But he won't commit not just to leaving by October but to leaving this year.
#HasToNotBeHunt
31st October is just an arbitrary date. There is no reason why it has to be then rather than 14th November or 1st January.
It represents nothing other than a date plucked out of thin air. It has no special qualities.
Then why did the EU pick it? Why did May agree to it? Why did the Commons agree to it?
What's going to change by 14/11 or 1/1?
Did the Commons agree to it? (I genuinely don't know the answer)
Yes through a Statutory Instrument accepted by negative procedure.
In that it failed to implement moves to block it? Fair enough. Blocking it, though, is entirely negative surely. They have no way to amend the date in it.
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?
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.
Anecdotally from Oxfordshire: the LA may well be the enemy and some MATs are far worse... but not all. There are at least two MATs which appear to be well thought of by both staff and parents.
One of them is the MAT for the school of which Mrs Capitano is headteacher. Amusingly, our local MP cited both the MAT and Mrs Capitano's school approvingly in PMQs recently, to which Theresa May replied that "children at [Mrs Capitano's school] do get a first-class education". I think that's going on a banner outside the school at some point...
(On the substantive point, the answer to "who provides education for the permanently excluded pupil" is, round here at least, "no-one". The waiting list for special ed provision in Oxfordshire is ridiculously long and the LA try to dissuade you from anything that might lengthen it, no matter what the needs of the child. There are several reasons why I vote Liberal Democrat, but one of the principal ones is that they do understand and support the need for discrete special educational provision - and Layla Moran has been quite vocal about that - whereas Labour is still wedded to the Blunkett-era doctrine of integration in mainstream schools.)
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
If it is to be No Deal then I think 31/10 is a good day to do it. Gives us November to deal with any teething disruptions caused by it, then everyone gets distracted and moves on with their lives regarding Christmas. After Christmas its history and we're done
Philip do you ever pause for breath before posting on here? It's incessant and repetitive (HYUFD is similar).
Obviously someone missed the news item that said 31/10 was the worst day possible because all warehouse capacity was already booked up for Christmas and that those seeking to prepare for no deal were unable to build buffer stocks
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.
Now if Grieve and co are desperate enough to defect from the Tories [and they would have to] to VONC the Tories, Corbyn would be perfectly entitled to say he is the only one leading a party with hundreds of MPs prepared to vote for an extension.
Are Grieve and co really going to VONC the Tories only to then allow No Deal to occur anyway because they're not prepared to let Corbyn get the extension?
Realistically this is why there needs to be ongoing negotiations in the background, each group will have their own preferred paths, and paths that they can tolerate but would try and avoid. Exactly where the various groups are in that game of bluff and negotiation is impossible to deduce logically, only the insiders will have a good idea (and they may be wrong once events come into play).
It is not just the Tory remainers who will struggle with Corbyn, imagine SNP and LD strongly prefer someone more neutral as well which will add to the pressure against him.
Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.
I think you're right. Private schools mainly do better due to higher per pupil resource and an advantaged intake, don't they?
I have to scoot but we can hopefully pick this up again soon.
MASSIVE topic.
Motivated parents are a much bigger predictor of pupil success than type of school.
I think it's more to do with them having the means to buy their way into a business when they leave. I knew so many of less than average intelligence who are now household names many who are in the family business. I know very few who are on their uppers
As a teacher myself in a private school, I agree with HY. We have very few high fliers, but those who do come to us have a good shot at Russell group universities. Students of average ability get the best GCSE grades they can from smaller class sizes, have a lot of sport, and come out well-rounded and polite. They have a good knowledge of the world and charity work as well.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
Has it occured to you that people may not have forgotten it (you post it most days so it is hard to forget), but that instead they may not believe that a theoretical opinion poll guarantees an outcome?
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.
Now if Grieve and co are desperate enough to defect from the Tories [and they would have to] to VONC the Tories, Corbyn would be perfectly entitled to say he is the only one leading a party with hundreds of MPs prepared to vote for an extension.
Are Grieve and co really going to VONC the Tories only to then allow No Deal to occur anyway because they're not prepared to let Corbyn get the extension?
Realistically this is why there needs to be ongoing negotiations in the background, each group will have their own preferred paths, and paths that they can tolerate but would try and avoid. Exactly where the various groups are in that game of bluff and negotiation is impossible to deduce logically, only the insiders will have a good idea (and they may be wrong once events come into play).
It is not just the Tory remainers who will struggle with Corbyn, imagine SNP and LD strongly prefer someone more neutral as well which will add to the pressure against him.
They may prefer someone more neutral but they may not have a choice.
The Tories will be dead set against an extension in this scenario. The Tories will reject en-mass any alternative government. Which puts Corbyn in control. If the SNP, LDs etc reject Corbyn then they reject any chance to get an extension.
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
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
What about those of poor ability in private schools like wor Boris?
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
As a teacher myself in a private school, I agree with HY. We have very few high fliers, but those who do come to us have a good shot at Russell group universities. Students of average ability get the best GCSE grades they can from smaller class sizes, have a lot of sport, and come out well-rounded and polite. They have a good knowledge of the world and charity work as well.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM?
As the Brexit Party would be largest party and able to do a Deal with the remaining rump Tories and DUP.
With Hunt as PM of course the poll gives the Brexit Party a majority if Hunt fails to deliver Brexit, so no question would be PM Farage then
How would the Brexit Party become the largest party in parliament? Their vote would be poorly distributed, as your own observation about them winning votes in Labour seats indicates.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
Has it occured to you that people may not have forgotten it (you post it most days so it is hard to forget), but that instead they may not believe that a theoretical opinion poll guarantees an outcome?
I know it would never occur to diehard Remainers that the majority of voters who vote for Brecit might actually want to see it be delivered and their vote respected but there we go
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Friendly tip. It's easier and pleasanter just to ignore HYUFD when he gets like this.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
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.
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.
I was travelling home. But my answer is yes I would. To be honest, I would probably spend more on education than on other sacred cows.
Age of pupils seems instinctively very hard to wriggle through?
How many pupils in independent schools are aged 16-18? You might be surprised to learn the number is quite large...
Id actually see that age group as less of a problem, more akin to university. At 16 it is more realistic to expect individuals to "own" their future and overcome their environment than it is for a 5 year old. After all we let 16 year olds join the army or get married.
I am not asking for the world to be fair, just that each generation becomes a little more fair as had been happening in the 20th century, rather than less fair as has been happening recently.
