Courts get appropriately draconian about.
Perverting the course of justice is one of those classic crimes which range from things we decide not to prosecute through to very serious situations.
Very, very serious if you are a qualified solicitor.....
Yeah, just a bit.
I err on the side of caution by, I don't know, not committing crimes. Then I don't have to cover them up.
That way I hope to be admitted to the roll in March.
My son is in his fist year at Grammar School. He was an August child but managed to pass the 11+
Less likely does not mean impossible.
It would be interesting to see the month/age split of his intake. And, of course, there's no reason why the pass mark can't adjust for age differences. (I know that some of the private schools adjust your mark slightly depending on when in the year you were born.)
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
It's not the "traffic offence" it's "perverting the course of justice" the Courts get appropriately draconian about.
Perverting the course of justice is one of those classic crimes which range from things we decide not to prosecute through to very serious situations.
Very, very serious if you are a qualified solicitor.....
The worst consequence is that one would be struck off if found guilty of such an offence.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
Conspiracy to commit an offence has an unlimited sentence, even if the offence is trivial. If you and I are the only passengers in a railway carriage and I ask if you mind me having a quick smoke, if you say "go ahead" we are both (in theory) liable to life imprisonment.
And if I say "no you can't smoke" I risk a black eye (it once happened to a colleague of mine).
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
That's not true. The question is:
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest? And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
I commented that I blossomed late, but actually I'm not sure if that is true. I might just have been an awkward child. I think I have probably always been good at maths and was interested in learning stuff, but not at school. I devoured encyclopedias. I refused to learn my times tables and never have done. It seemed pointless if you could work stuff out anyway. I remember we were put in line and had tables questions fired at us that you had to answer instantly. I couldn't because I hadn't memorised them, but I could do 13 x 13 !
I also spent a huge amount of time standing in the corner or worse outside of the classroom because I was doing stuff I shouldn't be doing. Every parents evening I got a rollicking.
When stuff we were learning got interesting that all changed I think and I became the class swot. One extreme to the other.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
My point is they are living in the past, a time long gone - Dads Army is an excellent description
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
That is a terrible slur on Jacob Rees Mogg. I'll have you know he's been able to dress himself for the last several years, and it is no longer nanny's job.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
I think it is only idf the sentence is over 12 months that you get an automatic ban from parliament for that period..
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
My point is they are living in the past, a time long gone - Dads Army is an excellent description
Some of them will be grandparents with grandchildren too.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
That's not true. The question is:
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest? And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
My point is they are living in the past, a time long gone - Dads Army is an excellent description
Some of them will be grandparents with grandchildren too.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
Life sentence? Phantom Zone, surely
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil.
I have no memory of taking the 11+ but I clearly failed impressively because I was streamed from it in the Sec Mod in a class where I was not expected to take any O Levels or CSEs. As a consequence I spent much of my time being taught Gardening, Metalwork and Woodwork and did not take any language nor English Literature.
I assume I started to blossom as I went up a class and then in the exams we took to decide whether you took an O level or CSE in each subject I came top in the year in all subjects I took except English. I achieved the top grade in all O levels except English which I still passed.
I transferred to the Grammar School. I together with 3 grammar school boys were identified to be fast tracked taking an A level after 1 year. I then went to Manchester University to study Mathematics.
I saw many Secondary School pupils in the 5th year who would have flourished at the Grammar School, but the norm was just to leave after O levels and many Grammar School boys who left with only a few O levels. I am incompetent at practical stuff, but that is what I was taught. I am academic but missed on on languages (which I really regret) and literature. The Grammar school boys missed out on practical subjects.
I also suffered discrimination from having the Secondary School on my CV, although I was proud to have it there e.g. Of the 4 fast tracked boys I was asked for higher A level grades for Uni places even if there wasn't an interview. The only distinguishing difference was the school.
Rant over!
A one off test at age 11 is no way to safely sort the academic from the non academic. The sensitivity and specificity must be imperfect, and the consequences for life are significant.
