Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
Not everyone in industry or finance earns £90k, indeed the vast majority, even of physics grads dont. And some teachers earn £90k too.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
I've noticed that you instinctively feel that it's the comfortable white collar middle classes rather than the authentically wealthy who are the main culprits in the exploitation of the working class. I find this odd.
Everyone exploits.
The problem with the authentically wealthy is that they are somewhat difficult to lay financial hands on - which is one reason why I support shifting the taxation burden from work to property.
As a member of the comfortable white collar middle classes I do know how fortunate some are, how little value some add and how much at risk some are.
And most of the working class I know do pretty well for themselves.
As I've said before it looks like many middle class jobs will receive the globalisation effects that much of manufacturing received from the 1970s onwards.
Attempts to stop this will be in the guise of 'maintaining standards'
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Yes, I think there is an element of kicking against Britain's maudlin obsession with poppyism.
The English obsession with WW2 is truly baffling to me. The only other country that comes close in this regard in my experience is Russia.
Those who actually were in the war always seemed to be very reluctant to celebrate or discuss it. Those born afterwards who missed out on the "excitement" (aka the horror of war) seem to be the ones for whom it is Patriotism-Max. A childhood of war movies and commando comics probably did not help either.
Many people simply respect their sacrifice, and the cause for which they made it.Today's war films are much more nuanced than some of the stuff of the past, too.
Attempts to turn WW2's achievements into something darker (such as the BNP's absurd spitfire image), have always failed totally.
I do hope one conclusion of the public inquiry is that a new model of pandemic growth is built from scratch with no one from the UCL team anywhere near the work.
Imperial? Anyway what surprised me was that once the code quality issues were known, HMG did not immediately commission several firms to clean up the code (not rewrite it in another language, which is most programmers' response to any request in my experience).
Didn't Imperial tell the Guardian that up to 200m people could die from bird flu in 2005, when only a couple of hundred did. And that 50k people could die from BSE when only a couple of hundred did.
The question is, why does anybody still listen to those publicity-seeking clowns?
If bird flu mutates to become easily transmissible between humans without a reduction in its mortality rate it will make this pandemic look like a tea party. And you want that to be ignored?
Sadly people just assume when these warnings come out it is crying wolf. It isn't, it is preparation.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Yay, more people interested in bashing the government rather than getting schools open.
We can't get schools open. 2m distancing means a best case scenario of 2 days a week schooling for the duration. 1m social distancing gets you 2.5 days. Either way, the government say it's unsafe for schools to fully reopen and then government shills complain that people are bashing the government for quoting their own published guidelines
My 10 year old grandson has been back at school for two weeks now. He is finding it very difficult to deal with because of the social distancing rules and because a lot of the parents have not sent their kids back. Right now, he is not doing much learning. It is a total mess.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
The only way he doesnt win is if he doesnt stand. Might he prefer a shadow cabinet role instead, unlikely, he can do another term and still have time for a parliamentary career if he wants it.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Yes, I think there is an element of kicking against Britain's maudlin obsession with poppyism.
The English obsession with WW2 is truly baffling to me. The only other country that comes close in this regard in my experience is Russia.
Those who actually were in the war always seemed to be very reluctant to celebrate or discuss it. Those born afterwards who missed out on the "excitement" (aka the horror of war) seem to be the ones for whom it is Patriotism-Max. A childhood of war movies and commando comics probably did not help either.
That's not my experience. Having known quite a few people who were children/youths and met a few people who fought, they are very keen to remember those times.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
I'm going to make myself unpopular.
If that is all he did I do not view it as an offence of enormous seriousness in the grand scheme of things.
And if it leads to calls for "lock up and throw away in the key!" - just based on that image and nothing else - I will not be joining in.
I agree. I wonder whether he even aware he was standing next to it. And the irony at a demonstration to supposedly protect statues.
It looks really bad, but was it just a case of someone relieving himself after too many beers and a long day fighting the police. The latter being what we should consider a serious offence (if he took part).