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.
You typed the platitude just before I anticipated it!
But OK - so you would support the schools budget being increased such that the average spend per pupil is brought into line with the private sector?
If that's a yes the sentiment is platitude no more.
Spending levels is only part of the issue. Private schools mean students are mixing with a self-selecting cohort, with backgrounds that value education, and others who largely approach education as something worthwhile. At state schools, there is a sizable element who are somewhere on a scale of actively opposing being educated, to seeing as being of limited worth to 'their sort'. It is why the state sector is emphasising issues such as providing cultural capital, etc, now.
Completely OT. I have been visiting the Manchester festival this week. I am from Manchester but like many earned my living in London. The improvement in Manchester over the last dozen or so years is nothing short of spectacular. The City Centre has improved beyond recognition. Partly because of a tram system but mainly because of a very smart planning department.
Even Salford Quays with it's proliferation of production companies and TV stations is a revelation. Whether the next generation of photographers and film makers will have make their way to London I doubt.
Two interesting facts. 1. It's the third most visited place in the UK (after london and Edinburgh) Today It was spilling over with Spanish French and Italians today. and 2. It has more cranes in operation than anywhere else in Europe. They are building at a rate of knots
Finally if anyone wants to see a show at the festival the standout is Ballet Rambert's 'Invisible Cities'. It's staging is spectacular and quirky. Another show worth looking at is at the Science museums Atmospheric Memory which ironically was visited by Mark Carney this morning
There's seems to be a huge amount of construction happening in much of Northern England.
Although Sheffield council seems to have been done over by some 'Chinese investors':
More successfully Europe's first drive-through Dunkin Donuts has opened in Doncaster which I expect will delight you.
Its the scale of the construction boom which makes me sure that the end of the economic cycle is imminent - how many of the new commercial developments are going to be profitable is beyond me and that must be even more so for those being built in London and the South-East.
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?
Yes. This causes problems now there are so few maintained secondary schools left. They have to take the ones who have been booted out, which effectively turns them into quasi PRUs in some areas.
Anyone who has worked in Bristol, Gloucestershire or Herefordshire will definitely see LEAs as the enemy. Staffs doesn't appear so bad, although my school isn't maintained so I can't speak from direct experience.
But - and here's the punchline - they see MATs as far worse.
Anecdotally from Oxfordshire: the LA may well be the enemy and some MATs are far worse... but not all. There are at least two MATs which appear to be well thought of by both staff and parents.
One of them is the MAT for the school of which Mrs Capitano is headteacher. Amusingly, our local MP cited both the MAT and Mrs Capitano's school approvingly in PMQs recently, to which Theresa May replied that "children at [Mrs Capitano's school] do get a first-class education". I think that's going on a banner outside the school at some point...
(On the substantive point, the answer to "who provides education for the permanently excluded pupil" is, round here at least, "no-one". The waiting list for special ed provision in Oxfordshire is ridiculously long and the LA try to dissuade you from anything that might lengthen it, no matter what the needs of the child. There are several reasons why I vote Liberal Democrat, but one of the principal ones is that they do understand and support the need for discrete special educational provision - and Layla Moran has been quite vocal about that - whereas Labour is still wedded to the Blunkett-era doctrine of integration in mainstream schools.)
I did actually say earlier that it depends on the MAT.
In Bristol I do not know of a single MAT that I would give anything other than an eternal ban from education to.
In Gloucestershire there is at least one that's quite good.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats and the Tories 33 seats on figures of BP 24%, LDs 22%, Labour 20% and Tories 20% as Yougov has if Boris does not deliver Brexit, so wrong. Brexit Party and Tory and DUP majority
If Hunt fails to deliver Brexit it gives Brexit Party 354 and a Brexit Party majority of 52 based on the Yougov figures of BP 27%, LD 22%, Tories 19% and Labour 18
On the 10pm news here in Finland, Günther Oettinger (the EU Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources) concedes that there will be a serious problem for the EU budget if there's a "no-deal" Brexit without agreement on payments to the EU by the UK.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.
Now if Grieve and co are desperate enough to defect from the Tories [and they would have to] to VONC the Tories, Corbyn would be perfectly entitled to say he is the only one leading a party with hundreds of MPs prepared to vote for an extension.
Are Grieve and co really going to VONC the Tories only to then allow No Deal to occur anyway because they're not prepared to let Corbyn get the extension?
Realistically this is why there needs to be ongoing negotiations in the background, each group will have their own preferred paths, and paths that they can tolerate but would try and avoid. Exactly where the various groups are in that game of bluff and negotiation is impossible to deduce logically, only the insiders will have a good idea (and they may be wrong once events come into play).
It is not just the Tory remainers who will struggle with Corbyn, imagine SNP and LD strongly prefer someone more neutral as well which will add to the pressure against him.
They may prefer someone more neutral but they may not have a choice.
The Tories will be dead set against an extension in this scenario. The Tories will reject en-mass any alternative government. Which puts Corbyn in control. If the SNP, LDs etc reject Corbyn then they reject any chance to get an extension.
Indeed there may not be a choice that works at all. They will keep the negotiations as private as they can as it is important to all of them that Boris believes they have a chance of a temporary govt of unity. So we wont find out until if and when it happens.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Friendly tip. It's easier and pleasanter just to ignore HYUFD when he gets like this.
I know, it’s just hard to resist. I like early mornings best weekdays U.K. time 06:00 up to about 10:00 it’s very civilized on here.
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.
If you want an independent UK to do trade deals with countries in Africa, it's not a good idea to glorify those who are reviled there.
How would we feel about Hitler being on a German banknote?
I imagine he would be all for it, for attention-seeking value if nothing else
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spend half their time in gangs roaming the streets
Just like members of the Bullingdon Club wrecking restaurants.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
What about those of poor ability in private schools like wor Boris?
Boris got an upper second from Oxford in Classics, Corbyn went to a private prep school and grammar school and failed to even get a degree from a former polytechnic so admittedly you may have a point with him
Bottom line is, if all state schools had an average class size of 20 there would be no private sector and there would be far fewer problems with teacher shortages and illness through overwork.
But for that, we would need to at least double spending on education and no politician has the courage to do it.
I think you're right. Private schools mainly do better due to higher per pupil resource and an advantaged intake, don't they?
I have to scoot but we can hopefully pick this up again soon.
MASSIVE topic.