Far better to select gradually, and reversibly over a few years, with real selection occuring at GCSE entry aged 14. That is how good Comprehensives manage setting and streaming.
As an August child, I was also shocked to discover that (had I taken the 11 plus), I would have been only half as likely to pass as someone born in September. Given the life changing consequences of the 11 plus, a single exam - based on one day in your tenth year on planet earth - seems a little too random for me.
(Disclaimer: my daughter is about to take the US version of the 11 plus in - oohhh - ten days time. We just discovered she's probably the only kid in her class not being tutored, so I've been doing a bit of exam familiarisation with her.)
My son is in his fist year at Grammar School. He was an August child but managed to pass the 11+
The four ex-grammar scholars in our family were born in October, November, January and August - so a good spread through the year.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a PM anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a PM anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
As an August child, I was also shocked to discover that (had I taken the 11 plus), I would have been only half as likely to pass as someone born in September. Given the life changing consequences of the 11 plus, a single exam - based on one day in your tenth year on planet earth - seems a little too random for me.
(Disclaimer: my daughter is about to take the US version of the 11 plus in - oohhh - ten days time. We just discovered she's probably the only kid in her class not being tutored, so I've been doing a bit of exam familiarisation with her.)
The ludicrous insistence in this county that 4 years olds are ready to be taught academically is one of the most crazy things we have going. My daughter is a spring child and as a result she'll be one of the oldest in her class and thus, on average, she will perform the best. The 4 year olds she starts alongside... won't. The youngest will tend towards 'bad' behaviour, simply because they haven't developed well enough. By the time they are mature enough to sit still and be taught they will have been tagged as "naughty" and be treated as such.
On the whole we have improved in this country with teaching the early years better since I was a child. Unfortunately traditionalist 'it never did me any harm' types hold us back from doing better.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
My point is they are living in the past, a time long gone - Dads Army is an excellent description
The EU dates back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome, doesn't it?
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
Life sentence? Phantom Zone, surely
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil.
Opening scene of the original 1970s Superman? General Zod, Ursa and Non?
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
The FTPA fixed a monstrosity, prior to the FTPA the reasons a monarch could or could not grant a general election was based on an anonymous letter written to The Times.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
Life sentence? Phantom Zone, surely
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil.
Opening scene of the original 1970s Superman? General Zod, Ursa and Non?
Oh, never mind
Mmmm not sure I have ever seen that - and if I have, it was clearly very forgettable!
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
I don't think that makes any difference, other than putting a 14-day delay into the process. The incumbent PM remains in place during that time, and the various parties have the opportunity to haggle to see if any combination is likely to work. If so, the palace will appoint as PM whoever is thought capable of commanding a majority and the vote takes place to confirm it. If not, the GE is called and the incumbent PM remains in place until there's a new government formed after the election.
My grandson (5) loves dinosaurs but while they are frightening he consoles himself by saying
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Are you being derogatory about the personal appearance of those in the ERG group (about which they have no control) or do you just hold a different point of view?
...personal appearance antediluvian views...
Or as Rees Mogg might say Apres moi le deluge.
Very good!
(Though I was thinking of the second definition of antediluvian: "ridiculously old-fashioned.")
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
I agree but...
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a PM anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
That is true but it doesn't alter my point that David was wrong. However, now that the FTPA is in place we really don't know what will happen if the government is no confidenced. Given that the most recent precedents show that the PM does not have to resign immediately and the Queen is unlikely to sack the PM, my view is that the PM has two weeks to try and win a confidence vote and, if she fails, there is a general election without the LotO getting a look in. But I may well be wrong.
3. Trade statistics – Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on Community statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/913
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
I agree but...
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
Better now that we leave very softly, I feel.
Vociferous but quite clearly toothless.
Toothless but very disruptive - look at the chaos they have caused for the past 3 years.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
The FTPA fixed a monstrosity, prior to the FTPA the reasons a monarch could or could not grant a general election was based on an anonymous letter written to The Times.
I see nothing wrong with this. . Government through the letters page.
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
That's not true. The question is:
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest? And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
This should be based on data, not anecdote.
