I am very against private schools - but this is not the way to win support for the argument.
5% of top footballers went to private schools compared to 7% of the population so clearly we need an outreach campaign in private schools to get more of their pupils into Premiership Football clubs
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
A very worrying post. Martin Niemöller‘s wise message is clearly needed more than ever in these times where we are slowly slipping into the void again.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
Says the man who campaigns night and day for a nationalist party with socialist policies.
Once they achieve their objective the socialist bit will disappear quick, or they will be goners in the brave new world. They will need to tack to centre right to survive. Who knows there may even be a real Scottish Tory party.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Great phrase Toom Tabard, nickname of John Balliol. Bit like all hat and no cattle.
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
Village idiot alert
haha, your eloquence as always is as predictable as it is underwhelming! Typical of a Scots Nat to engage in insults rather than engage with an argument and try and defend the putrid philosophy known as nationalism . I don't think all nationalists are thick pillocks but....
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
If the Tories and Labour were to three-line-whip against GoNAFAE and three-line-whip in favour of an election then I think two-thirds for an election is more plausible.
Yes, but why would Jeremy Corbyn do that? In the GoNAFAE he might be the Prime Minister? Or, at the very least, it'd be someone other than Boris Johnson.
Tactically, removing Johnson from Number 10 is absolutely in his interest.
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
Village idiot alert
haha, your eloquence as always is as predictable as it is underwhelming! Typical of a Scots Nat to engage in insults rather than engage with an argument and try and defend the putrid philosophy known as nationalism . I don't think all nationalists are thick pillocks but....
It is strongly disincentivized, to the tune of £40K per year per child and - amazingly - no rebate on the money which the state saves as a result.
But clearly the (correct IMO) view is that the benefit is greater than the spend.
I would like to see this reversed.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
As someone who believes in meritocracy but dislikes banning things, a sensible balance can be delivered by VAT on school fees and reducing govt university funding from anywhere which doesnt have a realistic balance between state and private school entrants (doesnt need to be anywhere near equal but for example 8 private schools having same number of entrants as 3000 state schools are not numbers that justify government funding).
Yes, agreed.
And one of my ideas is bring back free uni - for high status courses at high status places - but ONLY for kids who have been through the state system.
Then going private becomes potentially VERY expensive.
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Yes, I can believe that. As I say, the easier case to make - and the one I would make - is that the private opt out should be strongly disincentivized on the grounds that it rides a coach & horses through the notion of equality of opportunity.
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
The "tax breaks" are entirely self funding and then some. Having my son at private school, for example, saves the local authority about £8000 a year. Even if you applied VAT and took away their charitable status the monies generated would not cover much more than half of that. As I then couldn't afford it they would have the cost and miss out on the tax.
He is also getting better educated which may well make him a better taxpayer in the future.
Exactly David , it is economic madness and pure jealousy. I would be in same boat with my grandson. Fees are already up 10% this year to cover teacher's pensions.
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
That's definitely two for a VoNC I reckon. Clarke being the other.
May is probably a third - and there will be more. Just look for any sane Tory retiring or potentially in the near future...
No way.
You genuinely think that the outgoing Con leader and PM is about to immediately VoNC the incoming Con leader and PM? That would be unprecedented in not just English history, but world history. Surely not??
We aren't talking about a VoNC next Thursday but one in late September / October...
I know that Theresa May is no Boris fan, but I just find it inconceivable that she would ever VoNC the leader of her beloved Tory party.
May is incredibly wobbly in many ways, but surely nobody could doubt that she is a textbook example of a partisan. She will be Tory till the day she dies. Or the party dies, which looks like being the earlier event.
The only way the Tory Party does is if the Brexit Party replaces it
The Tory Party that you support is no longer the Conservative Party, it is the Brexit-Party-Lite. It has become an absurd parody. It is the English version of the Scottish Nationalists; inward looking with a membership that while still having a minority of decent minded folk, has a majority that is sick with hatred for people of other countries
No, it just wants Free Trade Deals with other countries and to be able to control its own borders based on need as would any truly sovereign nation
Instinctively I'm unconvinced by the idea of banning private schools. Removing the tax breaks/charitable status they get seems reasonable, but banning them seems extreme.
And yet, and yet, the Finnish education seems to be lauded internationally. And they have banned private school funding (I understand people can still set up a private school, but it must apply to the govt for funding and meet minimum standards). So it's clearly possible and perhaps even desirable.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Great phrase Toom Tabard, nickname of John Balliol. Bit like all hat and no cattle.
Trump's tweet may have been ill advised but I can't see Boris going out of his way to defend left-wing Democratic Congresswomen
Particularly as they are female piccaninnies with watermelon smiles eh?
A racist as well as a dullard, you are a hot yin
You plonker! You really are in a very weak position to question someone else's intelligence. That was a quote from Boris Johnson you complete numpty! Hilarious! You don't even understand nationalism or its history do you, and its close relationship with racism?
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
Village idiot alert
haha, your eloquence as always is as predictable as it is underwhelming! Typical of a Scots Nat to engage in insults rather than engage with an argument and try and defend the putrid philosophy known as nationalism . I don't think all nationalists are thick pillocks but....
You half wit , you would not understand an argument if it hit you between the eyes
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
A very worrying post. Martin Niemöller‘s wise message is clearly needed more than ever in these times where we are slowly slipping into the void again.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
Says the man who campaigns night and day for a nationalist party with socialist policies.
Once they achieve their objective the socialist bit will disappear quick, or they will be goners in the brave new world. They will need to tack to centre right to survive. Who knows there may even be a real Scottish Tory party.
Nice off you to take on this point Malky. Surely the admirable thing would be to dissolve. Brave new world indeed.
What an idiot , she is worse than Trump on that front. What a brass neck she has to criticise him after her antics at the deportation office.
Winrush May has no moral high ground from which to preach.
Neither does anyone that supports a party that has part of its raison d'etre as a not very secret hatred of another nation. I am sure not all Scottish Nationalists hate English people, but....
Village idiot alert
haha, your eloquence as always is as predictable as it is underwhelming! Typical of a Scots Nat to engage in insults rather than engage with an argument and try and defend the putrid philosophy known as nationalism . I don't think all nationalists are thick pillocks but....