Mostly the first. Those who have never taught have no idea how much easier it is to teach classes of 9 against those of 34.
I look forward to resuming the conversation.
It’s both.
Even something as simple as parents who read to and with their young children every night makes a massive difference to their educational chances. Conversely, if you have a primary school class of 30 odd kids in which a number of the boys tell you in all seriousness that their ambition is either to be a professional footballer, or if that fails, a drug dealer, then you are facing an uphill task.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Friendly tip. It's easier and pleasanter just to ignore HYUFD when he gets like this.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
Has it occured to you that people may not have forgotten it (you post it most days so it is hard to forget), but that instead they may not believe that a theoretical opinion poll guarantees an outcome?
I know it would never occur to diehard Remainers that the majority of voters who vote for Brecit might actually want to see it be delivered and their vote respected but there we go
That has occured to me and I guess that means I sadly don't qualify as a "diehard Remainer". From here the best outcome is the WA or similar precisely because people want their vote respected (and should get that), not because it is in operational terms better than remain.
No deal and coups have no mandate though, however many times you type diehard.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spend half their time in gangs roaming the streets
Just like members of the Bullingdon Club wrecking restaurants.
My point was aimed at pupils of average ability not those at Oxbridge
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Ok, usually I'm quite happy to let your portentous garbage roll by with a wry smile, but in this case I'll bite. 'English wine shelves'? Are you seriously suggesting that supermarkets or indeed shoppers south of the border are in any way different to their Scottish counterparts? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
What about those of poor ability in private schools like wor Boris?
Boris got an upper second from Oxford in Classics, Corbyn went to a private prep school and grammar school and failed to even get a degree from a former polytechnic so admittedly you may have a point with him
Eton clearly has a problem in inculcating morality and common sense, though.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Friendly tip. It's easier and pleasanter just to ignore HYUFD when he gets like this.
Yes, how dare anyone challenge the default view of the liberal left
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Interested to know if you go the full way by living in an area with a failing school and donating the money you save by not sending your children to private school to a kids charity
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
Well I think your party that opposed grammar schools and refuses to respect the Leave vote of 17 million people is even more of a disgrace, so there you go
On the 10pm news here in Finland, Günther Oettinger (the EU Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources) concedes that there will be a serious problem for the EU budget if there's a "no-deal" Brexit without agreement on payments to the EU by the UK.
I know most PB Leavers rarely set foot in the UK, preferring to exercise their patriotism from elsewhere, but even by PB standards that's a Biggie. What the heckety-heck are you doing in Finland? I used to know a Finn and it's one of those places that I think might be nice. Are you in Helsinki?
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
It does appear that some people don’t give a flying f for other people’s kids.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats and the Tories 33 seats on figures of BP 24%, LDs 22%, Labour 20% and Tories 20% as Yougov has if Boris does not deliver Brexit, so wrong. Brexit Party and Tory and DUP majority
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.
Realistically this is why there needs to be ongoing negotiations in the background, each group will have their own preferred paths, and paths that they can tolerate but would try and avoid. Exactly where the various groups are in that game of bluff and negotiation is impossible to deduce logically, only the insiders will have a good idea (and they may be wrong once events come into play).
It is not just the Tory remainers who will struggle with Corbyn, imagine SNP and LD strongly prefer someone more neutral as well which will add to the pressure against him.
They may prefer someone more neutral but they may not have a choice.
The Tories will be dead set against an extension in this scenario. The Tories will reject en-mass any alternative government. Which puts Corbyn in control. If the SNP, LDs etc reject Corbyn then they reject any chance to get an extension.
The key thing is, Boris declares brexit in his deal with EU to carry on with a transition whilst they carry on talking future arrangement over, its brexit but with nothing really changing at first. Boris will have a cake and eat it. He will have brexit AND with nominal chaos because it’s in EU interest and Boris interest to kick the crunch time and chaos into the future, in Boris case after he has achieved the election victory.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Nope, you just want to drag every school down to the standard of the average bog standard comprehensive rather than actually look at raising their standards.
Even if every pupil amongst the 7% who went to private schools went to a state school they would either be concentrated in the best state schools if their parents were still allowed a choice or if they are not would add less than 10% of the pupil make up of that school, the average pupil would still be the same regardless
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
Well I think your party that opposed grammar schools and refuses to respect the Leave vote of 17 million people is even more of a disgrace, so there you go
Coming from the supporter of the party who’s education secretary closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Can you give my five positives of the secondary modern school in the 70’s?
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Ok, usually I'm quite happy to let your portentous garbage roll by with a wry smile, but in this case I'll bite. 'English wine shelves'? Are you seriously suggesting that supermarkets or indeed shoppers south of the border are in any way different to their Scottish counterparts? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
Immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east is very weird as well. South is France which obviously has great wine, although what they export at typical prices seems overrated compared to their locally served product. But immediate neighbours east seem to be Belgium, Holland and Denmark, not exactly hotbeds of great wine.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
Britain governs itself. Only the demented imagine otherwise.
Given that it can’t even cut a tax on tampons, I wouldn’t be so sure.
Except the UK did get that changed, but don't let facts get in the way of a warmly invented grievance. Especially as we will be much less able to influence change outside.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats and the Tories 33 seats on figures of BP 24%, LDs 22%, Labour 20% and Tories 20% as Yougov has if Boris does not deliver Brexit, so wrong. Brexit Party and Tory and DUP majority
Actually even that model gives the Brexit Party 218 and the Tories 89, so the Brexit Party still comfortably largest party and Farage with a shot at PM with the DUP
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Ok, usually I'm quite happy to let your portentous garbage roll by with a wry smile, but in this case I'll bite. 'English wine shelves'? Are you seriously suggesting that supermarkets or indeed shoppers south of the border are in any way different to their Scottish counterparts? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
Immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east is very weird as well. South is France which obviously has great wine, although what they export at typical prices seems overrated compared to their locally served product. But immediate neighbours east seem to be Belgium, Holland and Denmark, not exactly hotbeds of great wine.
Nothing wrong with Spanish wine cava is better than Prosecco and there is no need to spend more than three euro to get a decent bottle.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
It does appear that some people don’t give a flying f for other people’s kids.
I would be interested to know how many Labour MPs and functionaries either have sent, or are currently sending, their kids to private school.
