And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
"School standards definitely improved under Labour"
Tell that to the large numbers (around 20%) of school leavers who leave school illiterate and/or innumerate. These figures have remained more or less stable for decades, and is a curse on all governments.
History did not start in 1997. It did not start in 2010, either. The idea that the rampant grade inflation in schools during Labour's years in power did anything good for pupils is laughable.
We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years. That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen). We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.
In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?
.... If UKIP secure 14% but win no seats, I'd say it's far more likely that there'll be an In/Out EU referendum than if they win one seat on 5%.
Why would a Lab-LD Govt do that?
Probably Lab if UKIP score 14%, rather than LD-Lab. We're talking about relative odds: a Lab government won't set up such a referendum without prompting but what are the chances of there being some EU trigger issue at some point in the five years to provide that prompt? Probably quite high given the current instability within the EU.
Ask the question the other way round: what difference would one UKIP MP make?
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
Now now Mr Pole, let's have a bit of honesty in the debate.
Consumption is being supported by heavy government borrowing. If HMG stopped borrowing a lot of households would have less money and consumption would fall off a cliff. Our growth is not being driven by industry selling more than it did pre recession or by a sudden improvement in the BoP. All things being equal these last two factors continue to be real worries for our future well being, since by whichever measure we take we're still not paying our way in the world. It is to be regretted that HMG didn't tackle these Achilles heels of the british economy early in this Parlt when it had the public in a mind to take on major change.
Mr. Brooke
I am not arguing that the balance of trade, business credit and both government and private sector investment figures are hunky dory. They are not and remain problems in the economy which need solving.
I disagree with you about phasing. Increases in business credit were dependent upon bank recapitalisation and restructuring as well as a rising level of confidence in economic recovery. These conditions are now in place and the BoE and the Treasury can focus their support on recovering the business investment needs of the economy.
An example of this phasing effect is the announcement made by JCB on Friday that it is investing £150 million in expanding capacity in its Staffordshire plants to meet expected increases in demand due to committed government infrastructure investment. The earth will move for you in Warwickshire, Mr Brooke, thanks to new JCB caterpillars, George and 2,500 new workers employed in Staffordshire.
And none of this expansion in government/private sector investment and support would have been sensible in the early stages of this parliament. George first had to establish a credible fiscal plan and show progress in reducing borrowing before the markets would countenance a "buy yourself out of debt" borrowing splurge. He has done this and can now plan sustained increases in infrastructure investment at the same time that net borrowing is being forecast to be eliminated over a credible timescale.
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
That's it, keep hanging onto the fig-leaf of mediocrity.
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
"School standards definitely improved under Labour"
Tell that to the large numbers (around 20%) of school leavers who leave school illiterate and/or innumerate. These figures have remained more or less stable for decades, and is a curse on all governments.
History did not start in 1997. It did not start in 2010, either. The idea that the rampant grade inflation in schools during Labour's years in power did anything good for pupils is laughable.
From your link:
The study – quoted in the Times Educational Supplement – found that average reading ability improved between 1948 and 1960, but then remained “remarkably constant” until the late 1980s. Data showed a “gentle rise” in standards between 1997 and 2004, but then further plateau.
It seems like a reasonable achievement to get the first rise in reading ability since the 1960s, although TBF just from those numbers we don't know at what age the improvement took root, so for all we know it could be the Major government's achievement not Blair's, thanks to something they did to the way these kids were taught at age 12 or whatever.
Edited to add: ...or a demographic or cultural issue that was nothing to do with any government...
We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years. That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen). We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.
In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?
.... If UKIP secure 14% but win no seats, I'd say it's far more likely that there'll be an In/Out EU referendum than if they win one seat on 5%.
Why would a Lab-LD Govt do that?
Probably Lab if UKIP score 14%, rather than LD-Lab. We're talking about relative odds: a Lab government won't set up such a referendum without prompting but what are the chances of there being some EU trigger issue at some point in the five years to provide that prompt? Probably quite high given the current instability within the EU.
Ask the question the other way round: what difference would one UKIP MP make?
The last thing a Labour Govt will do is have an in/out referendum. It risks being a referendum on that Govt and with them saying "stay" and the voters saying "go".
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
That's it, keep hanging onto the fig-leaf of mediocrity.
Merely correcting your false assertion that "We were already in reverse under Labour".
We're in danger of viewing all breakthrough parties as having to operate through what we might call the Lib Dem prism: establish a local base, work the wards and constituency very hard, put out hundreds of thousands of newsletters and incrementally increase a presence over years.
That is undoubtedly one route to power but it's one that's taken the Lib Dems sixty years to take them from a taxicab-full of MPs to government, wheras UKIP have the potential to overtake the Lib Dems in votes come 2015 (I don't think they will, for what it's worth, but it certainly might happen).
We're also assuming that all voters care about affecting who is returned, which is patently untrue. There is bags of evidence that while some voters clearly care supporting a party that might be elected, or stopping one that might be, it's very far from all of them. For one thing, if that motivation were true, the same logic would apply at a national level and only Conservatives or Labour would ever be elected. UKIP can fish happily in this pool of voters without having to resort to barcharts: they simply need to campaign on rejecting the other three parties. Given that around 40% of the electorate didn't support any of them last time - either because they didn't vote at all or because they supported a minor party - and given that the Lib Dem option of 'not the others' is far less in play, I'd have thought that across most of the country 'Protest Now' or 'Vote Against the Lot of Them' would be more effective.
In defence of the LibDem prism, what you're advocating sounds a lot like what the Alliance did in 1983, except probably with a smaller vote share. The problem for Farage afterwards is that nobody takes much notice of vote share, especially when we're talking about 3rd vs 4th rather than 1st vs 2nd. Say UKIP fight a good national campaign, take 14% of the vote, beat the LibDems into 4th place, but get zero seats. What good thing happens next for them?
If UKIP get 14% then we will get some form of a Labour Govt (maybe with LDs) and no European referendum. Lib Dems happy, Labour happy and most UKIP MEPs and the Leadership happy as their party can continue "calling for a referendum" and they can continue on nice little earners at tax payers expense. The eurosceptics with principles will feel robbed and wonder why it happened. But that is where we are heading.
Exactly right.
The kippers will sit back and think to themselves: "our work here is done".
They will have denied the UK populace the opportunity to vote on the EU for a further generation at least.
Thank heavens, therefore, that UKIP are heading for <5% come GE2015.
. I wish we could just remove Huhne out of politics. Why doesn't he just go back to one of his many houses and relax a little instead of pretending he is anything other than an odious little man?)
What an nasty and ungenerous comment which says a lot more about you than Huhne who is a great loss to politics. His weekly Guardian columns have become a must read.
The guy was prepared to break the law to protect his own interests and when found out to lie about it to try and save his neck.
That not the character of someone we should want in government or as a legislator.
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
"School standards definitely improved under Labour"
Tell that to the large numbers (around 20%) of school leavers who leave school illiterate and/or innumerate. These figures have remained more or less stable for decades, and is a curse on all governments.
History did not start in 1997. It did not start in 2010, either. The idea that the rampant grade inflation in schools during Labour's years in power did anything good for pupils is laughable.
From your link:
The study – quoted in the Times Educational Supplement – found that average reading ability improved between 1948 and 1960, but then remained “remarkably constant” until the late 1980s. Data showed a “gentle rise” in standards between 1997 and 2004, but then further plateau.