Are you opposed to devolution, Nigel?
All in favour of it, though not the break of the Union. I also hate nationalism. It is a poisonous creed that has an objective to divide rather than unite, and it is based on intellectual vacuousness. It is only worthy of mockery.
iScot will need all the refugees it can get given the outflow that will go in the opposite direction
I understand you left ukScot long ago?
I have spent some time in England, yes. iScot move to England is something me and Ms Brisk have discussed but we're quite cash poor at the moment. I'm sure those with the appropriate finances will give it some serious discussion.
We will be happy to get rid of Toom Tabards like you, hopefully you win the lottery.
Great phrase Toom Tabard, nickname of John Balliol. Bit like all hat and no cattle.
Fur coat and nae knickers
No Malcy its RED HAT no nickers..
New one on me Square, always knickers for us in God's country
Trump's tweet may have been ill advised but I can't see Boris going out of his way to defend left-wing Democratic Congresswomen
Particularly as they are female piccaninnies with watermelon smiles eh?
A racist as well as a dullard, you are a hot yin
You plonker! You really are in a very weak position to question someone else's intelligence. That was a quote from Boris Johnson you complete numpty! Hilarious! You don't even understand nationalism or its history do you, and its close relationship with racism?
No sense of humour as well as thick as a pound of mince, I rest my case you cretin. I cannot believe how stupid you actually are.
As someone who believes in meritocracy but dislikes banning things, a sensible balance can be delivered by VAT on school fees and reducing govt university funding from anywhere which doesnt have a realistic balance between state and private school entrants (doesnt need to be anywhere near equal but for example 8 private schools having same number of entrants as 3000 state schools are not numbers that justify government funding).
Yes, agreed.
And one of my ideas is bring back free uni - for high status courses at high status places - but ONLY for kids who have been through the state system.
Then going private becomes potentially VERY expensive.
I would expect Boris (or any other UK PM) to say as little as possible about this. Trump is a matter for the American people. They elected him and they get a second chance to reconsider the matter shortly.
The job of our PM is to promote our interests. Falling out with the incumbent choice of the American people does not do that, even if, perhaps particularly when, the man is a racist arse.
This is self indulgent twaddle. Virtue signalling at its most extreme. I find the idea that it might actually shift anyone's vote in our elections depressing and unlikely in equal measure.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Didn't know you were in the Labour Party Stuart.
But that is equal nonsense. Any British politician who made comments like that is our problem and we have our choices. Boris has said many problematic things in the past and we as a country will have to decide how much we care about that. But Trump is not someone we have a vote on, no matter how many inflatable pigs in nappies we want to float skywards.
A very worrying post. Martin Niemöller‘s wise message is clearly needed more than ever in these times where we are slowly slipping into the void again.
If you follow your logic then no Frenchman, Pole or Englishman should have spoken out during the 1930’s. You’re more of a Neville than a Winston.
Says the man who campaigns night and day for a nationalist party with socialist policies.
Once they achieve their objective the socialist bit will disappear quick, or they will be goners in the brave new world. They will need to tack to centre right to survive. Who knows there may even be a real Scottish Tory party.
Nice off you to take on this point Malky. Surely the admirable thing would be to dissolve. Brave new world indeed.
They will surely want to hang on to power and will likely be OK first term at least but it will mean real Scottish parties being formed and many like myself vote for them on one matter only. They will need to do better to get my vote once we are independent, best of a bad lot at present and only ones fighting Scotland's corner.
As I understand you cannot make it illegal to set up or send your child to a private school. The state is however not obliged to subsidise that choice. So a government could legislate to remove the charitable exemption or impose VAT on fees. But it cannot stop a parent from choosing private education.
Personally I would do pretty much anything to avoid my children being educated in a system run by the likes of Corbyn and Milne. But Milne himself is a pretty good example of why a private school education can often be the most colossal waste of money. As is Boris.
Yes, I can believe that. As I say, the easier case to make - and the one I would make - is that the private opt out should be strongly disincentivized on the grounds that it rides a coach & horses through the notion of equality of opportunity.
Easy first steps include the thing you mention - end the tax breaks.
I’m not sure that either of those two steps are easy (charity law) or cost effective (VAT).
A number of prep schools are closing down, according to recent reports, because of the improvement in local primary schools. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to go.
But the real issue for me is the gap between those families living near good state schools and those not. If you can afford to live in the former areas you get a pretty good advantage for your children and, again, it is one determined by income. Plus ca change, in other words.
Trump's tweet may have been ill advised but I can't see Boris going out of his way to defend left-wing Democratic Congresswomen
Particularly as they are female piccaninnies with watermelon smiles eh?
A racist as well as a dullard, you are a hot yin
You plonker! You really are in a very weak position to question someone else's intelligence. That was a quote from Boris Johnson you complete numpty! Hilarious! You don't even understand nationalism or its history do you, and its close relationship with racism?
No sense of humour as well as thick as a pound of mince, I rest my case you cretin. I cannot believe how stupid you actually are.
Hilarious that you can insult someone, but you cannot engage in argument. You are a typical nationalist. Shouting obscenities or insults doesn't look good and only reinforces all the (probably accurate) stereotypes about the low intellect and violent tempers of the average nationalist. Anyway enjoy your evening. Try getting some anger management, or have a nice cup of Scottish tea.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Lol all the PB Scots have private school experiences (Ms Brisk went). You'd have thought we might be able to come across better on PB wouldn't you.
Speak for yourself Brisky, I come across as the genius I am, kind thoughtful, sense of humour etc and don't suffer fools gladly. PS : I never went to any private school apart from cards.
Re previous thread and Mike’s thesis about the “uniquely feel good” cricket match having “the potential to change our politics”, I certainly hope so. The English victory in 1966 immediately preceded two politics-changing events:
- the 1966 Carmarthen by-election - the 1967 Hamilton by-election
Wales and Scotland have never been the same since. Good chap that Russian linesman.
Not quite true. The Carmarthen by election preceded England's World Cup win in 1966.
Lol all the PB Scots have private school experiences (Ms Brisk went). You'd have thought we might be able to come across better on PB wouldn't you.