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest IQ, I know many in the left delight in dragging people down but it would be good if the state sector actually learnt from the private sector about how to make the best of its pupils of average ability or below to make them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
Well I think your party that opposed grammar schools and refuses to respect the Leave vote of 17 million people is even more of a disgrace, so there you go
Coming from the supporter of the party who’s education secretary closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Can you give my five positives of the secondary modern school in the 70’s?
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
It does appear that some people don’t give a flying f for other people’s kids.
I would be interested to know how many Labour MPs and functionaries either have sent, or are currently sending, their kids to private school.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Interested to know if you go the full way by living in an area with a failing school and donating the money you save by not sending your children to private school to a kids charity
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats and the Tories 33 seats on figures of BP 24%, LDs 22%, Labour 20% and Tories 20% as Yougov has if Boris does not deliver Brexit, so wrong. Brexit Party and Tory and DUP majority
So its possible there is not a “leave vote” as such, but right wing and left wing leave votes? Right wing Euro scepticism to turn us into libertarian pirate island, left wing leave vote because it’s impossible to turn us into Venezuela if we stay in EU? Hence Farage cannot win votes on leave alone, rest of his manifesto and direction of travel will repel many voters? Is that the thing HY is failing to understand?
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats and the Tories 33 seats on figures of BP 24%, LDs 22%, Labour 20% and Tories 20% as Yougov has if Boris does not deliver Brexit, so wrong. Brexit Party and Tory and DUP majority
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
It does appear that some people don’t give a flying f for other people’s kids.
Yes, dumb down everyone else's education then send your daughter to Roedean
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
Well I think your party that opposed grammar schools and refuses to respect the Leave vote of 17 million people is even more of a disgrace, so there you go
Coming from the supporter of the party who’s education secretary closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Can you give my five positives of the secondary modern school in the 70’s?
1) They were cheap
2) They were cheap
3) They were (do you get the gist here? )
The sad bit is I’ve taken an active interest in this all my life but people don’t want to do the detail and maybe don’t understand that for every grammar school there are three underfunded so called comps. The grammar system could have worked if they had pumped money into making them vocational colleges but they didnt
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Ok, usually I'm quite happy to let your portentous garbage roll by with a wry smile, but in this case I'll bite. 'English wine shelves'? Are you seriously suggesting that supermarkets or indeed shoppers south of the border are in any way different to their Scottish counterparts? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
Immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east is very weird as well. South is France which obviously has great wine, although what they export at typical prices seems overrated compared to their locally served product. But immediate neighbours east seem to be Belgium, Holland and Denmark, not exactly hotbeds of great wine.
As is claiming that European wines are 'very, very skimpy' in 'English supermarkets'.
Not the supermarkets I go to but then I actually go to 'English supermarkets' rather than make weird claims about them from Sweden.
For that matter claiming that European wines are 'infinitely better' than New World wines is not something which is going to stand up to any serious testing.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
Indeed he gains from an extension but he gains far more from entering 10 Downing Street and being the one to get it.
Realistically this is why there needs to be ongoing negotiations in the background, each group will have their own preferred paths, and paths that they can tolerate but would try and avoid. Exactly where the various groups are in that game of bluff and negotiation is impossible to deduce logically, only the insiders will have a good idea (and they may be wrong once events come into play).
It is not just the Tory remainers who will struggle with Corbyn, imagine SNP and LD strongly prefer someone more neutral as well which will add to the pressure against him.
They may prefer someone more neutral but they may not have a choice.
The Tories will be dead set against an extension in this scenario. The Tories will reject en-mass any alternative government. Which puts Corbyn in control. If the SNP, LDs etc reject Corbyn then they reject any chance to get an extension.
The key thing is, Boris declares brexit in his deal with EU to carry on with a transition whilst they carry on talking future arrangement over, its brexit but with nothing really changing at first. Boris will have a cake and eat it. He will have brexit AND with nominal chaos because it’s in EU interest and Boris interest to kick the crunch time and chaos into the future, in Boris case after he has achieved the election victory.
More generally he ignores the fact that hypotheticals have to collide with reality before crystallising into a real election result.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Interested to know if you go the full way by living in an area with a failing school and donating the money you save by not sending your children to private school to a kids charity
Yes, very good question
There aren't that many failing schools in London because of all the ambitious immigrants and middle class liberals who send their kids there.
I do give some money to children's charities. Probably not as much as you guys.
But seriously, this kind of boring right wing gotcha stuff is kind of pathetic. It's possible to try and do the right thing in life while not being a Saint.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
It does appear that some people don’t give a flying f for other people’s kids.
I would be interested to know how many Labour MPs and functionaries either have sent, or are currently sending, their kids to private school.
According to the above, they went to a selective grammar school, outside the borough, but according to his ex "'My children's education is my absolute priority, and this situation left me with no alternative but to accept a place at Queen Elizabeth boys' school. The decision was made by myself alone and without the consent of my husband,' she said."
The problem from an efficient allocation of resources point of view is that the average spend on private education is too high - it would be a waste of public money for every kid to have a tiny class size, acres of rugby pitches, state of the art theatre etc. These things are not necessary or sufficient to create well educated, productive and civilised people, they are simply signalling devices to get anxious parents to fork out and to get otherwise mediocre kids into good universities. Nevertheless, if that's what it would take to kill off most of these parasitic institutions then we should do it. In a free society you can't ban them but they are a malign influence.
Yep.
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
Well I think your party that opposed grammar schools and refuses to respect the Leave vote of 17 million people is even more of a disgrace, so there you go
Coming from the supporter of the party who’s education secretary closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Can you give my five positives of the secondary modern school in the 70’s?
It was Shirley Williams who set the ball rolling on that, more grammar schools were in place when the Tories left office in 1997 than when Thatcher arrived in 1979.
The problem was the improve the standards of secondary moderns not to close the excellent grammar schools and in selective Buckinghamshire there are now many excellent high schools
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Interested to know if you go the full way by living in an area with a failing school and donating the money you save by not sending your children to private school to a kids charity
On the 10pm news here in Finland, Günther Oettinger (the EU Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources) concedes that there will be a serious problem for the EU budget if there's a "no-deal" Brexit without agreement on payments to the EU by the UK.
I know most PB Leavers rarely set foot in the UK, preferring to exercise their patriotism from elsewhere, but even by PB standards that's a Biggie. What the heckety-heck are you doing in Finland? I used to know a Finn and it's one of those places that I think might be nice. Are you in Helsinki?