That is the sense I get from the photo and the look of him. It becomes a different order of offence if he chose that spot deliberately - or if he had wazzed ON the memorial rather than next to it - but my assumption is the same as yours. No bogs, few beers, got to shake the snake. Benefit of the doubt from me to the (probably) racist oik on this one.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Tech CEO's should never be allowed to hide behind algorithms, they need to explain themselves in public and be held accountable for the actions of their organisations.
I normally agree with you, but surely the algorithm absolutely can be the explanation?
If the explanation is that images go missing during updates sometimes and this is all automated and what has happened here then what more of an explanation do you expect than that?
They've said too they'll look into it. What more can be said at this time realistically?
What I'm saying is that the big tech companies act as if the 'algorithm' is something not in their control, and for which they should not be held accountable.
A company who last year made $89bn income and $47bn EBITDA from $161bn turnover, should be able to employ enough people to sort out these complaints within seconds rather than days. The point is that they don't want to be accountable, and no-one is yet really trying to make them so. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/goog/financials
I disagree. Firstly they've already sorted out the complaint - they've already given the answer as to what has happened.
Secondly in order for the technology to work it takes days for their systems to update. The system isn't live in the way people imagine and updates can take days to filter through to all servers.
I've worked with Google in a business setting in the past, one thing they're always clear about is that updates take days to get through to all servers, even if you pay them to update something. I don't think their technology could work any other way.
The Churchill image is still missing (from a different computer with a different browser and a different IP address). They haven't come close to sorting out the complaint.
That these things take days is entirely their problem. They don't want people to think it's their problem, in fact they go out of their way to say it's not their problem and due to some infrastructure or algorithm - but it's very much their problem.
The image is missing because it is missing, it will be back in a few hours to days time when the update resolves itself. As happens with all updates. There is no grand conspiracy and if you want to see an image of Churchill you easily can.
What's the big deal?
It's not about Churchill's image, it's about tech company accountability.
Google have proven themselves to be able to both upload and remove content worldwide within seconds, but somehow it takes days to restore something and the world just has to live with that?
If one of my customers reported such an error to me it would be resolved instantly. That Google's replication and shadow-DNS systems apparently take days - by design - is still Google's problem, and Google should be held accountable for it.
Google and their employees are trying their best to make out that their own infrastructure and algorithms somehow aren't their responsibility.
Bolded emphasis: Have they? When?
I've never known them to be able to do that. As far as I know that's not the way they work.
Google are a billion dollar industry precisely because they do everything automated not manually. We can hold Google accountable by using a better search engine if there is one - I'm curious if you can name one that's better.
Google are the best precisely because everything is automated, not despite it.
I was thinking of user-uploaded content to Google platforms such as Youtube, and their responses to court orders such as those from the EU about the 'right to be forgotten' legislation.
Again, if Google says these things take days to resolve, that is the result of Google's infrastructure and algorithms, for which they should be held accountable. They can't hide, and shouldn't be allowed to hide, behind "automation" as excuses for mistakes.
A company that makes a billion dollars a week in profits should be able to have a 24/7 UK moderation team that can fix issues like Churchill's picture. That they clearly can't is entirely their company's problem.
If you listen to any of the big YouTubers, these days it is a constant battle against the manual and bots that manage the content and people using DMCA claims against their videos. And if you do trigger something, it can be days, weeks, if ever, that issues get resolved.
Yes, the banning and demonetisation of videos can be done instantly, but trying to resolve issues can take days - by which time anything remotely topical has passed its chance for views.
Also note that 'Demonetisation' doesn't mean they don't run ads against the content, merely that Google collect all the ad revenue for themselves and don't share it with the content creator.