Speak for yourself Brisky, I come across as the genius I am, kind thoughtful, sense of humour etc and don't suffer fools gladly. PS : I never went to any private school apart from cards.
very good malky, as was implied I am a comp kid myself.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Trump's tweet may have been ill advised but I can't see Boris going out of his way to defend left-wing Democratic Congresswomen
Particularly as they are female piccaninnies with watermelon smiles eh?
A racist as well as a dullard, you are a hot yin
You plonker! You really are in a very weak position to question someone else's intelligence. That was a quote from Boris Johnson you complete numpty! Hilarious! You don't even understand nationalism or its history do you, and its close relationship with racism?
No sense of humour as well as thick as a pound of mince, I rest my case you cretin. I cannot believe how stupid you actually are.
Hilarious that you can insult someone, but you cannot engage in argument. You are a typical nationalist. Shouting obscenities or insults doesn't look good and only reinforces all the (probably accurate) stereotypes about the low intellect and violent tempers of the average nationalist. Anyway enjoy your evening. Try getting some anger management, or have a nice cup of Scottish tea.
Get that humour bypass looked at, live life and laugh now and again. You are not very good at reading stereotypes I am afraid.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
All that would happen is the good schools would be swamped with rich people#'s kids as they could afford to move/buy property etc. Lower end would suffer and overall education would be wrecked , where will the billions come from for all the extra schools and teachers come from. PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
Lol all the PB Scots have private school experiences (Ms Brisk went). You'd have thought we might be able to come across better on PB wouldn't you.
Speak for yourself Brisky, I come across as the genius I am, kind thoughtful, sense of humour etc and don't suffer fools gladly. PS : I never went to any private school apart from cards.
very good malky, as was implied I am a comp kid myself.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
They had not thought up Comps when I was at school but there were jobs for all in those days.
I’m not sure that either of those two steps are easy (charity law) or cost effective (VAT).
A number of prep schools are closing down, according to recent reports, because of the improvement in local primary schools. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to go.
But the real issue for me is the gap between those families living near good state schools and those not. If you can afford to live in the former areas you get a pretty good advantage for your children and, again, it is one determined by income. Plus ca change, in other words.
Relatively easy. Or let me put it this way - if ending the tax breaks is too difficult we will clearly not be doing anything.
The notion that the way to reduce the private opt out is to "make state schools so good that nobody chooses it" sounds lovely but it is, essentially, a platitude offered by those who know in their hearts and minds that private schools are a gross violation of equality of opportunity but do not care enough to support serious measures that will actually have an impact.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
Lol all the PB Scots have private school experiences (Ms Brisk went). You'd have thought we might be able to come across better on PB wouldn't you.
Speak for yourself Brisky, I come across as the genius I am, kind thoughtful, sense of humour etc and don't suffer fools gladly. PS : I never went to any private school apart from cards.
very good malky, as was implied I am a comp kid myself.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
They had not thought up Comps when I was at school but there were jobs for all in those days.
Well given that our unemployment rate is by economists standards zero I think the same must still be true (although I did get my, what I like to call my "sky sports injection" today.)
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
All that would happen is the good schools would be swamped with rich people#'s kids as they could afford to move/buy property etc. Lower end would suffer and overall education would be wrecked , where will the billions come from for all the extra schools and teachers come from. PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
It's only 7% - so not a massive new input.
You would have to direct resources to less affluent areas.
Spend more on poor kids than the rest. Lots more if necessary.
Why? It makes sense. By stirring up even more anger amongst Dem progressives they are likely to have a rush of blood to the head and nominate someone other than Biden, who Trump fears (in part because Biden has PA).
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
Perhaps Parliament could rush through a rule that you have to be UK born to be PM?
As regular readers will know, I'm not exactly a fan of Boris, but the Guardian's trawling back through back issues of his writings to find things they can distort in order to vilify him is getting more and more absurd:
I disagree. That’s good journalism. Ferreting about is what they need to do more of. Far too much pseudo journalism about: fawning, spin and barely disguised regurgitated press releases.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
I’m not sure that either of those two steps are easy (charity law) or cost effective (VAT).
A number of prep schools are closing down, according to recent reports, because of the improvement in local primary schools. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to go.
But the real issue for me is the gap between those families living near good state schools and those not. If you can afford to live in the former areas you get a pretty good advantage for your children and, again, it is one determined by income. Plus ca change, in other words.
Relatively easy. Or let me put it this way - if ending the tax breaks is too difficult we will clearly not be doing anything.
The notion that the way to reduce the private opt out is to "make state schools so good that nobody chooses it" sounds lovely but it is, essentially, a platitude offered by those who know in their hearts and minds that private schools are a gross violation of equality of opportunity but do not care enough to support serious measures that will actually have an impact.
Well, it’s not a platitude because a lot of ok but not great private prep schools are closing down and that is in large part because they are not as good as state schools or not good enough for parents to pay. So clearly improving state schools does have an impact.
VAT can easily be imposed. The real issue is not how easy it is to do it but whether it will raise money or will simply discourage private education. If the former it does not reduce inequality. If the latter, it may work ie more pupils go to state schools but then the question is where the funding for them comes from. These are not platitudes to be overcome with belief but hard cost benefit analysis questions which need answering not hand-waving away.
Charity law is more complex. Changing it without causing potentially harmful consequences eg harming charities providing educational opportunities for the disabled, say, is not easy and requires care and thoughtfulness.
Educational inequality caused by house prices is just as insidious and it would be foolish to abolish the Etons of this world only to find them replaced by the Henrietta Barnetts of NW11. That will do nothing to reduce any sort of inequality.
I’m not sure that either of those two steps are easy (charity law) or cost effective (VAT).
A number of prep schools are closing down, according to recent reports, because of the improvement in local primary schools. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to go.
But the real issue for me is the gap between those families living near good state schools and those not. If you can afford to live in the former areas you get a pretty good advantage for your children and, again, it is one determined by income. Plus ca change, in other words.
Relatively easy. Or let me put it this way - if ending the tax breaks is too difficult we will clearly not be doing anything.