It seems like a reasonable achievement to get the first rise in reading ability since the 1960s, although TBF just from those numbers we don't know at what age the improvement took root, so for all we know it could be the Major government's achievement not Blair's, thanks to something they did to the way these kids were taught at age 12 or whatever.
Edited to add: ...or a demographic or cultural issue that was nothing to do with any government...
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
That's it, keep hanging onto the fig-leaf of mediocrity.
Merely correcting your false assertion that "We were already in reverse under Labour".
Comparatively we are declining; that is why we are falling down most of the PISA tables.
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
But from an economic perspective, Osborne’s argument is hogwash. His effort to cure the patient by subjecting it to the equivalent of leeching—big cuts in government spending and higher taxes—a return to pre-Keynesian policies watched closely the world over, failed abysmally.
Imposed at a time when the U.K.’s economy was recovering from the financial crisis of 2008-09, it subjected his countrymen and countrywomen to three more years of slump-like conditions, and it produced a dearth of public-sector and private-sector investment that will hobble Britain for years to come. It even failed to meet its own targets of drastically reducing the budget deficit and bringing down Britain’s over-all debt burden.
Just to be clear, this government is in no way, shape or form pre-Keynesian. There is a massive Keynesian stimulus ongoing, combined with a monetary stimulus. All they are doing is gradually reducing the stimulus over time.
Talk about running before he has learned to walk. Farage may take himself seriously but why should anyone else? He has become the home for the "none of the above" voters who used to run to the LibDems when they couldn't vote for either of the major parties.
How many councils and councillors did UKIP win in this year's council elections? How many council seats has it won since and indeed how many has it lost?
Brighton was natural fertile territory for the Greens in 2010, exiled politically-correct London chatterati types. Is the so called "typical" Northern English voter really a potential UKIP voter at a GE rather than the odd council by-election where the turnout is sub30%?
UKIP gained (IIRC) 154 seats in May. Of those, the large majority were County Council divisions, which typically have about 6-12,000 voters apiece. The bar one has to jump to win under FPTP is a high one, and this was a real achievement. Overall, I think UKIP has gained 6 and lost 3 in subsequent by-elections.
Given that next year's council elections are being held on the same day as the EU Parliamentary elections, I would expect another good performance in local elections from UKIP. It's possible that they could win Havering, given that the Conservatives are racked with divisions in that borough.
And none of this expansion in government/private sector investment and support would have been sensible in the early stages of this parliament. George first had to establish a credible fiscal plan and show progress in reducing borrowing before the markets would countenance a "buy yourself out of debt" borrowing splurge. He has done this and can now plan sustained increases in infrastructure investment at the same time that net borrowing is being forecast to be eliminated over a credible timescale.
Balls, to borrow a phrase from Michael Hestletine.
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
In the words of Michael Gove earlier this year:
I am fortunate as Education Secretary because we have the best generation of teachers ever in our classrooms - including the very best generation ever of young teachers - those who have entered our classrooms over the last few years.
I believe we have the best generation of teachers ever in our schools, and one of the most dynamic factors behind that has been the phenomenal impact of Teach First.
Farage's specific point is right: There will be a bunch of seats where Con is hopeless, and UKIP would be marginally less hopeless. The hitch from the united-right point of view is that the voters probably won't be particularly successful in working out which seats those are, and presumably UKIP activists in the seats where voting Con is the best strategic choice won't be working very hard to explain it to them.
One thing I guess voters are pretty good at working out is that where a party has an incumbent MP, that person is probably the best tactical choice. This would explain a decent part of the incumbency benefit that LibDem MPs get. So if UKIP fight all over the country you'd expect Con incumbents to out-perform the national party by more than normal. Meanwhile in Lab-held seats the Tories will be trading mendacious bar-charts with UKIP and splitting the opposition to the incumbent Lab MP.
All this seems to point to a very "sticky" election, where either side will need quite a serious improvement on their 2010 position to effect any change to the status quo.
UKIP aren't going to make a break-through in places that Labour wins with 70%+ of the vote. Nor in areas that have a very strong degree of commitment to Labour like Manchester, or Liverpool.
Where they could do well is in the lesser Labour strongholds (eg places like Rotherham, Don Valley) where the Labour support is around the 50% mark, if they can monopolise the anti-Labour vote. I think that will take more than one round of elections, however.
Any labour supporter wanting to defend their record on education has to explain Wales, where a generation of education under that party's unbroken tutelage has resulted in producing the dumbf8cks of Europe. A situation which, according to the labour education minister, isn';t going to change any time soon (in other words not at all).
I wonder how much Labour are looking forward to electoral success in 2015. In the words of Eddie George, the party that won the 2010 election would have to make itself unelectable for a generation. The question is have the coalition postponed that toxic prophecy from 2010 to 2015?
It would appear that the current state of play is that there is a bit of stabilisation in the economic outlook, cuts have remained pretty small with lots of low hanging fruit harvested from local government, and lots of cuts pencilled in for the future. Most metrics are pretty good, inflation, interest, jobs, GDP, production, exports etc and will likely stay that way for the next 18 months. In many ways it is a bit like Gordons 2010 legacy, upping the top tax rate for political reasons was just one of the time bombs he left, and bringing forward expenditure to 08 to 10 from future years, creating a mini boom and feel good factor built on a foundation of quivering blubber gave unrealistic hope that things were better. Our fundamental outlook is, in all honesty, not that much better than it was in 2010. Better, yes, but I wouldn't have started from here.
Could 2015 be the toxic election to win? Is it the time when the fan will disperse the unpleasant and pungent effluent coating the incumbent government for a generation? Is it the time when pressure on inflation, interest rates and employment all resume an upward trend and pressure, when the real cuts scheduled cause hurt? Is 2015 the election to come second in? If Eddy George was right, that we would have a party that had to make itself unelectable for a generation, then it is looking more and more like the 2015 victors will be the fall guys.
This is predicated on the assumption that Eddy George was right. There are very good reasons to question the validity of that assumption, although I would rate the chances of Eddy George getting it right somewhat higher than Danny '5 million' Blanchflower.
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
I wonder how much Labour are looking forward to electoral success in 2015. In the words of Eddie George, the party that won the 2010 election would have to make itself unelectable for a generation. The question is have the coalition postponed that toxic prophecy from 2010 to 2015?
It would appear that the current state of play is that there is a bit of stabilisation in the economic outlook, cuts have remained pretty small with lots of low hanging fruit harvested from local government, and lots of cuts pencilled in for the future. Most metrics are pretty good, inflation, interest, jobs, GDP, production, exports etc and will likely stay that way for the next 18 months. In many ways it is a bit like Gordons 2010 legacy, upping the top tax rate for political reasons was just one of the time bombs he left, and bringing forward expenditure to 08 to 10 from future years, creating a mini boom and feel good factor built on a foundation of quivering blubber gave unrealistic hope that things were better. Our fundamental outlook is, in all honesty, not that much better than it was in 2010. Better, yes, but I wouldn't have started from here.
Could 2015 be the toxic election to win? Is it the time when the fan will disperse the unpleasant and pungent effluent coating the incumbent government for a generation? Is it the time when pressure on inflation, interest rates and employment all resume an upward trend and pressure, when the real cuts scheduled cause hurt? Is 2015 the election to come second in? If Eddy George was right, that we would have a party that had to make itself unelectable for a generation, then it is looking more and more like the 2015 victors will be the fall guys.