I think that Joe Rogan leaving the platform has started to get them looking at these issues, but they're still more likely to deal with it on a user-by-user basis than change their protocols.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
If there is one word to describe Khan as a politician is uninspiring. He never royally f##ks up / allows the blame to stick to him, but doesn't get stuff done. What he is good at is playing to the gallery and playing the political game, front and centre to give Trump both barrels vs becomes invisible when coronavirus hits the fan.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
The only way he doesnt win is if he doesnt stand. Might he prefer a shadow cabinet role instead, unlikely, he can do another term and still have time for a parliamentary career if he wants it.
I can't see Khan coming back into the PLP and making much of a mark. London mayor is about as far as he will go.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
Not everyone in industry or finance earns £90k, indeed the vast majority, even of physics grads dont. And some teachers earn £90k too.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
Really? I am (not uniformly, but mostly) extremely impressed with my kids' teachers. It's embarrassing how much less they earn than me for doing a far more demanding job. They are mostly extremely young though, suggesting most of them move out of teaching or out of London when they want to have enough money to have a home and start a family.
How to avoid COBRA Meetings. Stop having any (none since 10th May). No COBRA meetings, scientists removed if not on message. Profile lower than a snake.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
If there is one word to describe Khan as a politician is uninspiring. He never royally f##ks up / allows the blame to stick to him, but doesn't get stuff done. What he is good at is playing to the gallery and playing the political game, front and centre to give Trump both barrels vs becomes invisible when coronavirus hits the fan.
Yep. He has basically run London like Johnson did. The only decent mayor London has had is Livingstone, before he went completely loon.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
This is hardly new. London has been painting itself as a place apart since Ken and the GLC. This is all in the age old pattern of British politics of the cities and celtic fringe versus the shires
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
Really? I am (not uniformly, but mostly) extremely impressed with my kids' teachers. It's embarrassing how much less they earn than me for doing a far more demanding job. They are mostly extremely young though, suggesting most of them move out of teaching or out of London when they want to have enough money to have a home and start a family.
Bit of both. 40% of teachers quit teaching in the first five years. But also, of course, who would be able to live in London on a teacher's salary for long?
Of my class in 2013, eight - so just under a third - began their teaching career in London. One is still there. He was a mature entrant, who had made a fortune in banking and already owned a large house in Kensington. The others had all moved out within five years.
I think five of them have quit teaching - which is well below average. But then, we were quite a talented cohort though I say so myself. Three of us were running departments before we finished our NQT year and one has since gone on to SLT.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
One of the things that used to sadden me when commuting through Liverpool Street was the misuse of the Kinderstransport memorial to hold drinks cartons and other rubbish, though if you do not know what the memorial is and have not read the plaque to find out, it is more likely to be thoughtlessness rather than political comment.
Yes, we need to keep a sense of proportion. The real problem about memorials and statues is that hardly anyone knows what they're about or bothers to read the fading plaques that (perhaps) explain. I don't support defacing them (or peeing on them), nor do I think that someone who does so should serve a sentence greater than what is usually imposed for manslaughter. My Marxist streak thinks that we are allowing a systemic issue (do we have institutional and societal racism?) to be diverted into a symbolic issue (should statues be defaced?) and it's playing into the hands of people who like the status quo to let that happen.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
It is why the police shouldn't have allowed the mob to pull down the statue in Bristol in the first place. The original community decision to put a plaque explaining this guys dark history is was what should have happened. The result is the statue isn't being celebrated, it is educating. And that should be the solution for most of these problematic statues.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
Really? I am (not uniformly, but mostly) extremely impressed with my kids' teachers. It's embarrassing how much less they earn than me for doing a far more demanding job. They are mostly extremely young though, suggesting most of them move out of teaching or out of London when they want to have enough money to have a home and start a family.
That the UK has one of the youngest teaching cohorts in Europe tends to confirm that.
Tech CEO's should never be allowed to hide behind algorithms, they need to explain themselves in public and be held accountable for the actions of their organisations.
I normally agree with you, but surely the algorithm absolutely can be the explanation?
If the explanation is that images go missing during updates sometimes and this is all automated and what has happened here then what more of an explanation do you expect than that?
