I realise that we are still in awe of the game changing performance of miliband yesterday and the fact that he has now totally changed as a parliamentary performer. However I am amazed at the lack of discussion of Labours biggest backer Unite and its performance as Grangemnouth. Playing silly political games Unite has led to the plant being closed, all those people losing their jobs and the impact it will have on the Scottish economy. Within a couple of days they have had to have a 100% humbling u-turn and the deal which they rejected out of hand on Monday they are pleading with the company to implement it. Tim must have had 100+ posts in the last day telling us all how crap Cameron is, yet nothing regarding Unite's shameful performance in this matter. If anyone wants to imagine what a Miliband led Labour Government in 2015 will be like, just needs to look at what has happened with Unite at Grangemouth. Everything will be about silly political games, not about whats good for the UK.
Whatever you say your Messiah has badly screwed up the politics of his flagship..
Has he? This is a classic case of those who support it are very keen, those who oppose it don't really care - why should they, since no one is forced to send their children to a Free School? It's about choice, innit.
Of course it's true that the educational vested interests and lefty teachers hate Gove, but no-one ever claimed you could sort out the disaster of UK state education without opposition from those who are responsible for the disaster in the first place. But they wouldn't vote Conservative anyway; Labour and the LibDems will have to squabble over them.
This use of "qualified" is interesting. It reminds of the "management" courses I used to go on and which I suspect achieved very little. Some people are naturally good managers and some just cannot do it. Would we restrict management to people who had completed an approved management course? None of the party leaders would qualify.
Perhaps only Doctors with a "dealing with people" qualification should be allowed?
The best teachers were those who knew a lot about the subject and were enthusiastic about it (probably an association there). The PGCE gives a little underpinning and some experience but I'd rather my kids were taught by an enthusiastic expert than someone having to read up first.
Cameron and co nicked their "free schools" (sic) idea from Sweden.
English Tories may like to note that the Swedish free schools experiment is a big factor in the likely defeat of the sitting centre-right government next September.
The article doesn't actually support the suggestion that they are a disaster at all, but in any case that's a bit rich coming from a Labour supporter:
OECD ranking 16-24 year olds, out of 24 countries
Sweden: 7 (Literacy), 8 (Numeracy)
England (people educated almost entirely under Labour): 19 Literacy, 21 Numeracy
Labour supporters looking for an educational disaster area need to take a long hard look at themselves.
(Incidentally those OECD figures are of course actually flattering to the UK state sector, because they include those educated in our excellent private schools - you know, the ones that employ some unqualified teachers.)
If only we could replicate in our state schools the student profiles found in our largely selection-based private schools.
Also, anyone aged 20 to 24 in that OECD cohort would have had their formative reading and numeracy classes under the Tory education regime. It would be interesting to see that cohort broken down a little more.
I can see a case for the ability to employ non-PGCE teachers in secondary schools. I would not let them near primary school children.
I don't see the difference really . My daughter (year 4) benefited greatly from having an author come around to her school and taking aside kids who showed an interest in creative writing and mentoring them throughout the year. The author was not a teacher and not qualified but did far more for my daughter's creative writing than the normal English lesson doen by a qualified teacher. A good mix is ideal to me for both primary and secondary schools
@Jonathan The very fact that labour wants to impose PGCE teachers on free schools shows you precisely who the control freaks in this are. And it isn't Tories
Heaven forbid having qualified teachers in our schools. I guess the right want free hospitals staffed by people who fancy a crack at surgery too."
I'd put Gove and the whole Tory front bench in a 737 and get Martin Day to pilot it. He liked flying
Roger, one assumes that you were taught by unqualified teachers at Millfield back in the day.
I can see a case for the ability to employ non-PGCE teachers in secondary schools. I would not let them near primary school children.
I don't see the difference really . My daughter (year 4) benefited greatly from having an author come around to her school and taking aside kids who showed an interest in creative writing and mentoring them throughout the year. The author was not a teacher and not qualified but did far more for my daughter's creative writing than the normal English lesson doen by a qualified teacher. A good mix is ideal to me for both primary and secondary schools
My guess is that each year your daughter is assigned a class teacher and that other people come in to do specialised stuff with some kids, some of the time. I would certainly not have a problem with that, but I would not describe such people as primary school teachers. They are people who do some teaching in primary schools as opposed to people that take charge of classes and are generalists able to teach the 3Rs and to engage imaginations across a range of subjects.
I can see a case for the ability to employ non-PGCE teachers in secondary schools. I would not let them near primary school children.
I would prefer to leave it to the judgement of head teachers and governing bodies, but I agree in the main it is more likely that non-PGCE teachers will be more suitable as teachers of older children.
The broader picture here is that the Conservatives appear to have no answer to Miliband's forensic opportunism and statist populism. There are some clever Labour researchers who are taking a forensic approach in identifying aspects of Govt policy on which either Labour can find common cause with the LDs or on which any response from the Govt will result in ministers either defending the unpopular or not readily explicable or playing to "Nasty Tory" stereotypes.