This is predicated on the assumption that Eddy George was right. There are very good reasons to question the validity of that assumption, although I would rate the chances of Eddy George getting it right somewhat higher than Danny '5 million' Blanchflower.
'Steady' Eddie George died in 2009, I think you are referring to Mervyn King. Agree with your general point however that Labour (and their supporters) do not seem to have prepared themselves for the level of austerity that is still required post 2015
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
Many voters want more than a binary choice between Conservative and Labour. UKIP speaks for a lot of them.
They know they'll lose if the Tory leader is on the In side, as Dave will be. They know that removing Cameron and replacing him with an Outie is their top priority.
A great compliment to Cameron, then, if they really think his position would be decisive (even I don't think that). In any case, if that really is their aim, then Farage is lying, isn't he? It would mean this is about wrecking the Conservative chances, not about attracting Labour voters.
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
If Labour were interested in improving teachers, they would have made it so headmasters could spend more than three hours a year observing their work.
That would cost nothing. But they did not.
Most teachers are good, caring people who want to do a good job. I know few people who think otherwise. But they are part of a system, and that system may not be allowing them to accomplish their best.
It seems from what you are saying that Labour's attitude was: "We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
They know they'll lose if the Tory leader is on the In side, as Dave will be. They know that removing Cameron and replacing him with an Outie is their top priority.
I wonder how much Labour are looking forward to electoral success in 2015. In the words of Eddie George, the party that won the 2010 election would have to make itself unelectable for a generation. The question is have the coalition postponed that toxic prophecy from 2010 to 2015?
It would appear that the current state of play is that there is a bit of stabilisation in the economic outlook, cuts have remained pretty small with lots of low hanging fruit harvested from local government, and lots of cuts pencilled in for the future. Most metrics are pretty good, inflation, interest, jobs, GDP, production, exports etc and will likely stay that way for the next 18 months. In many ways it is a bit like Gordons 2010 legacy, upping the top tax rate for political reasons was just one of the time bombs he left, and bringing forward expenditure to 08 to 10 from future years, creating a mini boom and feel good factor built on a foundation of quivering blubber gave unrealistic hope that things were better. Our fundamental outlook is, in all honesty, not that much better than it was in 2010. Better, yes, but I wouldn't have started from here.
Could 2015 be the toxic election to win? Is it the time when the fan will disperse the unpleasant and pungent effluent coating the incumbent government for a generation? Is it the time when pressure on inflation, interest rates and employment all resume an upward trend and pressure, when the real cuts scheduled cause hurt? Is 2015 the election to come second in? If Eddy George was right, that we would have a party that had to make itself unelectable for a generation, then it is looking more and more like the 2015 victors will be the fall guys.
This is predicated on the assumption that Eddy George was right. There are very good reasons to question the validity of that assumption, although I would rate the chances of Eddy George getting it right somewhat higher than Danny '5 million' Blanchflower.
'Steady' Eddie George died in 2009, I think you are referring to Mervyn King. Agree with your general point however that Labour (and their supporters) do not seem to have prepared themselves for the level of austerity that is still required post 2015
You're right, sorry Eddy and Merv for mixing you up.
Any labour supporter wanting to defend their record on education has to explain Wales, where a generation of education under that party's unbroken tutelage has resulted in producing the dumbf8cks of Europe. A situation which, according to the labour education minister, isn';t going to change any time soon (in other words not at all).
Also in the news (BBC), Wales shown as having the worst record UK for delays from Ambulance to admission to A&E (some over 6 hours).
In the Western Mail (walesonline) the Welsh railways are described as the worst in the UK.
So bottom of class for Education, Health, A&E, Transport and Economy and with no sign of improvement except in spending by Welsh Government of £100k on flowers in the last few years and some £52m on an nigh-redundant airport that is still losing airlines, and still wanting to spend more on the Welsh language, it is no wonder that Carwyn Jones is running away from having any form of control on taxation.
Wales needs a new Assembly that thinks globally and realises that all this bad news will only serve to discourage potential investors in Wales - but that does not matter as long as there are 'jobs for the boyos'.
And Labour's state education legacy......a stunning bottom of the global league.
'Research by the respected Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) found that 16- to 24-year-olds lag close to the bottom of global league tables in literacy and numeracy.
According to figures, England is ranked 22nd out of 24 western countries in terms of literacy and 21st for numeracy – being outperformed by nations such as Estonia, Poland and Slovakia.'
Gove and pals were shouting about how they were fixing that.
Looks like we're going tinto reverse in Education under the Tories. Again.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
That's it, keep hanging onto the fig-leaf of mediocrity.
Merely correcting your false assertion that "We were already in reverse under Labour".
Comparatively we are declining; that is why we are falling down most of the PISA tables.
As I said, keep on hanging into the fig-leaf of mediocrity. After all, our children deserve mediocrity, don't they?
A comparative decline in PISA rankings is not the same as a decline in standards.
I am not hiding behind anything. I am merely correcting you. As I have said on here any number of times, there is huge room for improvement in the way our children are educated. You can keep on ignoring that if you like, but I am afraid it's there in black and white. However, we will not get improvements by mischaracterising where we are - which is in the middle, along with almost every other developed, western economy.
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
Many voters want more than a binary choice between Conservative and Labour. UKIP speaks for a lot of them.
Interesting because that of course was the position that the LDs occupied.
So what do those non-binary-choice-wanting voters actually want? As we have seen by the scorn poured upon the LDs they manifestly obviously do not want to be successful.
The LDs in govt you would have thought would be the apogee of their hopes and ambitions, but no.
At the risk of repeating myself, therefore, UKIP is the current NOTA and, come GE2015, will struggle to get 5% of the vote.
And their position on Europe, as several including @RichardNabavi have pointed out, is perversely self-defeating.
They know they'll lose if the Tory leader is on the In side, as Dave will be. They know that removing Cameron and replacing him with an Outie is their top priority.
A great compliment to Cameron, then, if they really think his position would be decisive (even I don't think that). In any case, if that really is their aim, then Farage is lying, isn't he? It would mean this is about wrecking the Conservative chances, not about attracting Labour voters.
Con line should be that Ukip are standing to wreck the referendum chances as they are scared of losing it.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world
Not a funny old world, a useless old voting system.
Any labour supporter wanting to defend their record on education has to explain Wales, where a generation of education under that party's unbroken tutelage has resulted in producing the dumbf8cks of Europe. A situation which, according to the labour education minister, isn';t going to change any time soon (in other words not at all).
Wales raises some interesting issues, two of which challenge conventional wisdom and one which might be explained by it.
Class -- we know education correlates with class and that Wales is more working class.
Language -- conventional wisdom is that learning other languages should boost other subjects. If this is true, why no boost from learning Welsh?
Test rehearsal -- it has been suggested Welsh students are simply unfamiliar with taking tests. Of course, if practice really does make perfect, or at least better, then this may provide a partial explanation for grade inflation -- more tests in schools (including targeted practice at GCSE and A-level questions) would lead to better outcomes even without easier exams or brighter pupils.
"We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
There was no way that education under labour wasn;t going to improve on paper, after Blair put a massive emphasis on it and spent huge extra sums on it.
The Secretary-General of the OECD, José Ángel Gurría, has criticised Ed Miliband's proposal to freeze energy prices in an interview to the BBC which is due to be broadcast later today.