The notion that the way to reduce the private opt out is to "make state schools so good that nobody chooses it" sounds lovely but it is, essentially, a platitude offered by those who know in their hearts and minds that private schools are a gross violation of equality of opportunity but do not care enough to support serious measures that will actually have an impact.
Here is the problem:
How do you frame charity law to strip private schools of charitable status without also stripping it from universities?
Lol all the PB Scots have private school experiences (Ms Brisk went). You'd have thought we might be able to come across better on PB wouldn't you.
I went to a Scottish comprehensive school. I received a great education, or at the very least a totally adequate one. I am a big believer in the comprehensive system, and like others here I am convinced that somehow ending the state/private divide in education would do more to improve the quality of life in the UK than almost anything else. I wouldn't ban private schools but I would do everything possible to nudge people away from using them.
All that would happen is the good schools would be swamped with rich people#'s kids as they could afford to move/buy property etc. Lower end would suffer and overall education would be wrecked , where will the billions come from for all the extra schools and teachers come from. PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
It's only 7% - so not a massive new input.
You would have to direct resources to less affluent areas.
Spend more on poor kids than the rest. Lots more if necessary.
I have a dream!
If you think a 7% rise in pupil numbers could be absorbed into the state system with ease, you don't know much about education.
We're having to do something like this after a local private school went bust - we think over pension changes - and believe me it's proving an absolute nightmare.
Just catching up on the three Westminster VI polls published at the weekend.
YouGov and Survation have published the detailed tables, per BPC rules, but not ComRes (why?)
The numbers are absolutely dreadful for Ruth Davidson and Richard Leonard, and cheerful reading for Nicola Sturgeon and Willie Rennie. Jo Swinson is going to inherit a lovely start on home ground (about doubled support), but is she capable of nurturing it?
Ruthie is a spent force, and there is no love lost between her and her new master Boris the Clown. I doubt she has the guts to stay, get gubbed at the next election, and thus lose her halo. Best to go before everybody notices that you were crap all along.
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.
As regular readers will know, I'm not exactly a fan of Boris, but the Guardian's trawling back through back issues of his writings to find things they can distort in order to vilify him is getting more and more absurd:
Why ? This is a kind of investigative journalism so that politicians do not write or say what it suits them at any time. If Johnson can defend his writings, then good luck to him. But should it not be pointed out ?
Lol all the PB Scots have private school experiences (Ms Brisk went). You'd have thought we might be able to come across better on PB wouldn't you.
I went to a Scottish comprehensive school. I received a great education, or at the very least a totally adequate one. I am a big believer in the comprehensive system, and like others here I am convinced that somehow ending the state/private divide in education would do more to improve the quality of life in the UK than almost anything else. I wouldn't ban private schools but I would do everything possible to nudge people away from using them.
Yes well I have discussed this issue with Ms Brisk (today cus of thread). She was like "you're a egalitarian so you want to ban them"+ "but you're a libertarian so you don't want to ban them"
Being a mixed couple that's enough from me on the matter.
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
Perhaps Parliament could rush through a rule that you have to be UK born to be PM?
By, say, next Monday.
I think he gave up his US citizenship when the tax bill started to arrive.
I love all this. It's rather like the '66 'did it cross the line' controversy and will enter folklore for years to come.
And there will be those, like myself, who will gently point out that had Stokes needed more runs he would have tanked that final ball low leg stump full toss into the St John's Wood Road ...
As regular readers will know, I'm not exactly a fan of Boris, but the Guardian's trawling back through back issues of his writings to find things they can distort in order to vilify him is getting more and more absurd:
I disagree. That’s good journalism. Ferreting about is what they need to do more of. Far too much pseudo journalism about: fawning, spin and barely disguised regurgitated press releases.
If it wasn't that his mentor Guido has been rummaging through opponents emails going back years you might have a point. But as he's the most disloyal politician on the planet I don't think you have.
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
Perhaps Parliament could rush through a rule that you have to be UK born to be PM?
By, say, next Monday.
Very good
Bonar Law (PM 1922-23) was born and brought up in Canada, until he returned home to Scotland with his aunt, after his mother’s death.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
Perhaps Parliament could rush through a rule that you have to be UK born to be PM?
By, say, next Monday.
Very good
Bonar Law (PM 1922-23) was born and brought up in Canada, until his family returned home to Scotland when he was twelve.
Was there not a PM born in Ireland?
The Duke of Wellington, 1828-30 and again briefly in 1834.
Why? It makes sense. By stirring up even more anger amongst Dem progressives they are likely to have a rush of blood to the head and nominate someone other than Biden, who Trump fears (in part because Biden has PA).
You could argue Trump isn't that clever.
Trump's lizard brain is connected directly to his fingers with nothing in between. The idea that his senile outbursts are part of some 12 dimensional chess strategy is absurd. People like Dan can't accept that Trump really is that stupid because then they'd have to ask themselves why Hiliary lost.
And that's something he's clearly never done or he'd realise that of all the frontrunners, Trump probably has the least to fear from Biden. Like Clinton he has nothing positive to offer except association with a more popular past president and not being Trump. But he also has some of Trump's weaknesses on top: he's a creepy old white dude. And gaffe prone too. Trump would (as he's said) love to face Biden.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Just catching up on the three Westminster VI polls published at the weekend.
YouGov and Survation have published the detailed tables, per BPC rules, but not ComRes (why?)
The numbers are absolutely dreadful for Ruth Davidson and Richard Leonard, and cheerful reading for Nicola Sturgeon and Willie Rennie. Jo Swinson is going to inherit a lovely start on home ground (about doubled support), but is she capable of nurturing it?
Ruthie is a spent force, and there is no love lost between her and her new master Boris the Clown. I doubt she has the guts to stay, get gubbed at the next election, and thus lose her halo. Best to go before everybody notices that you were crap all along.
Why? It makes sense. By stirring up even more anger amongst Dem progressives they are likely to have a rush of blood to the head and nominate someone other than Biden, who Trump fears (in part because Biden has PA).
You could argue Trump isn't that clever.
Trump's lizard brain is connected directly to his fingers with nothing in between.
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada all like us have constitutional monarchies (not absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia).