And so we have a proposed freeze on energy prices, which any thoughtful person will see is bad policy, but which requires the Govt to appear to side with energy companies at the same moment as they increase prices; we see criticism of the increase in "unqualified" teachers, which is designed to force the Govt to defend "unqualified" teachers, which is counterintuitive to the casual listener; and we see a manufactured cost of living "crisis" (I am not doubting that some people are finding it very tough, but it is no crisis) which the Cons seem to have accepted because the alternative - arguing that things aren't that bad - would look heartless.
For a long time Cameron has been like a boxer who knows he has the measure of his opponant and has been content to watch the weakling flail around the ring, even at the expense of being caught by the odd stinging jab. But he's been sitting back too long and he's no longer counter-punching with conviction. He needs a change of pace, to get back on the front foot and come out punching. And various other sporting metaphors.
I have sensed for a while that the Tories are waiting for the economic recovery to be well established in the minds of the public before moving into campaign mode. That's an understandable strategy. But while they are waiting Labour are redefining the terms of the next debate. Having badly mismanaged public finances when in power and been comprehensively proven wrong on the economy since the last election, Labour should be easy to pick apart. But they are being ably and cunningly led and the Tories do not seem alert to the danger.
Interesting that Wonga only approve to 20.8% of their applicants. From their own statistics it seems they have lent out £1.9 Bn of loans (272 * 7,000,000).
Anyway in 2012 they lent out £1.2 Bn and made £62.5 million.
I work that out as 5% ROI.
5% - Where have I heard that one before....
I suspect you are miscalculating (although I haven't looked in detail).
The £1.2bn will be an aggregate number, not the loan outstanding for 12 months.
Assuming the average loan is outstanding for 4 weeks, then it is possible that with, say £100m of capital for loans, plus a further £25m in reserve for bad debts etc then you are making somewhere closer to a 50% ROE
Comments
Of course it's true that the educational vested interests and lefty teachers hate Gove, but no-one ever claimed you could sort out the disaster of UK state education without opposition from those who are responsible for the disaster in the first place. But they wouldn't vote Conservative anyway; Labour and the LibDems will have to squabble over them.
This use of "qualified" is interesting. It reminds of the "management" courses I used to go on and which I suspect achieved very little. Some people are naturally good managers and some just cannot do it. Would we restrict management to people who had completed an approved management course? None of the party leaders would qualify.
Perhaps only Doctors with a "dealing with people" qualification should be allowed?
The best teachers were those who knew a lot about the subject and were enthusiastic about it (probably an association there). The PGCE gives a little underpinning and some experience but I'd rather my kids were taught by an enthusiastic expert than someone having to read up first.
Also, anyone aged 20 to 24 in that OECD cohort would have had their formative reading and numeracy classes under the Tory education regime. It would be interesting to see that cohort broken down a little more.
Is that your excuse?
The broader picture here is that the Conservatives appear to have no answer to Miliband's forensic opportunism and statist populism. There are some clever Labour researchers who are taking a forensic approach in identifying aspects of Govt policy on which either Labour can find common cause with the LDs or on which any response from the Govt will result in ministers either defending the unpopular or not readily explicable or playing to "Nasty Tory" stereotypes.
And so we have a proposed freeze on energy prices, which any thoughtful person will see is bad policy, but which requires the Govt to appear to side with energy companies at the same moment as they increase prices; we see criticism of the increase in "unqualified" teachers, which is designed to force the Govt to defend "unqualified" teachers, which is counterintuitive to the casual listener; and we see a manufactured cost of living "crisis" (I am not doubting that some people are finding it very tough, but it is no crisis) which the Cons seem to have accepted because the alternative - arguing that things aren't that bad - would look heartless.
For a long time Cameron has been like a boxer who knows he has the measure of his opponant and has been content to watch the weakling flail around the ring, even at the expense of being caught by the odd stinging jab. But he's been sitting back too long and he's no longer counter-punching with conviction. He needs a change of pace, to get back on the front foot and come out punching. And various other sporting metaphors.
I have sensed for a while that the Tories are waiting for the economic recovery to be well established in the minds of the public before moving into campaign mode. That's an understandable strategy. But while they are waiting Labour are redefining the terms of the next debate. Having badly mismanaged public finances when in power and been comprehensively proven wrong on the economy since the last election, Labour should be easy to pick apart. But they are being ably and cunningly led and the Tories do not seem alert to the danger.
The £1.2bn will be an aggregate number, not the loan outstanding for 12 months.
Assuming the average loan is outstanding for 4 weeks, then it is possible that with, say £100m of capital for loans, plus a further £25m in reserve for bad debts etc then you are making somewhere closer to a 50% ROE