“If you freeze the price of energy, and the international price of energy rises, it means there’s going to be a very big difference to pay. Who’s going to be paying the difference? Are you going to ask the investors? They’ll probably go bankrupt. How are you going to get people to come in and invest to get their money back in 30, 40 years’ time when you say there’s going to be a freeze?”
Criticism by Gurría is major blow to Ed Miliband's and the Labour Party's credibility on the economy. Of all major world economists, Gurría's star is currently shining the brightest.
The most influential advocate of 'austerity' in global economics, and in particular, of gradualist and balanced fiscal consolidation, Gurría has emerged the clear winner in the battle with the Krugmanite neo-Keynesians on post-recessionary recovery measures.
And Gurría is not just an economist. As Finance Minister in the Mexican government of Zedillo he is widely credited as being the architect of Mexican economic stabilisation, which he achieved by regularly cutting government spending and by boosting Mexico's trade potential by negotiating the NAFTA agreement.
Now in his second five year term as Secretary-General of the OECD, the Leeds and Harvard educated Gurría is the last person the hapless Ed would want to be criticised by. Is it any wonder that Ed Balls remained suspiciously quiet on the energy price freeze proposals?
[Main source: Bloomberg article on upcoming BBC interview Internal CCHQ briefings]
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
If Labour were interested in improving teachers, they would have made it so headmasters could spend more than three hours a year observing their work.
That would cost nothing. But they did not.
Most teachers are good, caring people who want to do a good job. I know few people who think otherwise. But they are part of a system, and that system may not be allowing them to accomplish their best.
It seems from what you are saying that Labour's attitude was: "We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
Well, the Tories have been in power for three years now and they have not seen fit to change the three hour rule. That is not Labour's fault. But perhaps the Tories, like Labour, understand that three hours of formal observation is not the limit of the time spent on assessing teachers teaching.
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
Many voters want more than a binary choice between Conservative and Labour. UKIP speaks for a lot of them.
Interesting because that of course was the position that the LDs occupied.
So what do those non-binary-choice-wanting voters actually want? As we have seen by the scorn poured upon the LDs they manifestly obviously do not want to be successful.
The LDs in govt you would have thought would be the apogee of their hopes and ambitions, but no.
At the risk of repeating myself, therefore, UKIP is the current NOTA and, come GE2015, will struggle to get 5% of the vote.
And their position on Europe, as several including @RichardNabavi have pointed out, is perversely self-defeating.
I'll tell you what they want. They want to be the Right wing equivalent of the Labour Party, between 1918 and 1924.
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
If Labour were interested in improving teachers, they would have made it so headmasters could spend more than three hours a year observing their work.
That would cost nothing. But they did not.
Most teachers are good, caring people who want to do a good job. I know few people who think otherwise. But they are part of a system, and that system may not be allowing them to accomplish their best.
It seems from what you are saying that Labour's attitude was: "We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
Well, the Tories have been in power for three years now and they have not seen fit to change the three hour rule. That is not Labour's fault. But perhaps the Tories, like Labour, understand that three hours of formal observation is not the limit of the time spent on assessing teachers teaching.
You may have noticed the teaching unions aren't exactly enamoured of the Conservatives. Perhaps
So tell me, within NASUWT's guidelines, how teachers can be assessed without observing lessons?
Mr. L, on language: might it be that Welsh is (apparently) complicated and entirely separate from pretty much every other major European language?
If you Latin, Spanish, Italian, French or German that'll help you understand a bit of other languages too. I'm not sure Welsh would be of any use outside Wales, where everyone speaks English anyway.
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
If Labour were interested in improving teachers, they would have made it so headmasters could spend more than three hours a year observing their work.
That would cost nothing. But they did not.
Most teachers are good, caring people who want to do a good job. I know few people who think otherwise. But they are part of a system, and that system may not be allowing them to accomplish their best.
It seems from what you are saying that Labour's attitude was: "We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
Well, the Tories have been in power for three years now and they have not seen fit to change the three hour rule. That is not Labour's fault. But perhaps the Tories, like Labour, understand that three hours of formal observation is not the limit of the time spent on assessing teachers teaching.
You may have noticed the teaching unions aren't exactly enamoured of the Conservatives. Perhaps
So tell me, within NASUWT's guidelines, how teachers can be assessed without observing lessons?
You employ people. How do you go about ascertaining their performance and suggesting areas of improvement? Do you, perchance, observe them?
And you may have noticed that the Conservative do not seem overly bothered that the teaching unions are not enamoured of them. If they wanted to change the rules they could. Teachers are assessed in lessons on a regular basis - and not just by head teachers, but by colleagues and also by outside inspectors.
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
Many voters want more than a binary choice between Conservative and Labour. UKIP speaks for a lot of them.
Interesting because that of course was the position that the LDs occupied.
So what do those non-binary-choice-wanting voters actually want? As we have seen by the scorn poured upon the LDs they manifestly obviously do not want to be successful.
The LDs in govt you would have thought would be the apogee of their hopes and ambitions, but no.
At the risk of repeating myself, therefore, UKIP is the current NOTA and, come GE2015, will struggle to get 5% of the vote.
And their position on Europe, as several including @RichardNabavi have pointed out, is perversely self-defeating.
Thought you were joking re the 5% claim before so ignored it.. but are you a betting man?
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
That's it, keep hanging onto the fig-leaf of mediocrity.
Merely correcting your false assertion that "We were already in reverse under Labour".
Comparatively we are declining; that is why we are falling down most of the PISA tables.
As I said, keep on hanging into the fig-leaf of mediocrity. After all, our children deserve mediocrity, don't they?
A comparative decline in PISA rankings is not the same as a decline in standards.
I am not hiding behind anything. I am merely correcting you. As I have said on here any number of times, there is huge room for improvement in the way our children are educated. You can keep on ignoring that if you like, but I am afraid it's there in black and white. However, we will not get improvements by mischaracterising where we are - which is in the middle, along with almost every other developed, western economy.
I know you have said that in the past, yet you say other things that seem to indicate exactly the opposite, especially when defending Labour's record. Witness our conversation last week.
You seem a little confused. Perhaps you should try correcting your own position first.
And when have I said we're not near the middle? I'm not mischaracterising anything. Unlike, I suspect, you.
So to make it clear, this is my position: I'm not happy with us being in the middle rank of countries, especially with the amounts we are spending. We should be making sure our children are educated to be the best in the world, or as near as we can make it.
I'm not happy with us sliding down the league tables of countries whilst sitting on our backsides, mollified by grade inflation.
This is particularly the case at the lower end of educational attainment. Every capable child who leaves school functionally illiterate and innumerate has been let down by the system, and we - not they - should be ashamed.
MG.. Huhne has never had a "Balanced and realistic opinion" on anything, he has just been singing a tune you like . The man is a compulsive and destructive liar.
We were already in reverse under Labour - see the results. It is obvious that despite the mantra of 'education, education, education', the schools were getting worse and not equipping our children with the skills they need.
If something is failing to such a degree, it is worth trying a different approach. Just because it fails in one place, does not mean the same concepts applied differently will not work. But it is a worrying indication.
But a return to the 1997-2010 status quo is also not an option.
School standards definitely improved under Labour - you need to understand how disastrous standards were under the last Tory government (and PISA was not around then, conveniently).
And what people outside the Tory bubble fear from Tory meddling in education is that kind of slump again.