The USA, Russia, Zimbabwe, Brazil all have presidencies. I firmly prefer the former to the latter in selecting my Head of State
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Surely the best way to reduce educational inequality is to invest far more in education and bringing state schools up to the standards of the best, whether public or private.
But what is the value of cash investment vs people investment? It is not just about cash although of course it helps. Having parents engaged with and supportive of the school is clearly going to help a school. Having students who are in a secure, stable and learning environment from bith is going to be a big help for a school. Those parents and students are more likely to be found in richer households.
Private education takes those benefits away from state schools and becomes self fulfilling when combined with the old boys networks at university and throughout the establishment (i.e. those who take privilege, status and power for granted for them and their kin - not renters with a degree eating avocados but happen to live in London).
And who is willing to fund the extra cash for schools to bring them up to private school standards? Not the rich pensioners threating to cripple the court system over a request to pay their tv licenses. Not the MPs salivating over a tax cut from Boris. Not the middle class crying about tuition fees. Who is left?
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
Not so free, then. You can’t even cross the road when you want.
Just catching up on the three Westminster VI polls published at the weekend.
YouGov and Survation have published the detailed tables, per BPC rules, but not ComRes (why?)
The numbers are absolutely dreadful for Ruth Davidson and Richard Leonard, and cheerful reading for Nicola Sturgeon and Willie Rennie. Jo Swinson is going to inherit a lovely start on home ground (about doubled support), but is she capable of nurturing it?
Ruthie is a spent force, and there is no love lost between her and her new master Boris the Clown. I doubt she has the guts to stay, get gubbed at the next election, and thus lose her halo. Best to go before everybody notices that you were crap all along.
Thinktank or HoL beckons, she will follow the loot
Can’t see Ruthie in the House of Lords. She’d be bored to tears, and the Scottish peers will be getting kicked out soon.
I can see her in a media role, à la Portillo. Great Tub Boat Journeys.
Or they can take rUK citizenship and hang around, like some of the Canadian peers did.
A few Canadian peers hanging around post-independence would not have even been noticed back then in the haze of Empire. But you can bet your bottom dollar that Scottish scroungers will not be tolerated in the Palace of Westminster post-independence. Imagine the field day the Sun would have.
Instinctively I'm unconvinced by the idea of banning private schools. Removing the tax breaks/charitable status they get seems reasonable, but banning them seems extreme.
And yet, and yet, the Finnish education seems to be lauded internationally. And they have banned private school funding (I understand people can still set up a private school, but it must apply to the govt for funding and meet minimum standards). So it's clearly possible and perhaps even desirable.
Singapore and Canada are now ahead of Finland in the latest PISA rankings and plenty of private schools there
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Yeah why should those kids who had the foresight and prudence to be born to rich parents be dragged down to the grimy depths of the lower classes? Whatever happened to ambition?
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada all like us have constitutional monarchies (not absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia).
The USA, Russia, Zimbabwe, Brazil all have presidencies. I firmly prefer the former to the latter in selecting my Head of State
You meant accepting your head of state in what way do you select them
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
Japan, Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada all like us have constitutional monarchies (not absolute monarchies like Saudi Arabia).
The USA, Russia, Zimbabwe, Brazil all have presidencies. I firmly prefer the former to the latter in selecting my Head of State
You can’t compare the freeloading House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha with the modest Bernadottes.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
What does an academy do to enhance education (serious question) ?
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Yeah why should those kids who had the foresight and prudence to be born to rich parents be dragged down to the grimy depths of the lower classes? Whatever happened to ambition?
Plenty of scholarships and bursaries at private schools for kids from the lower classes with ambition but yet again the left prefers the lowest common denominator and would deny them those too
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Yeah why should those kids who had the foresight and prudence to be born to rich parents be dragged down to the grimy depths of the lower classes? Whatever happened to ambition?
Plenty of scholarships and bursaries at private schools for kids from the lower classes with ambition but yet again the left prefers the lowest common denominator and would deny them those too
On the last thread this forum was discussing how to impose a Kenneth Clarke/Dominic Grieve Government of Referendum Losers, as though this would be a) in anyway possible & b) at all popular. Now I see they're criticising our monarchy which enjoys astronomical levels of public support.
You couldn't all be more out of touch if you tried.
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.
Does anyone else remember the difficulty Boris had on one of his previous visits to the Land of the Free? It's a little known fact that Boris was born in the USA, and has a US Passport. Whilst going on holiday there with his family a few years ago, he was stopped at New York Airport Immigration because he had travelled on his UK passport and not his US one. It is a rule in the US that anyone with a US passport has to use it when entering or leaving the country. Accordingly, Our Future Prime Minister had to allow his family to travel on without him, whilst he came back to Blighty in order to get the correct set of papers.
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
Perhaps Parliament could rush through a rule that you have to be UK born to be PM?
By, say, next Monday.
Very good
Bonar Law (PM 1922-23) was born and brought up in Canada, until his family returned home to Scotland when he was twelve.
Was there not a PM born in Ireland?
The Duke of Wellington, 1828-30 and again briefly in 1834.
But Ireland was a member of the Union then, so still UK-born.
Mind you, Bonar Law was born in a British colony, New Brunswick, prior to Canadian unification and independence, so still arguably UK-born.
Yankee Boris is going to be a first in many ways, including first clown to be appointed PM.
Who cares what the PM tweets about President Trump's tweets?
On the new £50, my own choices would have been Sir Francis Drake, Cecil Rhodes or David Livingstone. Long overdue they appeared I think.
You are obviously another one who is unaware of the fact that it was to be a scientist, engineer etc and I think your Rhodes and Livingston nominations are trolling in the extreme
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.
Mandela as a model? You want to see us with a Head of State that had bombs planted in shopping malls, and people burnt alive in tyres filled with petrol? At least we don't get that with old Lizzie.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Yeah why should those kids who had the foresight and prudence to be born to rich parents be dragged down to the grimy depths of the lower classes? Whatever happened to ambition?
Plenty of scholarships and bursaries at private schools for kids from the lower classes with ambition but yet again the left prefers the lowest common denominator and would deny them those too
No there are not plenty. 1% of places were fully funded by scholarships and bursaries. 4% had half their fees paid by scholarships and bursaries.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Yeah why should those kids who had the foresight and prudence to be born to rich parents be dragged down to the grimy depths of the lower classes? Whatever happened to ambition?