They've said too they'll look into it. What more can be said at this time realistically?
What I'm saying is that the big tech companies act as if the 'algorithm' is something not in their control, and for which they should not be held accountable.
A company who last year made $89bn income and $47bn EBITDA from $161bn turnover, should be able to employ enough people to sort out these complaints within seconds rather than days. The point is that they don't want to be accountable, and no-one is yet really trying to make them so. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/goog/financials
I disagree. Firstly they've already sorted out the complaint - they've already given the answer as to what has happened.
Secondly in order for the technology to work it takes days for their systems to update. The system isn't live in the way people imagine and updates can take days to filter through to all servers.
I've worked with Google in a business setting in the past, one thing they're always clear about is that updates take days to get through to all servers, even if you pay them to update something. I don't think their technology could work any other way.
The Churchill image is still missing (from a different computer with a different browser and a different IP address). They haven't come close to sorting out the complaint.
That these things take days is entirely their problem. They don't want people to think it's their problem, in fact they go out of their way to say it's not their problem and due to some infrastructure or algorithm - but it's very much their problem.
The image is missing because it is missing, it will be back in a few hours to days time when the update resolves itself. As happens with all updates. There is no grand conspiracy and if you want to see an image of Churchill you easily can.
What's the big deal?
It's not about Churchill's image, it's about tech company accountability.
Google have proven themselves to be able to both upload and remove content worldwide within seconds, but somehow it takes days to restore something and the world just has to live with that?
If one of my customers reported such an error to me it would be resolved instantly. That Google's replication and shadow-DNS systems apparently take days - by design - is still Google's problem, and Google should be held accountable for it.
Google and their employees are trying their best to make out that their own infrastructure and algorithms somehow aren't their responsibility.
Bolded emphasis: Have they? When?
I've never known them to be able to do that. As far as I know that's not the way they work.
Google are a billion dollar industry precisely because they do everything automated not manually. We can hold Google accountable by using a better search engine if there is one - I'm curious if you can name one that's better.
Google are the best precisely because everything is automated, not despite it.
I was thinking of user-uploaded content to Google platforms such as Youtube, and their responses to court orders such as those from the EU about the 'right to be forgotten' legislation.
Again, if Google says these things take days to resolve, that is the result of Google's infrastructure and algorithms, for which they should be held accountable. They can't hide, and shouldn't be allowed to hide, behind "automation" as excuses for mistakes.
A company that makes a billion dollars a week in profits should be able to have a 24/7 UK moderation team that can fix issues like Churchill's picture, even on a Sunday morning. That they clearly can't is entirely their company's problem.
User uploaded content is automated - I certainly don't believe a newly uploaded video on YouTube will be found by Google's search algorithm within seconds - and as far as I'm aware their response to court orders doesn't take place within seconds either. So your claim that things can be changed within seconds doesn't seem to hold water.
Absolutely Google's infrastructure is designed to be robust and distributed so it can be accessed by billions of people worldwide and give instantaneous results - not be instantaneously changed. That is a deliberate design they're happy to be accountable for to their consumers.
If consumers want a less robust search engine that can be more immediately fiddled with by the search engines staff then they can choose that.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
If there is one word to describe Khan as a politician is uninspiring. He never royally f##ks up / allows the blame to stick to him, but doesn't get stuff done. What he is good at is playing to the gallery and playing the political game, front and centre to give Trump both barrels vs becomes invisible when coronavirus hits the fan.
He spent the first half of March asking to attend Cobra meetings and being denied access to the scientific experts.
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
But.. but... but.... without nukes the Europeans would have invaded us and subsumed us into their superstate and Russia would have started WW3 and we could not have blown up the alien mothership ... oh wait, that last one was a movie
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
Not everyone in industry or finance earns £90k, indeed the vast majority, even of physics grads dont. And some teachers earn £90k too.
True in detail (though you'd have to be very senior management to be on 90k, probably a deputy head), but the big picture is clear.