History did not start in 1997.
What evidence do you have that school standards improved under Labour, making exams easier to pass does not mean school standards are rising.
What we do know is that PISA does not record a decline in standards.
That's it, keep hanging onto the fig-leaf of mediocrity.
Merely correcting your false assertion that "We were already in reverse under Labour".
Comparatively we are declining; that is why we are falling down most of the PISA tables.
As I said, keep on hanging into the fig-leaf of mediocrity. After all, our children deserve mediocrity, don't they?
A comparative decline in PISA rankings is not the same as a decline in standards.
I am not hiding behind anything. I am merely correcting you. As I have said on here any number of times, there is huge room for improvement in the way our children are educated. You can keep on ignoring that if you like, but I am afraid it's there in black and white. However, we will not get improvements by mischaracterising where we are - which is in the middle, along with almost every other developed, western economy.
I know you have said that in the past, yet you say other things that seem to indicate exactly the opposite, especially when defending Labour's record. Witness our conversation last week.
You seem a little confused. Perhaps you should try correcting your own position first.
And when have I said we're not near the middle? I'm not mischaracterising anything. Unlike, I suspect, you.
So to make it clear, this is my position: I'm not happy with us being in the middle rank of countries, especially with the amounts we are spending. We should be making sure our children are educated to be the best in the world, or as near as we can make it.
I'm not happy with us sliding down the league tables of countries whilst sitting on our backsides, mollified by grade inflation.
This is particularly the case at the lower end of educational attainment. Every capable child who leaves school functionally illiterate and innumerate has been let down by the system, and we - not they - should be ashamed.
Claiming that I am defending Labour's record is mischaracterising my position. I agree totally with your final paragraph.
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either: 1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect 2) the money was being spent on the wrong things 3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
Obviously the first pound you spend on education per pupil is going to have a much bigger marginal return than the 10,000th. This is an argument for redirecting part of the British education budget to Africa, where each pound will do more good. But even the small increase recorded in the Blair years could have quite a big return. And it may be that even if basic literacy and numeracy can't be easily improved with more money, other things can, and the extra spending is helping with those.
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
If Labour were interested in improving teachers, they would have made it so headmasters could spend more than three hours a year observing their work.
That would cost nothing. But they did not.
Most teachers are good, caring people who want to do a good job. I know few people who think otherwise. But they are part of a system, and that system may not be allowing them to accomplish their best.
It seems from what you are saying that Labour's attitude was: "We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
Well, the Tories have been in power for three years now and they have not seen fit to change the three hour rule. That is not Labour's fault. But perhaps the Tories, like Labour, understand that three hours of formal observation is not the limit of the time spent on assessing teachers teaching.
You may have noticed the teaching unions aren't exactly enamoured of the Conservatives. Perhaps
So tell me, within NASUWT's guidelines, how teachers can be assessed without observing lessons?
You employ people. How do you go about ascertaining their performance and suggesting areas of improvement? Do you, perchance, observe them?
And you may have noticed that the Conservative do not seem overly bothered that the teaching unions are not enamoured of them. If they wanted to change the rules they could. Teachers are assessed in lessons on a regular basis - and not just by head teachers, but by colleagues and also by outside inspectors.
Why not answer the question: do you observe your employees work for more than three hours a year? If so, whys should schools and teachers be any different?
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
Many voters want more than a binary choice between Conservative and Labour. UKIP speaks for a lot of them.
Interesting because that of course was the position that the LDs occupied.
So what do those non-binary-choice-wanting voters actually want? As we have seen by the scorn poured upon the LDs they manifestly obviously do not want to be successful.
The LDs in govt you would have thought would be the apogee of their hopes and ambitions, but no.
At the risk of repeating myself, therefore, UKIP is the current NOTA and, come GE2015, will struggle to get 5% of the vote.
And their position on Europe, as several including @RichardNabavi have pointed out, is perversely self-defeating.
Thought you were joking re the 5% claim before so ignored it.. but are you a betting man?
I am a betting man in that I am waging my entire net worth on the outcome of the next election.
But I don't like to besmirch the cut and thrust of political debate with dollars and cents.
I did think about your most recent offer and thought it extraordinarily generous but I eventually declined to take your money offer.
I hope it doesn't diminish the pleasure we take in anticipating the GE2015 results.
@Josias - Do I spend more than three hours each year watching each of my employees writing articles, speaking to people on the phone, having meetings etc? No. I train them, then I assess their results and decide whether these are good enough. If they are not, I take action. That is exactly what has happened in schools and what continues to happen - but now it seems to have been formalised. I support that, so well done to the government and well done to the government also for making it easier to get rid of poorly performing teachers. Labour should have done both.
Anybody with a brain and eyes to see knows where Labour governments take the places they govern. Wales forever. UK 1997 - 2010. UK 1970s. The more they push the more like Venezuela the result.
What I can't quite fathom is why anybody actually votes for that shit. For all their venal destructive uselessness they have some top notch snakeoil salesmen. Donkeys with a red rosette and all that.
The Tories might not be Rightwing enough for those crazy kippers, but they are as Rightwing as any Party is going to get in this country whilst retaining a chance of governing.
Very nice to see the splitter disease infecting the Right for a change though.
Here is a fun editorial. Not the Mail. Not the Express. Not the Telegraph. It is from today's Daily Record, the in-house newsletter of the Scottish Labour Party:
'Record View: Scottish Labour have played into SNP's hands with defeat, division and embarrassment'
When it comes to Scottish politics, no one does the SNP more favours – unintentionally, of course – than the Labour Party.
Most of Labour’s defeats, divisions and embarrassments over the years are entirely self-inflicted and have played straight into the SNP’s hands.
... The quagmire of union machine politics meeting factional interests in a Labour stronghold like Falkirk was a depressing squabble that did little for Labour’s reputation.
There is one way, and one way only, to get a referendum on the EU, which is to vote Conservative and get a Conservative majority in 2015. It is as simple as that.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
Many voters want more than a binary choice between Conservative and Labour. UKIP speaks for a lot of them.
Interesting because that of course was the position that the LDs occupied.
So what do those non-binary-choice-wanting voters actually want? As we have seen by the scorn poured upon the LDs they manifestly obviously do not want to be successful.
The LDs in govt you would have thought would be the apogee of their hopes and ambitions, but no.
At the risk of repeating myself, therefore, UKIP is the current NOTA and, come GE2015, will struggle to get 5% of the vote.
And their position on Europe, as several including @RichardNabavi have pointed out, is perversely self-defeating.
Thought you were joking re the 5% claim before so ignored it.. but are you a betting man?
I am a betting man in that I am waging my entire net worth on the outcome of the next election.
But I don't like to besmirch the cut and thrust of political debate with dollars and cents.
I did think about your most recent offer and thought it extraordinarily generous but I eventually declined to take your money offer.
I hope it doesn't diminish the pleasure we take in anticipating the GE2015 results.
Really?! Well that is impressive!
All on one result, or building a book?
I take it you were referring to my 4/6 LD/UKIP, the best odds on offer in the world, that RCS100 said were not generous and invented a new price (7/9?) to try me with.. oh well
If you are interested in taking EVS about UKIP 6% or less and Ill have UKIP 9% and above with 6.01-8.99% VOID, Ill bet ye!!