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31 October is in Boris Johnson's interest. No Brexit by 31 October is in Jeremy Corbyn's interest. Being seen to have aided a No Deal Boris Johnson Brexit would be at least as poisonous for the Labour vote, as your hypothetical.
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats TLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged®orseat=%28none%29&boundary=2017base
Based on a more realistic model the Brexit Party and Tories would be well short of a majority. Try putting the numbers into this:
Labour + Lib Dems + SNP is more than BXP + Tories.
Brexit Party plus Tories plus DUP = 317.
Labour plus LDs plus SNP = 320 so even on your less favourable model to the Brexit Party Farage less than 10 seats from being PM, well within the margin of error
One of the biggest things that private schools do is put a high floor on the downward mobility of less able kids of affluent parents.
No, they make them polite, presentable and good team players with plenty of sport etc even if they are not of the highest them more employable
I don't think our country is crying out for more nice well spoken chaps who like rugby but are a tiny bit thick.
Well I would far rather have more of them than more unemployable, rude louts or young people who spends half their time in gangs roaming the streets
I despair.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
That is ridiculous the party I support introduced the pupil premium to try and target educational spend where it is needed I’m not left wing but I think that you Conservative party that used to believe in equality of opportunity has become a disgrace.
Well I think your party that opposed grammar schools and refuses to respect the Leave vote of 17 million people is even more of a disgrace, so there you go
Coming from the supporter of the party who’s education secretary closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Can you give my five positives of the secondary modern school in the 70’s?
It was Shirley Williams who set the ball rolling on that, more grammar schools were in place when the Tories left office in 1997 than when Thatcher arrived in 1979.
The problem was the improve the standards of secondary moderns not to close the excellent grammar schools and in selective Buckinghamshire there are now many excellent high schools
If you think either Buckinghamshire or Kent a good model for English education, you are even more delusional that I thought you.
(And I am not in favour of abolishing either grammar schools or private ones.)
The sad bit is I’ve taken an active interest in this all my life but people don’t want to do the detail and maybe don’t understand that for every grammar school there are three underfunded so called comps. The grammar system could have worked if they had pumped money into making them vocational colleges but they didnt
Which is why parents hate grammar schools and they are political poison. Janet goes to grammar school, parents slightly smug; John goes to a school that by definition is second rate, parents absolutely furious. The Johns have many more parents than the Janets and their fury is much greater than the other lot's smugness.
'Supplicant', Mike? I thought our Soveriegnity was about to return once we threw off the cursed yoke of the EU.
Surely we are not replacing servitude to the EU with servitude to the USA?
We’re not supplicant
The UK can function perfectly well without a US trade deal
If one makes sense for both sides then great, if not then whatever
It's too important to the psychology of those Brexiteers who see it as a project to unite the 'Anglosphere'. Take away both a US trade deal and a CANZUK alliance and what's the point?
These people are idiots. We are always going to trade more with Europe - it's called geography.
English wine shelves are row upon row of Australian, NZ, Californian, SA etc wines, and very, very skimpy on the infinitely better products of her immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east.
English wine consumers clearly are idiots, but fortunately for the country her businesspeople are not ideologues. They know that when it comes to procurement and export, geography is more important than language.
Ok, usually I'm quite happy to let your portentous garbage roll by with a wry smile, but in this case I'll bite. 'English wine shelves'? Are you seriously suggesting that supermarkets or indeed shoppers south of the border are in any way different to their Scottish counterparts? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.
Immediate geographical neighbours to the south and east is very weird as well. South is France which obviously has great wine, although what they export at typical prices seems overrated compared to their locally served product. But immediate neighbours east seem to be Belgium, Holland and Denmark, not exactly hotbeds of great wine.
As is claiming that European wines are 'very, very skimpy' in 'English supermarkets'.
Not the supermarkets I go to but then I actually go to 'English supermarkets' rather than make weird claims about them from Sweden.
For that matter claiming that European wines are 'infinitely better' than New World wines is not something which is going to stand up to any serious testing.
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
It was Shirley Williams who set the ball rolling on that, more grammar schools were in place when the Tories left office in 1997 than when Thatcher arrived in 1979.
The problem was the improve the standards of secondary moderns not to close the excellent grammar schools and in selective Buckinghamshire there are now many excellent high schools
That's factually inaccurate. I've posted the data before (and can find it again) but that Mindy if grammar schools in the UK bottomed in the early 1990s.
It was Shirley Williams who set the ball rolling on that, more grammar schools were in place when the Tories left office in 1997 than when Thatcher arrived in 1979.
There were 261 grammar schools in England in 1979 and 163 in 1997.
For that matter claiming that European wines are 'infinitely better' than New World wines is not something which is going to stand up to any serious testing.
If PB is willing to pay, I am willing to do the serious testing.
It was Shirley Williams who set the ball rolling on that, more grammar schools were in place when the Tories left office in 1997 than when Thatcher arrived in 1979.
The problem was the improve the standards of secondary moderns not to close the excellent grammar schools and in selective Buckinghamshire there are now many excellent high schools
That's factually inaccurate. I've posted the data before (and can find it again) but that Mindy if grammar schools in the UK bottomed in the early 1990s.
I do worry that you might have another Plato on your hands here.
As is claiming that European wines are 'very, very skimpy' in 'English supermarkets'.
Not the supermarkets I go to but then I actually go to 'English supermarkets' rather than make weird claims about them from Sweden.
For that matter claiming that European wines are 'infinitely better' than New World wines is not something which is going to stand up to any serious testing.
True, but I could only stand to deal with one thudding falsehood at a time.
The entire premise is totally flawed anyway. Before we joined the EEC and abandoned our traditional trade partners, New Zealand was a huge supplier of food to the UK, to the extent that their economy has never recovered from it. It somehow worked then, and since then, transport has become quicker and cheaper.
It was Shirley Williams who set the ball rolling on that, more grammar schools were in place when the Tories left office in 1997 than when Thatcher arrived in 1979.
The problem was the improve the standards of secondary moderns not to close the excellent grammar schools and in selective Buckinghamshire there are now many excellent high schools
Um anything with the word High school in South Bucks is a Grammar school by another name - Chesham High (mixed), Beaconsfield High (girls grammar), Dr Challoners High (girls grammar)
Completely OT. I have been visiting the Manchester festival this week. I am from Manchester but like many earned my living in London. The improvement in Manchester over the last dozen or so years is nothing short of spectacular. The City Centre has improved beyond recognition. Partly because of a tram system but mainly because of a very smart planning department.