Most schools, even really good ones, struggle to recruit for maths and physics, except during the depths of recessions. That implies that the pay:hassle ratio is out of synch.
That doesn't mean that all teachers are idiots. For quite a lot of people, the relative security, the fact that there are jobs everywhere, the convenience of not having to worry about holiday childcare for your own children and the fact that teaching can be the most tremendous fun are enough to outweigh the fact that you will never be rich. But that pool of people isn't enough to fully staff schools with warm bodies, let alone with all the people we might want.
It baffles me that those on the right who claim to understand the free market develop blind spots about supply and demand.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
Really? I am (not uniformly, but mostly) extremely impressed with my kids' teachers. It's embarrassing how much less they earn than me for doing a far more demanding job. They are mostly extremely young though, suggesting most of them move out of teaching or out of London when they want to have enough money to have a home and start a family.
And of course it could be that - perhaps as a hangover from WW2? - the BBC have an ingrained institutional bias against nazis. Scandal if so. They should be impartial. It says so in their charter.
But there is a possible alternative explanation.
If demo A has 500,000 people of whom 500 (0.1%) get violent, and demo B has 1,000 people of whom 50 (5%) get violent, which of the following true statements is more true?
(i) A is 10 times as violent as B? (ii) B is 50 times as violent as A?
And which of the demos can more accurately be described as "largely peaceful"?
Offered as food for thought. Figures for illustration only. All arithmetical errors mine. Although of course there aren't any.
Your point makes no sense. If a million people turned up on a march in London and 0.1% were violent it would be open warfare on the streets and there is no way it would be described as 'largely peaceful'. There was violence at both demos and both should be condemned equally. Everything else is just seeking to justify your own bias.
I did say not to get hung up with the numbers themselves. They were purely to illustrate the point - being that the proportion of people at a demo who are violent is a valid metric to add to the absolute numbers when assessing and describing how violent a demo is, as compared to another one.
C'mon, Richard, of course this makes sense. I sense your eagerness to show you are not biased is biasing your appreciation of my (imo rather cute) contribution on this matter.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
Not everyone in industry or finance earns £90k, indeed the vast majority, even of physics grads dont. And some teachers earn £90k too.
True in detail (though you'd have to be very senior management to be on 90k, probably a deputy head), but the big picture is clear.
Most schools, even really good ones, struggle to recruit for maths and physics, except during the depths of recessions. That implies that the pay:hassle ratio is out of synch.
That doesn't mean that all teachers are idiots. For quite a lot of people, the relative security, the fact that there are jobs everywhere, the convenience of not having to worry about holiday childcare for your own children and the fact that teaching can be the most tremendous fun are enough to outweigh the fact that you will never be rich. But that pool of people isn't enough to fully staff schools with warm bodies, let alone with all the people we might want.
It baffles me that those on the right who claim to understand the free market develop blind spots about supply and demand.
I think it's partly because they dislike teachers. They see them as Guardian reading, liberal voting, snooty lefties.
Which is odd because actually the news resource of choice for teachers is the Daily Mail.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Nuclear weapons forced a fortified Japanese mainland to surrender within days, and the experience of being attacked with nuclear weapons turned Japan from an imperialist power to a pacifist one that has maintained its constitution for 75 years.
Conclusion: nuclear weapons are totally useless...
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
Not everyone in industry or finance earns £90k, indeed the vast majority, even of physics grads dont. And some teachers earn £90k too.
True in detail (though you'd have to be very senior management to be on 90k, probably a deputy head), but the big picture is clear.
Most schools, even really good ones, struggle to recruit for maths and physics, except during the depths of recessions. That implies that the pay:hassle ratio is out of synch.
That doesn't mean that all teachers are idiots. For quite a lot of people, the relative security, the fact that there are jobs everywhere, the convenience of not having to worry about holiday childcare for your own children and the fact that teaching can be the most tremendous fun are enough to outweigh the fact that you will never be rich. But that pool of people isn't enough to fully staff schools with warm bodies, let alone with all the people we might want.