Richard Nanavi is still peddling the line that UKIP 'cannot want to leave the EU because a strong electoral showing is likely to lead to a labour govt'. And as only the tories (currently) are promising an in/out referendum, UKIP must therefore be 'frightened' of losing the referendum.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
Richard Nanavi is still peddling the line that UKIP 'cannot want to leave the EU because a strong electoral showing is likely to lead to a labour govt'. And as only the tories (currently) are promising an in/out referendum, UKIP must therefore be 'frightened' of losing the referendum.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
OT, GCHQ agents attempted to infiltrate terrorist cells potentially operating in multi-user role-playing games, or at least that's what they told their boss when he caught them playing World of Warcraft at the office.
Finger printed, DNA-swabbed and had his computers seized for telling a joke and the whole thing dropped by the CPS as no laws were broken. - More than just nonsense, it’s a frightening over reaction and abuse of police power.
Richard Nanavi is still peddling the line that UKIP 'cannot want to leave the EU because a strong electoral showing is likely to lead to a labour govt'. And as only the tories (currently) are promising an in/out referendum, UKIP must therefore be 'frightened' of losing the referendum.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
So in summary - UKIP are chicken.
When the new owners bought Man City and said they wanted to be the Champions of Europe, should they have challenged the current Champions to a one off match away from home there and then and give up if they lost, or try and build a squad that could compete first?
Richard Nanavi is still peddling the line that UKIP 'cannot want to leave the EU because a strong electoral showing is likely to lead to a labour govt'. And as only the tories (currently) are promising an in/out referendum, UKIP must therefore be 'frightened' of losing the referendum.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
So in summary - UKIP are chicken.
When the new owners bought Man City and said they wanted to be the Champions of Europe, should they have challenged the current Champions to a one off match away from home there and then and give up if they lost, or try and build a squad that could compete first?
Except the game wouldn't be played until May 2017.
Which is ages away - even Eck Salmond manned up and went for it in a referendum.
At least you are honest though - admitting you are scared.
Reading the comments about edumacation and the UK's slipping down the "leagues" makes me want to consider what we want to put our kids through.
Having watched the report of the education system in South Korea where children from age 4 were put a system where they were in lessons of one kind or another for 11 hours a day to at age 14 to 16, up to 18 hours a day. The result, a group of teenagers given a copy of an GCSE maths exam, completed it in under half the time required with nearly all getting answers 100% correct.
The kids are permanently tired, their families expect top marks all, repeat ALL the time, then the suicide rate among children is extremely high and is beginning to lead the South Koreans to question what is going on.
Nelson Mandela is at home and there is a knock at the door. On answering the door Nelson sees a Chinese man with a clip board and there is a large van outside full of car parts.
The Chinese man says "You sign." .... Nelson laughs and tells the Chinese man that he has the wrong address.
The following day the Chinese man returns with another truck load of car spares. "You sign" the man tells Mandela and again Nelson tells him he's got the wrong address. This scenario happens for several more days - Chinese man, car parts and finally on the seventh day Nelson's famous tolerance is broken - "You sign, you sign" implores the Chinese man and with that Nelson Mandela picks the man up by the scruff of the neck and frog marches him to the car parts van .... The Chinese man then says .... (use your best Chinese accent)
Richard Nanavi is still peddling the line that UKIP 'cannot want to leave the EU because a strong electoral showing is likely to lead to a labour govt'. And as only the tories (currently) are promising an in/out referendum, UKIP must therefore be 'frightened' of losing the referendum.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
So in summary - UKIP are chicken.
When the new owners bought Man City and said they wanted to be the Champions of Europe, should they have challenged the current Champions to a one off match away from home there and then and give up if they lost, or try and build a squad that could compete first?
Except the game wouldn't be played until May 2017.
Which is ages away - even Eck Salmond manned up and went for it in a referendum.
At least you are honest though - admitting you are scared.
Did SNP do a deal with their enemies to get a referendum?
As if helping to put someone opposed to leaving the EU in government would be sensible for a party that want to leave... You must think UKIP are crazy... The dwindling number of Tory members mostly do I suppose!
I am a v honest person, but I can't see where I admitted to being scared... Where was that?
I am a member of UKIP but not just for EU withdrawal although I obviously want that.
Richard Nanavi is still peddling the line that UKIP 'cannot want to leave the EU because a strong electoral showing is likely to lead to a labour govt'. And as only the tories (currently) are promising an in/out referendum, UKIP must therefore be 'frightened' of losing the referendum.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
So in summary - UKIP are chicken.
When the new owners bought Man City and said they wanted to be the Champions of Europe, should they have challenged the current Champions to a one off match away from home there and then and give up if they lost, or try and build a squad that could compete first?
Except the game wouldn't be played until May 2017.
Which is ages away - even Eck Salmond manned up and went for it in a referendum.
At least you are honest though - admitting you are scared.
As if helping to put someone opposed to leaving the EU in government would be sensible for a party that want to leave... You must think UKIP are crazy... The dwindling number of Tory members mostly do I suppose!
I am a v honest person, but I can't see where I admitted to being scared... Where was that?
I am a member of UKIP but not just for EU withdrawal although I obviously want that.
UKIP need a new name then - you are not really an "independence" party...
Mr. Rokz, it's not a binary choice between what we have and South Korean academic excellence and high stress/suicide rates. We can improve the system without moving to 12 hour schooldays.
Comments
Tell that to the large numbers (around 20%) of school leavers who leave school illiterate and/or innumerate. These figures have remained more or less stable for decades, and is a curse on all governments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7691919/Fifth-of-school-leavers-illiterate-and-innumerate.html
History did not start in 1997. It did not start in 2010, either. The idea that the rampant grade inflation in schools during Labour's years in power did anything good for pupils is laughable.
Ask the question the other way round: what difference would one UKIP MP make?
Now now Mr Pole, let's have a bit of honesty in the debate.
Consumption is being supported by heavy government borrowing. If HMG stopped borrowing a lot of households would have less money and consumption would fall off a cliff. Our growth is not being driven by industry selling more than it did pre recession or by a sudden improvement in the BoP. All things being equal these last two factors continue to be real worries for our future well being, since by whichever measure we take we're still not paying our way in the world. It is to be regretted that HMG didn't tackle these Achilles heels of the british economy early in this Parlt when it had the public in a mind to take on major change.
Mr. Brooke
I am not arguing that the balance of trade, business credit and both government and private sector investment figures are hunky dory. They are not and remain problems in the economy which need solving.
I disagree with you about phasing. Increases in business credit were dependent upon bank recapitalisation and restructuring as well as a rising level of confidence in economic recovery. These conditions are now in place and the BoE and the Treasury can focus their support on recovering the business investment needs of the economy.
An example of this phasing effect is the announcement made by JCB on Friday that it is investing £150 million in expanding capacity in its Staffordshire plants to meet expected increases in demand due to committed government infrastructure investment. The earth will move for you in Warwickshire, Mr Brooke, thanks to new JCB caterpillars, George and 2,500 new workers employed in Staffordshire.
And none of this expansion in government/private sector investment and support would have been sensible in the early stages of this parliament. George first had to establish a credible fiscal plan and show progress in reducing borrowing before the markets would countenance a "buy yourself out of debt" borrowing splurge. He has done this and can now plan sustained increases in infrastructure investment at the same time that net borrowing is being forecast to be eliminated over a credible timescale.
Festina lente, Mr. Brooke.
Edited to add: ...or a demographic or cultural issue that was nothing to do with any government...