Which is why I have been linking to proper studies in my comments
Edit: But actually I support Andy's point as well. Too many criticisms of Grammar Schools seem to be based on unfounded bias and political opinion rather than actual data and studies. More than a few comments on this subject on here this afternoon have been of that ilk.
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
That's not true. The question is:
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest? And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
This should be based on data, not anecdote.
Which is why I have been linking to proper studies in my comments
That is true but it doesn't alter my point that David was wrong. However, now that the FTPA is in place we really don't know what will happen if the government is no confidenced. Given that the most recent precedents show that the PM does not have to resign immediately and the Queen is unlikely to sack the PM, my view is that the PM has two weeks to try and win a confidence vote and, if she fails, there is a general election without the LotO getting a look in. But I may well be wrong.
The LotO would be appointed if he seemed to be in a position to win a confidence vote. The formal mechanism would be that the incumbent PM would go to the palace and advise Her Maj to appoint the LotO as PM.
It's really quite simple, and the FPTA doesn't make too much difference except to formalise the need for another vote within 14 days, and to remove the discretion of the previous PM to trigger an election even in the case where the opposition could put together a majority.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
I think it is only idf the sentence is over 12 months that you get an automatic ban from parliament for that period..
The Telegraph says that the ban for MPs could be permanent if the sentence is over 12 months.
My son is in his fist year at Grammar School. He was an August child but managed to pass the 11+
Less likely does not mean impossible.
It would be interesting to see the month/age split of his intake. And, of course, there's no reason why the pass mark can't adjust for age differences. (I know that some of the private schools adjust your mark slightly depending on when in the year you were born.)
In Birmingham, at least, the 11+ marks are indeed adjusted to take account of age.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
I agree but...
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
Better now that we leave very softly, I feel.
LOL. Right wing elite. It is the 'elite' to use your terms who have been desperately trying to keep us in the EU. There are a few posh boys who have seen electoral advantage in jumping on the Brexit bandwagon but it is the political classes who have been so desperate for us to stay in along with their useful (and usually rather well paid) idiots in the press and media.
As an August child, I was also shocked to discover that (had I taken the 11 plus), I would have been only half as likely to pass as someone born in September. Given the life changing consequences of the 11 plus, a single exam - based on one day in your tenth year on planet earth - seems a little too random for me.
(Disclaimer: my daughter is about to take the US version of the 11 plus in - oohhh - ten days time. We just discovered she's probably the only kid in her class not being tutored, so I've been doing a bit of exam familiarisation with her.)
The ludicrous insistence in this county that 4 years olds are ready to be taught academically is one of the most crazy things we have going. My daughter is a spring child and as a result she'll be one of the oldest in her class and thus, on average, she will perform the best. The 4 year olds she starts alongside... won't. The youngest will tend towards 'bad' behaviour, simply because they haven't developed well enough. By the time they are mature enough to sit still and be taught they will have been tagged as "naughty" and be treated as such.
On the whole we have improved in this country with teaching the early years better since I was a child. Unfortunately traditionalist 'it never did me any harm' types hold us back from doing better.
I would agree with that.
Given that we are now increasing the pension age and making people stay in work longer, I would rather like to see us move towards Finnish or Norwegian practices with kids not starting full time education until they are 6 or 7. I would shift the whole system so that they would not go to university until they are 20 or 21 which would still give them the same (or only slightly longer) working life, retiring at 68 or 69.
Yes it would need changes to the way we deal with things like childcare but I think the advantages in terms of better education are huge. Anyone with teenage kids will probably be aware of the nightmare of kids going through massive physical and psychological changes in their mid teens at the same time as having to sit important exams.
When it comes to grammar schools - my own educational story is not just a stark illustration of why you should share my opinion on the matter but also shows both me and my children to be unusually gifted.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
Life sentence? Phantom Zone, surely
I have literally no idea what you are talking about Sunil.
Opening scene of the original 1970s Superman? General Zod, Ursa and Non?