Plenty of scholarships and bursaries at private schools for kids from the lower classes with ambition but yet again the left prefers the lowest common denominator and would deny them those too
Oh yeah, go to your average private school and you can't move for kids from deprived backgrounds who had the good sense to pull themselves up by their bootstraps at age 4. Surprised there's any room left for the rich kids, really.
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
Yeah why should those kids who had the foresight and prudence to be born to rich parents be dragged down to the grimy depths of the lower classes? Whatever happened to ambition?
Plenty of scholarships and bursaries at private schools for kids from the lower classes with ambition but yet again the left prefers the lowest common denominator and would deny them those too
The lower classes? There in lies the problem
Yeah, I used that phrase to make fun of his snobbery. Bizarre that he actually adopted it.
What does an academy do to enhance education (serious question) ?
The answer is (I know this wasn't directed at me) is that it depends on a number of factors:
1) The academy. If it is a stand-alone academy led by a capable principal, then it works fine. If it is in a chain of schools dedicated to education and not interested in profits, then it's also usually fine (state schools invariably run at a loss because the money per pupil is so low and salaries are so high). If it is a school that is well run and has strong links to the parents, it is also fine.
If any one of those things isn't in place, you have a catastrophe looking for a time and place to happen.
2) The size and type of school. For a number of practical reasons, it is much easier to be an academy as a large school than a small one. Therefore, if you are a secondary school, it isn't too hard. If you are a primary school, however...
3) The local authority. If you have a capable LEA, who run the system with integrity, and genuinely care about the standard of education children get, then it is usually a bad idea to leave their care. As it happens, I must admit I don't know of any. In my experience they are like a more incompetent version of the Mafia.
But on your precise question, it offers the chance to leave LEA control - which as I note is to put it mildly usually a malign influence. This allows heads to set their own curriculum and to an extent their own spending priorities. That in itself is a help - what works for an inner-city school in Bristol may not for Wolgarston in Penkridge.
It also means that smaller schools (to contradict myself slightly) are protected from closure. In Herefordshire all schools hurriedly became academies when given the chance because Herefordshire wanted to concentrate all education in Hereford, Leominster, Ross and Ledbury to save money. Who cares about twenty mile bus journeys when you can save a few pounds?
What it emphatically does not do, by and of itself, is raise standards. That depends on good leadership and a willingness to put education as the top priority. Neither of those are common in Multi-Academy Trusts (MATS) in my experience. So failing schools being forced to federate usually makes problems worse, not better.
You are obviously another one who is unaware of the fact that it was to be a scientist, engineer etc and I think your Rhodes and Livingston nominations are trolling in the extreme
I am aware it had to be a scientist. I am just posting my favoured options.
Why is everything trolling? Are you shocked that people hold different opinions to your own? Drake, Rhodes and Livingstone are some of the greatest Britons ever. One saved us from Spanish domination, another settled southern Africa for us and the other explored parts of the world that were unmapped. Heroes.
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
Agreed.
I don't think we could get rid of them; imagine the sheer parliamentary time needed to introduce a presidential system and republic. But I'd like to clip their wings so that we only pay for the services of the senior royals, e.g. the heir and his or her 'spare' and their spouse(s). The rest of them should work for a living.
Maybe someone's analysed the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish & Dutch constitutional monarchies to find which is the most effective and economical. They're all pretty civilised countries. I'd settle for whichever one of those systems works best.
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
If the Tories and Labour were to three-line-whip against GoNAFAE and three-line-whip in favour of an election then I think two-thirds for an election is more plausible.
I can see why Boris Johnson would do that, obviously.
But surely Jeremy Corbyn would be much, much keener on the VoNC route. Indeed, he would be mad not to go for it. Firstly, he gets Boris Johnson out of Number 10, which would be a massive symbolic victory. Secondly, he keeps the issue of the timing of Britain's departure from the EU alive. If he allows Britain to exit by default to No Deal, he kills the Brexit Party vote. If he gets an election campaign following an extension, he keeps them alive, splitting the Conservative vote.
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.
Don't be silly Roger. HMQ's family play no role in government. On no objective basis is our Head of State worse than Trump.
And Trump is not a ceremonial Head of State, unlike HMQ, but an executive one.
All that would happen is the good schools would be swamped with rich people#'s kids as they could afford to move/buy property etc. Lower end would suffer and overall education would be wrecked , where will the billions come from for all the extra schools and teachers come from. PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
It's only 7% - so not a massive new input.
You would have to direct resources to less affluent areas.
Spend more on poor kids than the rest. Lots more if necessary.
I have a dream!
If it's 615,000 kids in private school and £6,000 per pupil, then that rounds up to £4bn. That's not nothing, but it would be say, less than half the cost of Boris' tax cuts to higher earners.
What does an academy do to enhance education (serious question) ?
The answer is (I know this wasn't directed at me) is that it depends on a number of factors:
1) The academy. If it is a stand-alone academy led by a capable principal, then it works fine. If it is in a chain of schools dedicated to education and not interested in profits, then it's also usually fine (state schools invariably run at a loss because the money per pupil is so low and salaries are so high). If it is a school that is well run and has strong links to the parents, it is also fine.
If any one of those things isn't in place, you have a catastrophe looking for a time and place to happen.
2) The size and type of school. For a number of practical reasons, it is much easier to be an academy as a large school than a small one. Therefore, if you are a secondary school, it isn't too hard. If you are a primary school, however...
3) The local authority. If you have a capable LEA, who run the system with integrity, and genuinely care about the standard of education children get, then it is usually a bad idea to leave their care. As it happens, I must admit I don't know of any. In my experience they are like a more incompetent version of the Mafia.
But on your precise question, it offers the chance to leave LEA control - which as I note is to put it mildly usually a malign influence. This allows heads to set their own curriculum and to an extent their own spending priorities. That in itself is a help - what works for an inner-city school in Bristol may not for Wolgarston in Penkridge.