Not Time Team: but this does the trick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVAWwWi0DbE
Very odd instrument. Anyway, cheers Mr. Dickson and Mr. Senior.
The kippers will sit back and think to themselves: "our work here is done".
They will have denied the UK populace the opportunity to vote on the EU for a further generation at least.
Thank heavens, therefore, that UKIP are heading for <5% come GE2015.
Phew-ee
Lur horns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRSVcOHlLP8
The guy was prepared to break the law to protect his own interests and when found out to lie about it to try and save his neck.
That not the character of someone we should want in government or as a legislator.
Edited to add: ...or a demographic or cultural issue that was nothing to do with any government...
Yes, but I think that was referring to reading ability only, although it is slightly unclear. But the fact is that a massive increase (doubling?) of the education budget let to around a fifth of school leavers being functionally illiterate and innumerate, essentially no change for decades.
That is a scandal, and one that (as I repeatedly say) reflects bad on government of all stripes.
It indicates that either:
1) the illiteracy and innumeracy figures are incorrect
2) the money was being spent on the wrong things
3) the illiteracy and innumeracy problem lies outwith schools, perhaps the home?
If 3) is correct and the illiteracy and innumeracy problem dies lie within homes, then it will be much more intractable to fix.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25187997
As I said, keep on hanging into the fig-leaf of mediocrity. After all, our children deserve mediocrity, don't they?
Also to the extent that the extra money is being spent paying teachers more or improving their working conditions so that you can recruit better ones, the results will be quite slow to feed through, but last a long time, because teaching tends to be quite a long-term commitment.
And extremely expensive mediocrity at that. Vast increases in spending under labour - for nothing.
Is that why the chinese get better results with half our spend?
Labour supporters are desperate to uphold the link between spending and performance, even though PISA has effectively destroyed it.
Given that next year's council elections are being held on the same day as the EU Parliamentary elections, I would expect another good performance in local elections from UKIP. It's possible that they could win Havering, given that the Conservatives are racked with divisions in that borough.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brown-center-chalkboard/posts/2013/10/09-pisa-china-problem-loveless
More seriously, I do find stuff like that quite interesting.
I am fortunate as Education Secretary because we have the best generation of teachers ever in our classrooms - including the very best generation ever of young teachers - those who have entered our classrooms over the last few years.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-speaks-about-the-importance-of-teaching
And in 2010:
I believe we have the best generation of teachers ever in our schools, and one of the most dynamic factors behind that has been the phenomenal impact of Teach First.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-to-westminster-academy
Where they could do well is in the lesser Labour strongholds (eg places like Rotherham, Don Valley) where the Labour support is around the 50% mark, if they can monopolise the anti-Labour vote. I think that will take more than one round of elections, however.
It would appear that the current state of play is that there is a bit of stabilisation in the economic outlook, cuts have remained pretty small with lots of low hanging fruit harvested from local government, and lots of cuts pencilled in for the future. Most metrics are pretty good, inflation, interest, jobs, GDP, production, exports etc and will likely stay that way for the next 18 months. In many ways it is a bit like Gordons 2010 legacy, upping the top tax rate for political reasons was just one of the time bombs he left, and bringing forward expenditure to 08 to 10 from future years, creating a mini boom and feel good factor built on a foundation of quivering blubber gave unrealistic hope that things were better. Our fundamental outlook is, in all honesty, not that much better than it was in 2010. Better, yes, but I wouldn't have started from here.
Could 2015 be the toxic election to win? Is it the time when the fan will disperse the unpleasant and pungent effluent coating the incumbent government for a generation? Is it the time when pressure on inflation, interest rates and employment all resume an upward trend and pressure, when the real cuts scheduled cause hurt? Is 2015 the election to come second in? If Eddy George was right, that we would have a party that had to make itself unelectable for a generation, then it is looking more and more like the 2015 victors will be the fall guys.
This is predicated on the assumption that Eddy George was right. There are very good reasons to question the validity of that assumption, although I would rate the chances of Eddy George getting it right somewhat higher than Danny '5 million' Blanchflower.
One can only conclude, therefore, that by trying to prevent this happening, UKIP don't want a referendum on the EU and don't want the UK to leave the EU. If they did, they'd be urging their supporters to vote Conservative, and regrouping themselves as a well-organised pressure group campaigning for an Out result in 2017.
What makes their behaviour even odder is that, on all the other things which they raise as issues (grammar schools, political correctness, immigration, the nanny state, public spending, taxation), the Labour government which they seem to want would take the UK in the exact opposite direction from what they want.
It is a funny old world, but sadly this particular brand of irrationality could have seriously detrimental effects on the country.
'Steady' Eddie George died in 2009, I think you are referring to Mervyn King. Agree with your general point however that Labour (and their supporters) do not seem to have prepared themselves for the level of austerity that is still required post 2015
That would cost nothing. But they did not.
Most teachers are good, caring people who want to do a good job. I know few people who think otherwise. But they are part of a system, and that system may not be allowing them to accomplish their best.
It seems from what you are saying that Labour's attitude was: "We must get better results at the top end; bugger those at the bottom!"
In the Western Mail (walesonline) the Welsh railways are described as the worst in the UK.
So bottom of class for Education, Health, A&E, Transport and Economy and with no sign of improvement except in spending by Welsh Government of £100k on flowers in the last few years and some £52m on an nigh-redundant airport that is still losing airlines, and still wanting to spend more on the Welsh language, it is no wonder that Carwyn Jones is running away from having any form of control on taxation.
Wales needs a new Assembly that thinks globally and realises that all this bad news will only serve to discourage potential investors in Wales - but that does not matter as long as there are 'jobs for the boyos'.
I am not hiding behind anything. I am merely correcting you. As I have said on here any number of times, there is huge room for improvement in the way our children are educated. You can keep on ignoring that if you like, but I am afraid it's there in black and white. However, we will not get improvements by mischaracterising where we are - which is in the middle, along with almost every other developed, western economy.
So what do those non-binary-choice-wanting voters actually want? As we have seen by the scorn poured upon the LDs they manifestly obviously do not want to be successful.
The LDs in govt you would have thought would be the apogee of their hopes and ambitions, but no.
At the risk of repeating myself, therefore, UKIP is the current NOTA and, come GE2015, will struggle to get 5% of the vote.
And their position on Europe, as several including @RichardNabavi have pointed out, is perversely self-defeating.
Chicken Ukip.
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2013/12/09/trying-to-get-it-right/
Class -- we know education correlates with class and that Wales is more working class.
Language -- conventional wisdom is that learning other languages should boost other subjects. If this is true, why no boost from learning Welsh?
Test rehearsal -- it has been suggested Welsh students are simply unfamiliar with taking tests. Of course, if practice really does make perfect, or at least better, then this may provide a partial explanation for grade inflation -- more tests in schools (including targeted practice at GCSE and A-level questions) would lead to better outcomes even without easier exams or brighter pupils.
There was no way that education under labour wasn;t going to improve on paper, after Blair put a massive emphasis on it and spent huge extra sums on it.
It was a Great Leap Forward situation.
“If you freeze the price of energy, and the international price of energy rises, it means there’s going to be a very big difference to pay. Who’s going to be paying the difference? Are you going to ask the investors? They’ll probably go bankrupt. How are you going to get people to come in and invest to get their money back in 30, 40 years’ time when you say there’s going to be a freeze?”