Oh, never mind
Also in Supergirl, I believe, in more detail. Awful, awful film.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
Hang on, who called the election of 2017?
But that was with Jezza's agreement. Thanks to the (excellent) FTPA, PMs can no longer play silly beggars, as Gordon was minded to do before he bottled it, and unilaterally dissolve parliament whenever it suits them.
There's an excellent and very clear post by Andrew Sparrow on the Guardian Live blog on whether parliament could prevent a no-deal Brexit if they vote down the deal (at 17:54):
So, to sum up, despite what opposition leaders are saying, it would be very hard for a majority of MPs to block a no deal Brexit if the prime minister was determined to go ahead with one. In practice, would May back down? Perhaps. But that would primarily be as a result of political pressure, not because of procedural powers available to MPs.
Edit: What he doesn't really explore is what options the PM would have, and whether the EU would cooperate. This is high-risk stuff.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
Playing the man gets you off, doesn’t it?
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
That's not true. The question is:
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest? And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
This should be based on data, not anecdote.
Which is why I have been linking to proper studies in my comments
Edit: But actually I support Andy's point as well. Too many criticisms of Grammar Schools seem to be based on unfounded bias and political opinion rather than actual data and studies. More than a few comments on this subject on here this afternoon have been of that ilk.
Re your edit Richard - Do you put me in that category? I have no ideological issue with them, it just seems illogical thing to do at 11
What about all the downsides I identified?
Would it make you happy if a Comprehensive was identified as being 1/2 Grammar and 1/2 sec mod? After all doesn't a Comprehensive solve the problem with streaming but with the ease of moving classes as pupils improve or deteriorate.
What about brilliant mathematicians, linguists, artists, etc who are hopeless at other stuff. You are condemning them. My sister in law is an excellent actress, but hopeless at science. I am useless at practical things, but academically ok. How does your Grammar system cope with this?
All for the sake of making possible life changing decisions at 11.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
I agree but...
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
Better now that we leave very softly, I feel.
Vociferous but quite clearly toothless.
Toothless but very disruptive - look at the chaos they have caused for the past 3 years.
They’re a busted flush. The curtain has been drawn back to reveal - well, nothing much at all, really.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
Why do people keep saying this? She engineered one last year, and she can engineer another one.
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
That's not true. The question is:
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest? And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
This should be based on data, not anecdote.
Which is why I have been linking to proper studies in my comments
Edit: But actually I support Andy's point as well. Too many criticisms of Grammar Schools seem to be based on unfounded bias and political opinion rather than actual data and studies. More than a few comments on this subject on here this afternoon have been of that ilk.
Re your edit Richard - Do you put me in that category? I have no ideological issue with them, it just seems illogical thing to do at 11
What about all the downsides I identified?
Would it make you happy if a Comprehensive was identified as being 1/2 Grammar and 1/2 sec mod? After all doesn't a Comprehensive solve the problem with streaming but with the ease of moving classes as pupils improve or deteriorate.
What about brilliant mathematicians, linguists, artists, etc who are hopeless at other stuff. You are condemning them. My sister in law is an excellent actress, but hopeless at science. I am useless at practical things, but academically ok. How does your Grammar system cope with this?
All for the sake of making possible life changing decisions at 11.
I know from both my kids Grammar schools that kids who show late promise are able to transfer in even if they fail the 11+. This was ever the way and is how my own father got into Grammar school in the 1950s in Essex.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
I agree but...
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
Better now that we leave very softly, I feel.
Vociferous but quite clearly toothless.
Toothless but very disruptive - look at the chaos they have caused for the past 3 years.
They’re a busted flush. The curtain has been drawn back.
This is not the time to be complacent. They could play a big role in this
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
Why do people keep saying this? She engineered one last year, and she can engineer another one.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
Why do people keep saying this? She engineered one last year, and she can engineer another one.
You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.
May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.
Brexit does much better in a star trek setting. I'd say we're more like the Maquis than anything else. The federation is mad at us for realising that "paradise" is a pile of wank and they are punishing us for trying to leave.
Certainly not Labour at the moment, because they've been calling for an election for months.