It also means that smaller schools (to contradict myself slightly) are protected from closure. In Herefordshire all schools hurriedly became academies when given the chance because Herefordshire wanted to concentrate all education in Hereford, Leominster, Ross and Ledbury to save money. Who cares about twenty mile bus journeys when you can save a few pounds?
What it emphatically does not do, by and of itself, is raise standards. That depends on good leadership and a willingness to put education as the top priority. Neither of those are common in Multi-Academy Trusts (MATS) in my experience. So failing schools being forced to federate usually makes problems worse, not better.
Cheers as you realize I have an interest in this which started back in the 90’s as vice chairman of governors of a large primary and also a very large comp. it was bloody hard work although I did not see the LEA as the enemy. I only come back to the issue now because my daughter has just done a PGCE at 33 and my grandchildren are going through the system. I was horrified to realize how little I know now of the U.K. system.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
Now we are about to have foist on us a piece of shit no less maloderous than Trump it's time to think about re setting our moral compass. How can we complain about having yet another Old Etonian Bullingdon buffoon when we have the biggest family of freeloaders outside of Saudi Arabia as our head of state. Wimbledon was swimming in them. It really is the time to have a clear out. Personally there's nothing wrong with any oof them but how can we complain about privilege and public schools when our head of state is an inherited position
You might be ready for President Farage. Personally I’d rather stick with the Windsors. For the time being anyway.
Not all ceremonial heads of State have to be like Trump. Why not like Mandela or Robinson? Even the Queen but just not involving the family. The reason we can't laugh at Trump's corrosive nepotism is because ours is worse.
Who has heard of Robinson or who could even name the German or Indian or Italian President, either you get a powerful often deeply divisive elected Head of State or a President who is a nonentity
That would just be an attempt to legislate against the symptoms rather than address the causes of the problem. All it would do is move the problem elsewhere - house prices in areas served by what remained of good state schools, and private schools abroad. (When Labour last went bonkers on this in the 1970s/1980s, Eton and other top schools set up contingency plans to decamp to Ireland).
I think if virtually everyone used the mainstream state sector (especially the affluent and the influential) there would be an improvement in standards as well as less inequality.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
Labour voter says educational inequality should not be eliminated, why? If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
The anti private schools position of the Labour left is yet another example of their anti choice, drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator mindset.
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
What does an academy do to enhance education (serious question) ?
It allows investment and new leadership into often failing schools
What if Parliament is dissolved rather than suspended? Lets imagine if mid to late September Boris calls for an election to be held on 31 October to determine our post-Brexit future, Corbyn agrees, two-thirds of Parliament votes for it. So at 10pm we stop voting and start counting the votes and at 11pm we exit without a deal. Is that an enemy of democracy?
I suspect that Mr Corbyn would offer the VoNC route, but not the two-thirds voting for an early election. (Simply, that requires two thirds of MPs to avoid asking for a GoNAFAE - and the numbers aren't there for that.)
Politics is usually about the path of least resistance - and I think (although I could be wrong) that the GoAFAE is lower resistance than allowing No Deal to happen in the middle of a General Election campaign.
If the Tories and Labour were to three-line-whip against GoNAFAE and three-line-whip in favour of an election then I think two-thirds for an election is more plausible.
I can see why Boris Johnson would do that, obviously.
But surely Jeremy Corbyn would be much, much keener on the VoNC route. Indeed, he would be mad not to go for it. Firstly, he gets Boris Johnson out of Number 10, which would be a massive symbolic victory. Secondly, he keeps the issue of the timing of Britain's departure from the EU alive. If he allows Britain to exit by default to No Deal, he kills the Brexit Party vote. If he gets an election campaign following an extension, he keeps them alive, splitting the Conservative vote.
It depends. I think Corbyn would be prepared to go down the VoNC route so long as it ended in either him in 10 Downing Street or an Election. I don't think he'd support anyone else getting in via a GoNAFAE.
He can stand up as the voice of seeking an extension/deal and promising a swift one [even if there's been a No Deal Exit by then] while seeking a backdrop of Tory chaos and meltdown.
Comments
Harsh but fair?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-48745333
Tactically, removing Johnson from Number 10 is absolutely in his interest.
And one of my ideas is bring back free uni - for high status courses at high status places - but ONLY for kids who have been through the state system.
Then going private becomes potentially VERY expensive.
And yet, and yet, the Finnish education seems to be lauded internationally. And they have banned private school funding (I understand people can still set up a private school, but it must apply to the govt for funding and meet minimum standards). So it's clearly possible and perhaps even desirable.
I think the WA will be ratified in 2020 under PM Johnson without a general election.
Not sure why I think that, but I do.
A number of prep schools are closing down, according to recent reports, because of the improvement in local primary schools. That seems to me to be a more sensible way to go.
But the real issue for me is the gap between those families living near good state schools and those not. If you can afford to live in the former areas you get a pretty good advantage for your children and, again, it is one determined by income. Plus ca change, in other words.
Of course, there will always be some schools which are better than others, and the socioeconomic position of a child's parents will always have an impact on their prospects. You cannot eradicate this without going full Pol Pot. Therefore you should not try to eradicate it.
But just because educational inequality cannot (and should not) be completely eliminated does not mean that steps to reduce it to a material extent should not be contemplated.
PS : I never went to any private school apart from cards.
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/1150814643520249856
PS: Nice thought though , but as likely as everyone being equal.
The notion that the way to reduce the private opt out is to "make state schools so good that nobody chooses it" sounds lovely but it is, essentially, a platitude offered by those who know in their hearts and minds that private schools are a gross violation of equality of opportunity but do not care enough to support serious measures that will actually have an impact.
Oh dear !
I wonder if they will relax this rule for him in the future?
You would have to direct resources to less affluent areas.
Spend more on poor kids than the rest. Lots more if necessary.
I have a dream!
You could argue Trump isn't that clever.
By, say, next Monday.
If there were only state schools the system would as it does now focus the best state education into areas that those who can afford to live there get the best education. Don’t know how you stop it (chicken/egg) but I have no answer to the problem
VAT can easily be imposed. The real issue is not how easy it is to do it but whether it will raise money or will simply discourage private education. If the former it does not reduce inequality. If the latter, it may work ie more pupils go to state schools but then the question is where the funding for them comes from. These are not platitudes to be overcome with belief but hard cost benefit analysis questions which need answering not hand-waving away.