Criticism by Gurría is major blow to Ed Miliband's and the Labour Party's credibility on the economy. Of all major world economists, Gurría's star is currently shining the brightest.
The most influential advocate of 'austerity' in global economics, and in particular, of gradualist and balanced fiscal consolidation, Gurría has emerged the clear winner in the battle with the Krugmanite neo-Keynesians on post-recessionary recovery measures.
And Gurría is not just an economist. As Finance Minister in the Mexican government of Zedillo he is widely credited as being the architect of Mexican economic stabilisation, which he achieved by regularly cutting government spending and by boosting Mexico's trade potential by negotiating the NAFTA agreement.
Now in his second five year term as Secretary-General of the OECD, the Leeds and Harvard educated Gurría is the last person the hapless Ed would want to be criticised by. Is it any wonder that Ed Balls remained suspiciously quiet on the energy price freeze proposals?
[Main source: Bloomberg article on upcoming BBC interview Internal CCHQ briefings]
Is Wales more working class than Poland or Estonia, currently trouncing the principality in the PISA tables?
Wales has fallen well below the very working class emerging former eastern block countries, it is now down there with the third world.
The only difference is spending, which is far higher in Wales.
Education in Wales under labour is quite simply a policy catastrophe.
If I was a genuine labour person, really interested in the life outcomes of young welsh people, I would be ashamed and outraged.
So tell me, within NASUWT's guidelines, how teachers can be assessed without observing lessons?
http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/MemberSupport/NASUWTPublications/LessonObservation/
You employ people. How do you go about ascertaining their performance and suggesting areas of improvement? Do you, perchance, observe them?
'Wales needs a new Assembly that thinks globally and realises that all this bad news will only serve to discourage potential investors in Wales'
How about closing the Assembly down.
Has it achieved anything other than one-party rule for Labour and the resulting across the board decline in services?
If you Latin, Spanish, Italian, French or German that'll help you understand a bit of other languages too. I'm not sure Welsh would be of any use outside Wales, where everyone speaks English anyway.
What really angers me is the 'so what' response of the Welsh government to Wales' disastrous performance.
The labour people of the past in Wales would never have settled for educational standards like that.
The men who catapulted me into a good university from a Welsh comp were both card holding members of the labour party.
You seem a little confused. Perhaps you should try correcting your own position first.
And when have I said we're not near the middle? I'm not mischaracterising anything. Unlike, I suspect, you.
So to make it clear, this is my position:
I'm not happy with us being in the middle rank of countries, especially with the amounts we are spending. We should be making sure our children are educated to be the best in the world, or as near as we can make it.
I'm not happy with us sliding down the league tables of countries whilst sitting on our backsides, mollified by grade inflation.
This is particularly the case at the lower end of educational attainment. Every capable child who leaves school functionally illiterate and innumerate has been let down by the system, and we - not they - should be ashamed.
http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/deployingstaff/appraisal-and-capability-arrangements/a00226473/faqs-new-arrangements#faq8
Labour were not.
LOL.
Why not answer the question: do you observe your employees work for more than three hours a year? If so, whys should schools and teachers be any different?
Ambulances 'face long delays at A&E' - BBC figures reveal
The longest waits were seen in Wales, where one ambulance was left queuing for six hours 22 minutes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25268451
But I don't like to besmirch the cut and thrust of political debate with dollars and cents.
I did think about your most recent offer and thought it extraordinarily generous but I eventually declined to take your
moneyoffer.I hope it doesn't diminish the pleasure we take in anticipating the GE2015 results.
What I can't quite fathom is why anybody actually votes for that shit. For all their venal destructive uselessness they have some top notch snakeoil salesmen. Donkeys with a red rosette and all that.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=279372588878387&set=a.161787047303609.36431.161786037303710&type=1
That is a strange and funny tweet. How could Scottish independence affect the futures of the children of America one way or the other?
The Tories might not be Rightwing enough for those crazy kippers, but they are as Rightwing as any Party is going to get in this country whilst retaining a chance of governing.
Very nice to see the splitter disease infecting the Right for a change though.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13527620
It's a fake recovery driven by...er.....debt....and....er.....property prices.
Salaries also increasing, according to KPMG. Not good news for the Eds.
'Record View: Scottish Labour have played into SNP's hands with defeat, division and embarrassment' http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/record-view-scottish-labour-played-2907494
All on one result, or building a book?
I take it you were referring to my 4/6 LD/UKIP, the best odds on offer in the world, that RCS100 said were not generous and invented a new price (7/9?) to try me with.. oh well
If you are interested in taking EVS about UKIP 6% or less and Ill have UKIP 9% and above with 6.01-8.99% VOID, Ill bet ye!!
Having the most competent government in the British Isles is certainly an asset to the campaign.
1 UKIP does not believe that Cameron is the man to lead Britain out of the EU. And most people, of all political opinions, agree with that assessment of Cameron.
2 Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in? We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity. We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.
http://t.co/UzNmUyGxNR
"That was a party political broadcast for the Scottish National Party."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-spies-online-games-world-warcraft-second-life
Which is ages away - even Eck Salmond manned up and went for it in a referendum.
At least you are honest though - admitting you are scared.
Remind me again who is running education in Wales.
Having watched the report of the education system in South Korea where children from age 4 were put a system where they were in lessons of one kind or another for 11 hours a day to at age 14 to 16, up to 18 hours a day. The result, a group of teenagers given a copy of an GCSE maths exam, completed it in under half the time required with nearly all getting answers 100% correct.
The kids are permanently tired, their families expect top marks all, repeat ALL the time, then the suicide rate among children is extremely high and is beginning to lead the South Koreans to question what is going on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25193551
Similar situation in most of Asia at the moment - do we want to copy this?
Anyway ....
Nelson Mandela is at home and there is a knock at the door. On answering the door Nelson sees a Chinese man with a clip board and there is a large van outside full of car parts.
The Chinese man says "You sign." .... Nelson laughs and tells the Chinese man that he has the wrong address.
The following day the Chinese man returns with another truck load of car spares. "You sign" the man tells Mandela and again Nelson tells him he's got the wrong address. This scenario happens for several more days - Chinese man, car parts and finally on the seventh day Nelson's famous tolerance is broken - "You sign, you sign" implores the Chinese man and with that Nelson Mandela picks the man up by the scruff of the neck and frog marches him to the car parts van .... The Chinese man then says .... (use your best Chinese accent)
"You no Nissan Main Della ??"
As if helping to put someone opposed to leaving the EU in government would be sensible for a party that want to leave... You must think UKIP are crazy... The dwindling number of Tory members mostly do I suppose!
I am a v honest person, but I can't see where I admitted to being scared... Where was that?
I am a member of UKIP but not just for EU withdrawal although I obviously want that.
'Are we likely to win an out vote with all three of the other party leaders and the BBC scaremongering and frightening the electorate to vote in?'
That's always been likely to be the case.
'We think that would be a tough ask. If we lose an in/out referendum, we will never be offered a second opportunity.'
Chances are if Labour win in 2015 you will never be offered a second opportunity.
'We have to get our ducks in a row. That requires strong and growing votes for UKIP, in any and all elections.'
You've had years to do that.
UKIP, after making much noise for years on the need for an EU referendum,get one and then find every excuse under the sun to chicken out.
I used to vote for you lot in the European elections,because I wanted an EU referendum,what a waste of time..