However, there could be circumstances where that wasn't the case. If you had a coalition where the junior partner decided to switch sides and join a new coalition with the opposition, then they might well prefer to form the new government within the 14-day window and not vote for an election.
You guys misunderstand me. Everyone on here does except for TSE. I like to view politics through the prism of early 90s TV scifi.
May's dodgy deal is the work of a Vorlon. Me, I am a Shadow.
Brexit does much better in a star trek setting. I'd say we're more like the Maquis than anything else. The federation is mad at us for realising that "paradise" is a pile of wank and they are punishing us for trying to leave.
How about Star Wars:
"The Separatists have been "taken care of", my Master!"
The only argument against grammar schools is: "If everyone cannot have something, no-one should be able to have it".
Which is why I have been linking to proper studies in my comments
Edit: But actually I support Andy's point as well. Too many criticisms of Grammar Schools seem to be based on unfounded bias and political opinion rather than actual data and studies. More than a few comments on this subject on here this afternoon have been of that ilk.
Re your edit Richard - Do you put me in that category? I have no ideological issue with them, it just seems illogical thing to do at 11
What about all the downsides I identified?
Would it make you happy if a Comprehensive was identified as being 1/2 Grammar and 1/2 sec mod? After all doesn't a Comprehensive solve the problem with streaming but with the ease of moving classes as pupils improve or deteriorate.
What about brilliant mathematicians, linguists, artists, etc who are hopeless at other stuff. You are condemning them. My sister in law is an excellent actress, but hopeless at science. I am useless at practical things, but academically ok. How does your Grammar system cope with this?
All for the sake of making possible life changing decisions at 11.
I know from both my kids Grammar schools that kids who show late promise are able to transfer in even if they fail the 11+. This was ever the way and is how my own father got into Grammar school in the 1950s in Essex.
That is exactly what I did, but I was lucky because I was particularly skilled in maths. If my skill had been in languages or literature or music that would not have been possible. There were no opportunities in the Sec Mod for these. If the Grammar school boys were talented in practical skills that was not possible in the Grammar school in the 60s. These children were then stuffed by the system.
Why fix it at 11. What is so special about 11?
What is the downside of streaming in a Comprehensive? It give you what you want n terms of selection, but also the ability to move across easily and caters for different levels of skill in different subjects for the same pupil. So a brilliant artist who can't add up can flourish, a mathematician like myself who can't hit a nail into a block of wood can also flourish.
Good choice by the Lib Dems. Ms Benita nearly beat them as an independent candidate in 2012. She should manage a respectable showing for them with party support.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
Why do people keep saying this? She engineered one last year, and she can engineer another one.
That really isn't the strongest of defences, I'd have thought? The case in question only turns on whether she lied once, surely?
If she's found guilty she might be able to appeal on grounds of poor representation.
She's been portrayed as some stressed out, MS ridden ingénue, which is undercut by the fact that she's a solicitor.
What sort of sentence would a theoretical person face if found guilty of these sort of charges ?
Chris Huhne got eight months, I think the average term is nine months, but it can carry a life sentence.
But Huhne got a discount for pleading guilty.
Life sentence seems a bit extreme for the hypothetical case of lying about a traffic offence. Does it depend on the severity of the offence being lied about?
It's not the "traffic offence" it's "perverting the course of justice" the Courts get appropriately draconian about.
Perverting the course of justice is one of those classic crimes which range from things we decide not to prosecute through to very serious situations.
Very, very serious if you are a qualified solicitor.....
If found guilty, I suspect they might not just want to throw the kitchen sink at her but the dishwasher, fridge freezer, tumble drier, hob, microwave, oven and cutlery drawer.....for starters.....
When you lose a bet, this is where your money is often going to:
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
When you lose a bet, this is where your money is often going to:
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be. . . .
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
That is exactly what I did, but I was lucky because I was particularly skilled in maths. If my skill had been in languages or literature or music that would not have been possible. There were no opportunities in the Sec Mod for these. If the Grammar school boys were talented in practical skills that was not possible in the Grammar school in the 60s. These children were then stuffed by the system.