Even Salford Quays with it's proliferation of production companies and TV stations is a revelation. Whether the next generation of photographers and film makers will have make their way to London I doubt.
Two interesting facts. 1. It's the third most visited place in the UK (after london and Edinburgh) Today It was spilling over with Spanish French and Italians today. and 2. It has more cranes in operation than anywhere else in Europe. They are building at a rate of knots
Finally if anyone wants to see a show at the festival the standout is Ballet Rambert's 'Invisible Cities'. It's staging is spectacular and quirky. Another show worth looking at is at the Science museums Atmospheric Memory which ironically was visited by Mark Carney this morning
It seems to have moved on from the Manchester is Wonderful chant....
oh Manchester is wonderful oh Manchester is wonderful it's full of tits fanny and City (those of a red disposition change with United) oh Manchester is wonderful
On the 10pm news here in Finland, Günther Oettinger (the EU Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources) concedes that there will be a serious problem for the EU budget if there's a "no-deal" Brexit without agreement on payments to the EU by the UK.
I know most PB Leavers rarely set foot in the UK, preferring to exercise their patriotism from elsewhere, but even by PB standards that's a Biggie. What the heckety-heck are you doing in Finland? I used to know a Finn and it's one of those places that I think might be nice. Are you in Helsinki?
We have a summer home in the forests and lakes.
There is a part of me that wants to say "which lake", but given Finland has thousands of them it's probably not a good idea.
Well done, btw: its very impressive, tho not so much fun in winter, I think.
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
That's apples and oranges. Compare New World in UK vs Europe in UK and I agree completely New World wins.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
Which tells us everything we need to know about the left, they would rather be motivated by envy and drag down those trying to do the best for their children in private schools than raise standards for those of average ability in state schools
You have totally misunderstood me so let me explain my position in more detail. If you are interested in understanding my point of view rather than just spewing boring right wing talking points then it might help.
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Interested to know if you go the full way by living in an area with a failing school and donating the money you save by not sending your children to private school to a kids charity
Watching Panorama, what is it with the Abrahamic religions and homophobia
What's the topic this time?
Parkfield School protests etc. Looked like it had been really tough on Andrew Moffat, obviously my comment about the religions was tongue in cheek (mostly) as the various tomes were written between 1400 and 2600 odd years ago - so anyone with a brain should realise the social attitudes expressed in them were *ahem* of the time. Well you'd hope so anyway but sadly it seems not everyone does.
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
That's apples and oranges. Compare New World in UK vs Europe in UK and I agree completely New World wins.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
Agreed! Not been to Chile/Argentina yet, in Australia can't remember thinking the wine was particularly special but would have been on a budget when I went, so couldnt complete the analysis yet. Hope to be able to do so sooner or later!
Labour + Lib Dems + SNP is more than BXP + Tories.
Brexit Party plus Tories plus DUP = 317.
Labour plus LDs plus SNP = 320 so even on your less favourable model to the Brexit Party Farage less than 10 seats from being PM, well within the margin of error
We all know that swing is not uniform. There is, between election, a structural swing where, if you put in the numbers from one election into a predictor for the previous one, the numbers don't match. We are in the perfect situation for this at the moment where the structural swing can be measured as we have three elections in a row that have all been on the same boundaries. What these predictions need is a scale (eg tossup, lean, safe) and probably a set of matrices showing how many are in which category. The brexit party could win a lot more or a lot less seats all within the same UNS depending on the structural swing
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
That's apples and oranges. Compare New World in UK vs Europe in UK and I agree completely New World wins.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
Agreed! Not been to Chile/Argentina yet, in Australia can't remember thinking the wine was particularly special but would have been on a budget when I went, so couldnt complete the analysis yet. Hope to be able to do so sooner or later!
This discussion is pointless.Everyone knows of course that the best wine comes from Gloucestershire.
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
That's apples and oranges. Compare New World in UK vs Europe in UK and I agree completely New World wins.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
Agreed! Not been to Chile/Argentina yet, in Australia can't remember thinking the wine was particularly special but would have been on a budget when I went, so couldnt complete the analysis yet. Hope to be able to do so sooner or later!
I think the nationality and grape combination makes a big difference with New World as a rule of thumb. You can't go wrong with a good Australia Shiraz which is normally my trusted go to. But just had a really nice Argentinian Malbec and I think that might be my new favourite.
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
That's apples and oranges. Compare New World in UK vs Europe in UK and I agree completely New World wins.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
Agreed! Not been to Chile/Argentina yet, in Australia can't remember thinking the wine was particularly special but would have been on a budget when I went, so couldnt complete the analysis yet. Hope to be able to do so sooner or later!
This discussion is pointless.Everyone knows of course that the best wine comes from Gloucestershire.
English wine Ive tried has generally been pretty good, rarely good value for money though.
on the original thread... has anyone else seen the CNN newstrap that they are running with at the moment? "President Trump denies racist tweets are racist" It's a bit on the nose.
Watching Panorama, what is it with the Abrahamic religions and homophobia
What's the topic this time?
Parkfield School protests etc. Looked like it had been really tough on Andrew Moffat, obviously my comment about the religions was tongue in cheek (mostly) as the various tomes were written between 1400 and 2600 odd years ago - so anyone with a brain should realise the social attitudes expressed in them were *ahem* of the time. Well you'd hope so anyway but sadly it seems not everyone does.
I should watch. But I find it hard to do so without getting so furious. Not just at the protestors and other bigots but at the feeble people in charge who won't stand up for what is right. How hard is this?
We assume far too easily that progress can go in only one way - that rights won won't be lost. When there is far too much evidence that this is not the case. And cases like this show us how easily this can happen, as has happened in other countries.
Plus the idea the PM can be put in place and removed too in an afternoon is absurd
No it isn't. The PM would be PM to do a single thing, to ask for an extension. There's no majority in the HoC for anything else.
The question Corbyn has is a simple one: would he accept a figurehead, especially one who wasn't standing in the upcoming election, becoming PM?
Now, I'm sure he'd like it to be him. He is, after all, a vain man. But I think his overwhelming desire will be to see the Conservative and Brexit vote split at the upcoming General Election. Without that split, he cannot be PM. It must utterly dominate his thinking.