Charity law is more complex. Changing it without causing potentially harmful consequences eg harming charities providing educational opportunities for the disabled, say, is not easy and requires care and thoughtfulness.
Educational inequality caused by house prices is just as insidious and it would be foolish to abolish the Etons of this world only to find them replaced by the Henrietta Barnetts of NW11. That will do nothing to reduce any sort of inequality.
How do you frame charity law to strip private schools of charitable status without also stripping it from universities?
We're having to do something like this after a local private school went bust - we think over pension changes - and believe me it's proving an absolute nightmare.
I can see her in a media role, à la Portillo. Great Tub Boat Journeys.
Being a mixed couple that's enough from me on the matter.
I love all this. It's rather like the '66 'did it cross the line' controversy and will enter folklore for years to come.
And there will be those, like myself, who will gently point out that had Stokes needed more runs he would have tanked that final ball low leg stump full toss into the St John's Wood Road ...
Bonar Law (PM 1922-23) was born and brought up in Canada, until he returned home to Scotland with his aunt, after his mother’s death.
Was there not a PM born in Ireland?
No private schools, no grammar schools, no academies, no free schools you just take the bog standard comprehensive school you get given. No private health insurance either just one state provided health service.
An economy too largely built on nationalised industries with the private sector and competition kept as limited as possible
And that's something he's clearly never done or he'd realise that of all the frontrunners, Trump probably has the least to fear from Biden. Like Clinton he has nothing positive to offer except association with a more popular past president and not being Trump. But he also has some of Trump's weaknesses on top: he's a creepy old white dude. And gaffe prone too. Trump would (as he's said) love to face Biden.
The USA, Russia, Zimbabwe, Brazil all have presidencies. I firmly prefer the former to the latter in selecting my Head of State
Private education takes those benefits away from state schools and becomes self fulfilling when combined with the old boys networks at university and throughout the establishment (i.e. those who take privilege, status and power for granted for them and their kin - not renters with a degree eating avocados but happen to live in London).
And who is willing to fund the extra cash for schools to bring them up to private school standards? Not the rich pensioners threating to cripple the court system over a request to pay their tv licenses. Not the MPs salivating over a tax cut from Boris. Not the middle class crying about tuition fees. Who is left?
Not so free, then. You can’t even cross the road when you want.
On the new £50, my own choices would have been Sir Francis Drake, Cecil Rhodes or David Livingstone. Long overdue they appeared I think.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1150821658430775296?s=21
You couldn't all be more out of touch if you tried.
Mind you, Bonar Law was born in a British colony, New Brunswick, prior to Canadian unification and independence, so still arguably UK-born.
Yankee Boris is going to be a first in many ways, including first clown to be appointed PM.
You are obviously another one who is unaware of the fact that it was to be a scientist, engineer etc and I think your Rhodes and Livingston nominations are trolling in the extreme
1) The academy. If it is a stand-alone academy led by a capable principal, then it works fine. If it is in a chain of schools dedicated to education and not interested in profits, then it's also usually fine (state schools invariably run at a loss because the money per pupil is so low and salaries are so high). If it is a school that is well run and has strong links to the parents, it is also fine.
If any one of those things isn't in place, you have a catastrophe looking for a time and place to happen.
2) The size and type of school. For a number of practical reasons, it is much easier to be an academy as a large school than a small one. Therefore, if you are a secondary school, it isn't too hard. If you are a primary school, however...
3) The local authority. If you have a capable LEA, who run the system with integrity, and genuinely care about the standard of education children get, then it is usually a bad idea to leave their care. As it happens, I must admit I don't know of any. In my experience they are like a more incompetent version of the Mafia.
But on your precise question, it offers the chance to leave LEA control - which as I note is to put it mildly usually a malign influence. This allows heads to set their own curriculum and to an extent their own spending priorities. That in itself is a help - what works for an inner-city school in Bristol may not for Wolgarston in Penkridge.
It also means that smaller schools (to contradict myself slightly) are protected from closure. In Herefordshire all schools hurriedly became academies when given the chance because Herefordshire wanted to concentrate all education in Hereford, Leominster, Ross and Ledbury to save money. Who cares about twenty mile bus journeys when you can save a few pounds?
What it emphatically does not do, by and of itself, is raise standards. That depends on good leadership and a willingness to put education as the top priority. Neither of those are common in Multi-Academy Trusts (MATS) in my experience. So failing schools being forced to federate usually makes problems worse, not better.
Why is everything trolling? Are you shocked that people hold different opinions to your own? Drake, Rhodes and Livingstone are some of the greatest Britons ever. One saved us from Spanish domination, another settled southern Africa for us and the other explored parts of the world that were unmapped. Heroes.
I don't think we could get rid of them; imagine the sheer parliamentary time needed to introduce a presidential system and republic. But I'd like to clip their wings so that we only pay for the services of the senior royals, e.g. the heir and his or her 'spare' and their spouse(s). The rest of them should work for a living.
Maybe someone's analysed the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish & Dutch constitutional monarchies to find which is the most effective and economical. They're all pretty civilised countries. I'd settle for whichever one of those systems works best.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9384789/sun-readers-debate-boris-hunt-live/
But surely Jeremy Corbyn would be much, much keener on the VoNC route. Indeed, he would be mad not to go for it. Firstly, he gets Boris Johnson out of Number 10, which would be a massive symbolic victory. Secondly, he keeps the issue of the timing of Britain's departure from the EU alive. If he allows Britain to exit by default to No Deal, he kills the Brexit Party vote. If he gets an election campaign following an extension, he keeps them alive, splitting the Conservative vote.
And Trump is not a ceremonial Head of State, unlike HMQ, but an executive one.
That's not nothing, but it would be say, less than half the cost of Boris' tax cuts to higher earners.
An unrelated question who provides education for the permanently exclude pupil is it still the LEA?
He can stand up as the voice of seeking an extension/deal and promising a swift one [even if there's been a No Deal Exit by then] while seeking a backdrop of Tory chaos and meltdown.