Why fix it at 11. What is so special about 11?
What is the downside of streaming in a Comprehensive? It give you what you want n terms of selection, but also the ability to move across easily and caters for different levels of skill in different subjects for the same pupil. So a brilliant artist who can't add up can flourish, a mathematician like myself who can't hit a nail into a block of wood can also flourish.
Streaming is fine if it is done properly and if the school treats all the streams equally.
At my son's Grammar they stream. The same teachers that teach A level maths also teach the lowest streams in the lower years. No matter what stream you are in you will get the same chance of a good teacher.
At my comprehensive the lowest streams were taught maths by the sports teachers. They were basically abandoned.
And the number of kids who were in a top stream for one subject but a much lower stream for another was and is tiny.
The abolition of Grammars did not level up the playing field, it levelled it down. Everyone got a comprehensively poorer education.
I think the FTPA changes that a little. Previously, a PM who was defeated could always play the trump card of calling an election, if defeated in a vote of no confidence; that option no longer applies immediately. Even then, I think we'd be looking a very long way back to find the last instance of when a government was no confidenced and the LotO wasn't called. Indeed, there are a number of examples of where they *were* called despite not having a majority. Wilson didn't need to demonstrate the support of the Liberals or SNP in 1974, neither did MacDonald in 1924 or Campbell-Bannerman in 1905.
Corbyn would undoubtedly demand the right to try to form a government if May lost, whether or not she resigned as PM immediately. As the Palace would no doubt want to demonstrate even-handedness, I think he'd be called on the principle that it'd be better to ask him and let him fail (and be seen to fail), than not ask him and let Labour raise the belief that he could have succeeded were it not for deep state conservatives in the Palace. Again, there are precedents of people being given a commission to form a government from the monarch, only to have to return to report that they could not do so. I think that Lord John Russell was the last one in the 1840s.
I'm afraid you are wrong regarding the LotO being called. We have to go back to 1924 to find a time when a government was no confidenced and the LotO WAS called. Governments have been no confidenced twice since then - later in 1924 and 1979. In both cases the LotO was NOT called and there was a general election.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
But the PM can’t call a GE anymore, thanks to the monstrosity that is the FTPA.
Why do people keep saying this? She engineered one last year, and she can engineer another one.
She is well on the way to engineering another one already, having lost the support of the minority party that once propped her government up, with that party having indicated that the loss is permanent while she remains party leader and PM.
Don't put it past the DUP to vote against the Government on a confidence vote, although it might support another Conservative government formed within the 14 day window if May was replaced as leader. However, if May had already won a vote of confidence in her leadership and as ever was in no mood to resign......
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
The UK can always unilaterally withdraw from the agreement. A treaty is not a contract.
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
Okay that is an interesting point. Is it a disaster for her if it is the EU countries who object. Surely that puts the UK and Barnier/Commission on the same page saying this is a good deal for everyone with other countries objecting rather than the UK. Does that not strengthen May's position?
How? What improvements is she going to get if others are complaining? Or do you mean it'll make it easier to pretend this is good for us as is?
I am coming from the position that as of now (or as of last Sunday) this is the best we are going to get in terms of a deal. It massively strengthens May's hand if she is seen to have got a deal which the EU team consider acceptable but other countries complain about. I will be content if this deal now passes. It is nowhere near ideal but it is better than staying in.
It is not better than staying in. It minimises the losses, thin gruel indeed.
It is miles better than staying in. But of course as a Remainer who will not be reconciled you would disagree with that.
Playing the man gets you off, doesn’t it?
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
The man is all there is to play when you are dealing with someone whose arguments have no basis in fact.
When you lose a bet, this is where your money is often going to:
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
Re grammars - and bear in mind this is just my instinct, rather than anything backed up by data - my feel is that a vocational/non-vocational split is probably a good thing. After all, most of the top performing countries - from an academic and work skills perspective have a split like that.