Brexit by 31
Cui bono from an extension? Labour or the Tories? If you answer that, then you know who'll vote which way.
You are forgetting that according to Yougov if we go to No Brexit we get Farage as PM, not Corbyn and dozens of Labour Leave seats in the North and Midlands would fall to the Brexit Party
How does a best case hypothetical scenario of 24% for the Brexit Party (with Boris as leader) mean Farage becomes PM? The numbers in that poll are much more likely to deliver a majority for Labour/LDs/SNP in some combination.
Electoral Calculus gives the Brexit Party 283 seats TLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged®orseat=%28none%29&boundary=2017base
Based on a more realistic model the Brexit Party and Tories would be well short of a majority. Try putting the numbers into this:
Labour + Lib Dems + SNP is more than BXP + Tories.
Brexit Party plus Tories plus DUP = 317.
Labour plus LDs plus SNP = 320 so even on your less favourable model to the Brexit Party Farage less than 10 seats from being PM, well within the margin of error
What do you think the impact of anti-Farage tactical voting would be in an election in which he stood a chance of having the largest party?
Completely OT. I have been visiting the Manchester festival this week. I am from Manchester but like many earned my living in London. The improvement in Manchester over the last dozen or so years is nothing short of spectacular. The City Centre has improved beyond recognition. Partly because of a tram system but mainly because of a very smart planning department.
Even Salford Quays with it's proliferation of production companies and TV stations is a revelation. Whether the next generation of photographers and film makers will have make their way to London I doubt.
Two interesting facts. 1. It's the third most visited place in the UK (after london and Edinburgh) Today It was spilling over with Spanish French and Italians today. and 2. It has more cranes in operation than anywhere else in Europe. They are building at a rate of knots
Finally if anyone wants to see a show at the festival the standout is Ballet Rambert's 'Invisible Cities'. It's staging is spectacular and quirky. Another show worth looking at is at the Science museums Atmospheric Memory which ironically was visited by Mark Carney this morning
It seems to have moved on from the Manchester is Wonderful chant....
oh Manchester is wonderful oh Manchester is wonderful it's full of tits fanny and City (those of a red disposition change with United) oh Manchester is wonderful
I was in Manchester last week and loved the place. As my son is intent on spending the next two years there, at least, I expect I'll see more of it, provided he can bear the odd maternal visit.
There is a lot of good planning work going on. It makes a change when you see some of the awful stuff that was done to many cities in the post-war decades.
Labour + Lib Dems + SNP is more than BXP + Tories.
Brexit Party plus Tories plus DUP = 317.
Labour plus LDs plus SNP = 320 so even on your less favourable model to the Brexit Party Farage less than 10 seats from being PM, well within the margin of error
We all know that swing is not uniform. There is, between election, a structural swing where, if you put in the numbers from one election into a predictor for the previous one, the numbers don't match. We are in the perfect situation for this at the moment where the structural swing can be measured as we have three elections in a row that have all been on the same boundaries. What these predictions need is a scale (eg tossup, lean, safe) and probably a set of matrices showing how many are in which category. The brexit party could win a lot more or a lot less seats all within the same UNS depending on the structural swing
All this is true but only accounts for a fraction of the uncertainty.
The opinion poll has a margin of error. The opinion poll may have structural errors. It is already out of date. People may not even be accurate predictors of their future votes in certain scenarios. Events will happen and change things in ways we do not expect. Different parties have different campaigning strengths. Regional and seat by seat variances will be bigger than normal. How the election is called will impact voting. How the parties campaign and their manifestos will impact voting. Weather will impact voting. Etc
The idea we can use one theoretical poll and prescribe exact coalition numbers is really really weird even in this weird year of politics.
Completely OT. I have been visiting the Manchester festival this week. I am from Manchester but like many earned my living in London. The improvement in Manchester over the last dozen or so years is nothing short of spectacular. The City Centre has improved beyond recognition. Partly because of a tram system but mainly because of a very smart planning department.
Even Salford Quays with it's proliferation of production companies and TV stations is a revelation. Whether the next generation of photographers and film makers will have make their way to London I doubt.
Two interesting facts. 1. It's the third most visited place in the UK (after london and Edinburgh) Today It was spilling over with Spanish French and Italians today. and 2. It has more cranes in operation than anywhere else in Europe. They are building at a rate of knots
Finally if anyone wants to see a show at the festival the standout is Ballet Rambert's 'Invisible Cities'. It's staging is spectacular and quirky. Another show worth looking at is at the Science museums Atmospheric Memory which ironically was visited by Mark Carney this morning
It seems to have moved on from the Manchester is Wonderful chant....
oh Manchester is wonderful oh Manchester is wonderful it's full of tits fanny and City (those of a red disposition change with United) oh Manchester is wonderful
It might well be I simply enjoy wine more on holiday but would rate Spanish and French wine I drink locally out there as better than most New World wines I drink in the UK.
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
That's apples and oranges. Compare New World in UK vs Europe in UK and I agree completely New World wins.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
Agreed! Not been to Chile/Argentina yet, in Australia can't remember thinking the wine was particularly special but would have been on a budget when I went, so couldnt complete the analysis yet. Hope to be able to do so sooner or later!
I think the nationality and grape combination makes a big difference with New World as a rule of thumb. You can't go wrong with a good Australia Shiraz which is normally my trusted go to. But just had a really nice Argentinian Malbec and I think that might be my new favourite.
I can remember sitting in the on street cafes in Buenos Aires and eating steak with a very pleasant bottle of Malbec all for less than a tenner. This was 2009 and the Peso had been hammered in the GFC.
Comments
One of them is the MAT for the school of which Mrs Capitano is headteacher. Amusingly, our local MP cited both the MAT and Mrs Capitano's school approvingly in PMQs recently, to which Theresa May replied that "children at [Mrs Capitano's school] do get a first-class education". I think that's going on a banner outside the school at some point...
(On the substantive point, the answer to "who provides education for the permanently excluded pupil" is, round here at least, "no-one". The waiting list for special ed provision in Oxfordshire is ridiculously long and the LA try to dissuade you from anything that might lengthen it, no matter what the needs of the child. There are several reasons why I vote Liberal Democrat, but one of the principal ones is that they do understand and support the need for discrete special educational provision - and Layla Moran has been quite vocal about that - whereas Labour is still wedded to the Blunkett-era doctrine of integration in mainstream schools.)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/21/delivering-brexit-will-do-more-boost-conservative-
Obviously someone missed the news item that said 31/10 was the worst day possible because all warehouse capacity was already booked up for Christmas and that those seeking to prepare for no deal were unable to build buffer stocks
Was on behalf of another PBer.