That being said... I think 11 feels very early. Boys private schools like Eton or Westminster start a 13 or 14, and that's probably a more natural point - as well as allowing us summer babies a few more years to catch up.
When Manfred Weber most likely takes over from J-C Junker as next President of the European Commission
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
Comments
I note that
i) France, The Netherlands, Denmark will want to get us OUT of it due to their fishery concerns.
ii) Spain will want to keep us IN it potentially over Gibraltar.
That's a nice set of internal competing EU interests internally which may well help us move on to the trade deal actually.
'they all died 65 million years ago, Papa'
I therefore make sure the TV sound button is on mute whenever ERG are on TV when he is here as I do not want to worry him that some have survived !!!!!!
Staying in now would surely just put us back where we were in 2015, with a vociferous right-wing elite incessantly trashing the EU and pushing for us to leave.
Better now that we leave very softly, I feel.
I err on the side of caution by, I don't know, not committing crimes. Then I don't have to cover them up.
That way I hope to be admitted to the roll in March.
It would be interesting to see the month/age split of his intake. And, of course, there's no reason why the pass mark can't adjust for age differences. (I know that some of the private schools adjust your mark slightly depending on when in the year you were born.)
Can we increase grades for the brightest, without lowering them for the rest?
And if we can't, what is an acceptable level of dispersion?
If improving the grades slightly for the top 25% came at the price of lowering them dramatically for the next 75%, then that would probably mean we'd need to think of alternatives. On the other hand, if you can improve the outcomes for the brightest, without negatively impacting the rest, then that's an awesome result.
This should be based on data, not anecdote.
I also spent a huge amount of time standing in the corner or worse outside of the classroom because I was doing stuff I shouldn't be doing. Every parents evening I got a rollicking.
When stuff we were learning got interesting that all changed I think and I became the class swot. One extreme to the other.
Note that in 1974 there was no VONC. There had just been a general election. Heath initially remained as PM but resigned when he was unable to put a deal together that would allow him to continue.
Andy that is an appalling thing to say.
On the whole we have improved in this country with teaching the early years better since I was a child. Unfortunately traditionalist 'it never did me any harm' types hold us back from doing better.
Oh, never mind
(Though I was thinking of the second definition of antediluvian: "ridiculously old-fashioned.")
3. Trade statistics
–
Regulation (EC) No 638/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
31 March 2004 on Community statistics relating to the trading of goods between Member States and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/913
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46289456
Edit: But actually I support Andy's point as well. Too many criticisms of Grammar Schools seem to be based on unfounded bias and political opinion rather than actual data and studies. More than a few comments on this subject on here this afternoon have been of that ilk.
It's really quite simple, and the FPTA doesn't make too much difference except to formalise the need for another vote within 14 days, and to remove the discretion of the previous PM to trigger an election even in the case where the opposition could put together a majority.
See https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/7167553/MPs-expenses-MPs-can-only-be-sacked-from-Commons-if-they-are-jailed-for-over-a-year.html
Chris Huhne got eight monhs but pleaded guilty so got a reduced sentence .
Given that we are now increasing the pension age and making people stay in work longer, I would rather like to see us move towards Finnish or Norwegian practices with kids not starting full time education until they are 6 or 7. I would shift the whole system so that they would not go to university until they are 20 or 21 which would still give them the same (or only slightly longer) working life, retiring at 68 or 69.
Yes it would need changes to the way we deal with things like childcare but I think the advantages in terms of better education are huge. Anyone with teenage kids will probably be aware of the nightmare of kids going through massive physical and psychological changes in their mid teens at the same time as having to sit important exams.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/nov/21/brexit-pmqs-may-corbyn-rudd-says-mps-wont-allow-no-deal-brexit-contradicting-may-politics-live
So, to sum up, despite what opposition leaders are saying, it would be very hard for a majority of MPs to block a no deal Brexit if the prime minister was determined to go ahead with one. In practice, would May back down? Perhaps. But that would primarily be as a result of political pressure, not because of procedural powers available to MPs.
Edit: What he doesn't really explore is what options the PM would have, and whether the EU would cooperate. This is high-risk stuff.
Nonsense of course. What are the benefits? Real ones, not hoped for/some day/whenever.
What about all the downsides I identified?
Would it make you happy if a Comprehensive was identified as being 1/2 Grammar and 1/2 sec mod? After all doesn't a Comprehensive solve the problem with streaming but with the ease of moving classes as pupils improve or deteriorate.
What about brilliant mathematicians, linguists, artists, etc who are hopeless at other stuff. You are condemning them. My sister in law is an excellent actress, but hopeless at science. I am useless at practical things, but academically ok. How does your Grammar system cope with this?
All for the sake of making possible life changing decisions at 11.
https://twitter.com/LibDemPress/status/1065285835329888258
However, there could be circumstances where that wasn't the case. If you had a coalition where the junior partner decided to switch sides and join a new coalition with the opposition, then they might well prefer to form the new government within the 14-day window and not vote for an election.
"The Separatists have been "taken care of", my Master!"
Why fix it at 11. What is so special about 11?
What is the downside of streaming in a Comprehensive? It give you what you want n terms of selection, but also the ability to move across easily and caters for different levels of skill in different subjects for the same pupil. So a brilliant artist who can't add up can flourish, a mathematician like myself who can't hit a nail into a block of wood can also flourish.
"Denise Coates: Billionaire boss of gambling firm Bet365 sees pay rise to £265m
The head of the online sports betting giant which also owns Stoke City football club is Britain's best-paid boss."
https://news.sky.com/story/betting-boss-denise-coates-sees-pay-rise-to-265m-11559553
he is likely to lead a fierce drive to hand Brussels even more power than before. The UK will not be there to lead the movement to stop that. And thanks to the current Brexit deal, the Commission will have the UK precisely where they want it to be.
. . .
Under Theresa May’s Brexit deal it will not be the lack of technology that will keep the UK under EU rule but the lack of political will in Brussels. The current nice mutterings about a technological solution from the EU are intended to get the UK Parliament behind this deal. Don’t fall for it. Those warm words will stop immediately on the 29 March 2019.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/technology-wont-solve-the-irish-border-question-heres-why/
At my son's Grammar they stream. The same teachers that teach A level maths also teach the lowest streams in the lower years. No matter what stream you are in you will get the same chance of a good teacher.
At my comprehensive the lowest streams were taught maths by the sports teachers. They were basically abandoned.
And the number of kids who were in a top stream for one subject but a much lower stream for another was and is tiny.
The abolition of Grammars did not level up the playing field, it levelled it down. Everyone got a comprehensively poorer education.
Don't put it past the DUP to vote against the Government on a confidence vote, although it might support another Conservative government formed within the 14 day window if May was replaced as leader. However, if May had already won a vote of confidence in her leadership and as ever was in no mood to resign......
Edit to add: just as we could always have left the European Union by repealing the European Communities Act of 1972. We can simply announce that we will no longer be parties to the agreement as of a certain date, and that will trigger a renegotiation. Just because a Treaty lacks a withdrawal clause, does not mean it exists in perpetuity. As far as I can tell, none of the 210 treaties between the EU and Switzerland had withdrawal clauses, but it hasn't stopped 195 or so them having been canned.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/jan/01/online-bookies-banned-from-putting-restrictions-on-winning-punters-in-nsw
"Over breakfast earlier this month, Merkel told a small group of German lawmakers that the government had made a decision to co-finance the construction of a $576 million liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in northern Germany, people familiar with the development said.
The project had been postponed for at least a decade due to lack of government support, according to reports, but is now being thrust to the center of European-U.S. geopolitics. Though media outlets will mostly spin the development, this is nonetheless a geopolitical and diplomatic win for Trump who lambasted Germany in June over its Nordstream 2 pipeline deal with Russia."
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Europes-Gas-Game-Just-Took-A-Wild-Twist.html
That being said... I think 11 feels very early. Boys private schools like Eton or Westminster start a 13 or 14, and that's probably a more natural point - as well as allowing us summer babies a few more years to catch up.