It is not just the Tory remainers who will struggle with Corbyn, imagine SNP and LD strongly prefer someone more neutral as well which will add to the pressure against him.
The Tories will be dead set against an extension in this scenario. The Tories will reject en-mass any alternative government. Which puts Corbyn in control. If the SNP, LDs etc reject Corbyn then they reject any chance to get an extension.
With Hunt as PM of course the poll gives the Brexit Party a majority if Hunt fails to deliver Brexit, so no question would be PM Farage then
I am not asking for the world to be fair, just that each generation becomes a little more fair as had been happening in the 20th century, rather than less fair as has been happening recently.
As ever, you are anticipating the future for us all!
Although Sheffield council seems to have been done over by some 'Chinese investors':
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/politics/sheffield-council-scraps-60-year-chinese-deal-after-promised-220m-investment-never-arrives-1-9867060
More successfully Europe's first drive-through Dunkin Donuts has opened in Doncaster which I expect will delight you.
Its the scale of the construction boom which makes me sure that the end of the economic cycle is imminent - how many of the new commercial developments are going to be profitable is beyond me and that must be even more so for those being built in London and the South-East.
In Bristol I do not know of a single MAT that I would give anything other than an eternal ban from education to.
In Gloucestershire there is at least one that's quite good.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=20&LAB=20&LIB=22&Brexit=24&Green=2&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
If Hunt fails to deliver Brexit it gives Brexit Party 354 and a Brexit Party majority of 52 based on the Yougov figures of BP 27%, LD 22%, Tories 19% and Labour 18
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/usercode.py?CON=19&LAB=18&LIB=22&Brexit=27&Green=2&UKIP=2&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVBrexit=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTBrexit=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2017base
I am totally in favour of people wanting the best for their children. I have three children, I read to them, I help them with their homework, I listen to them, I take them to interesting places, all because I want them to be interesting, smart and productive people.
What I won't do, even though I could afford to, is send them to private school. A system of education that provides the best opportunities to kids who already have many privileges is one that perpetuates division. In this country it has resulted in an elite that is too homogenous, lacks empathy, and is uninterested in the public good.
It results in a society more interested in whether you can replicate the codes of acceptable behaviour (talking the right way, being interested in the right sports) than the content of your character or your fundamental abilities.
I don't want to level down. I want every kid to get a good education. Even the ones who spend half their time in gangs. Especially them. That is going to cost money. And it will never happen as long as the people in charge don't send their kids to the same schools as everyone else. Because everyone wants the best for their kids. It's just that some of us want the same for other people's kids too.
Even something as simple as parents who read to and with their young children every night makes a massive difference to their educational chances.
Conversely, if you have a primary school class of 30 odd kids in which a number of the boys tell you in all seriousness that their ambition is either to be a professional footballer, or if that fails, a drug dealer, then you are facing an uphill task.
No deal and coups have no mandate though, however many times you type diehard.
Corbyn is an outlier of a different sort.
https://flavible.com/politics/map/user_predictions.php?sid=14
Even if every pupil amongst the 7% who went to private schools went to a state school they would either be concentrated in the best state schools if their parents were still allowed a choice or if they are not would add less than 10% of the pupil make up of that school, the average pupil would still be the same regardless
https://flavible.com/politics/map/user_predictions.php?sid=14
2) They were cheap
3) They were (do you get the gist here?
Labour: 143
Lib Dems: 126
Tories: 89
SNP: 51
Labour + Lib Dems + SNP is more than BXP + Tories.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7231707/EXCL-Corbynite-councillor-charge-schools-sends-daughter-40-000-year-Roedean-School.html
Not the supermarkets I go to but then I actually go to 'English supermarkets' rather than make weird claims about them from Sweden.
For that matter claiming that European wines are 'infinitely better' than New World wines is not something which is going to stand up to any serious testing.
I do give some money to children's charities. Probably not as much as you guys.
But seriously, this kind of boring right wing gotcha stuff is kind of pathetic. It's possible to try and do the right thing in life while not being a Saint.
According to the above, they went to a selective grammar school, outside the borough, but according to his ex "'My children's education is my absolute priority, and this situation left me with no alternative but to accept a place at Queen Elizabeth boys' school. The decision was made by myself alone and without the consent of my husband,' she said."
The problem was the improve the standards of secondary moderns not to close the excellent grammar schools and in selective Buckinghamshire there are now many excellent high schools
Labour plus LDs plus SNP = 320 so even on your less favourable model to the Brexit Party Farage less than 10 seats from being PM, well within the margin of error
(And I am not in favour of abolishing either grammar schools or private ones.)
However if choosing a wine sub £8 in a UK supermarket I think New World is typically better than European, above £8 not much difference either way.
https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22723/1/SN01398.pdf
And then you wonder why people laugh at your posts.
The entire premise is totally flawed anyway. Before we joined the EEC and abandoned our traditional trade partners, New Zealand was a huge supplier of food to the UK, to the extent that their economy has never recovered from it. It somehow worked then, and since then, transport has become quicker and cheaper.
oh Manchester is wonderful
oh Manchester is wonderful
it's full of tits fanny and City (those of a red disposition change with United)
oh Manchester is wonderful
Well done, btw: its very impressive, tho not so much fun in winter, I think.
Comparing European in Europe to New World in UK is unreasonable, unless you then compare New World in New World to Europe in UK too.
We assume far too easily that progress can go in only one way - that rights won won't be lost. When there is far too much evidence that this is not the case. And cases like this show us how easily this can happen, as has happened in other countries.
Grrr......!!
There is a lot of good planning work going on. It makes a change when you see some of the awful stuff that was done to many cities in the post-war decades.
The opinion poll has a margin of error.
The opinion poll may have structural errors.
It is already out of date.
People may not even be accurate predictors of their future votes in certain scenarios.
Events will happen and change things in ways we do not expect.
Different parties have different campaigning strengths.
Regional and seat by seat variances will be bigger than normal.
How the election is called will impact voting.
How the parties campaign and their manifestos will impact voting.
Weather will impact voting.
Etc
The idea we can use one theoretical poll and prescribe exact coalition numbers is really really weird even in this weird year of politics.