It baffles me that those on the right who claim to understand the free market develop blind spots about supply and demand.
As a public sector worker, I can assure you that supply and demand does not come into remuneration.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
I agree with you on the uselessness of Trident, but I think it should be spent on defence (which we spend comparatively little on). We should have well-equipped conventional forces, and cruise missiles that can deliver a small nuclear warhead if required.
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
I think Bailey will be hammered, another Tory would scarcely do any better, so not much point in replacing him. All it does is look bad.
The Tories have political control of England, but have lost cultural control. I expect that will tell against them in the future.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
Not everyone in industry or finance earns £90k, indeed the vast majority, even of physics grads dont. And some teachers earn £90k too.
True in detail (though you'd have to be very senior management to be on 90k, probably a deputy head), but the big picture is clear.
Most schools, even really good ones, struggle to recruit for maths and physics, except during the depths of recessions. That implies that the pay:hassle ratio is out of synch.
That doesn't mean that all teachers are idiots. For quite a lot of people, the relative security, the fact that there are jobs everywhere, the convenience of not having to worry about holiday childcare for your own children and the fact that teaching can be the most tremendous fun are enough to outweigh the fact that you will never be rich. But that pool of people isn't enough to fully staff schools with warm bodies, let alone with all the people we might want.
It baffles me that those on the right who claim to understand the free market develop blind spots about supply and demand.
Lots of companies struggle to recruit good maths and physics candidates, its not just the public sector. The economy could probably adsorb double the number we have but that doesnt mean we should pay them all loads more, it means we need to train more of them.
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
Shaun Bailey is not a basket case just yet. There have been five London Mayoral elections. Labour won two of them. Just two. Not even half. CCHQ needs to grow a pair and stop this endless whinging that "the system" is biased against them in Scotland, Wales, London, the north.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
If there is one word to describe Khan as a politician is uninspiring. He never royally f##ks up / allows the blame to stick to him, but doesn't get stuff done. What he is good at is playing to the gallery and playing the political game, front and centre to give Trump both barrels vs becomes invisible when coronavirus hits the fan.
He spent the first half of March asking to attend Cobra meetings and being denied access to the scientific experts.
Only a few years prior the mayor of London who happened to have been at the same school as the prime minister was regularly attending cabinet meetings...
Well, I think you're splitting hairs, at best. But if you don't like that, let me put it to you another way. A graduate with a 2:1 in any subject can earn about 10% more as an HR administrator at Jaguar Land Rover than they can earn as an NQT. And they can start instantly without the need to take on another year's debt or study. The hours are shorter, the conditions are better, the flexibility is much greater and the holidays are not ridiculously different.
Obviously, there are caveats. The TPS is not what it was ten years ago, but it remains excellent compared to anything in the private sector. Sick pay is also (usually) much better. And the promotion prospects at JLR are probably less impressive than in schools. Plus job security is reduced.
But - realistically - which one would graduates choose, given the choice?
And why do so many of the ones who choose teaching vote with their feet after a few years?
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Yay, more people interested in bashing the government rather than getting schools open.
We can't get schools open. 2m distancing means a best case scenario of 2 days a week schooling for the duration. 1m social distancing gets you 2.5 days. Either way, the government say it's unsafe for schools to fully reopen and then government shills complain that people are bashing the government for quoting their own published guidelines
My 10 year old grandson has been back at school for two weeks now. He is finding it very difficult to deal with because of the social distancing rules and because a lot of the parents have not sent their kids back. Right now, he is not doing much learning. It is a total mess.
It is. Some schools locally are seeing about one in three kids who should be coming in actually turning up.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Quite a lot. Moreover, I note you haven't answered the question.
I can certainly believe you consider your final statement applies to you, but please do not project your inferiority complex on to others.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
I'm not at all sure that hypothesis holds water. The broad pattern in England and Wales is that Labour still does well in built-up places that contain big concentrations of ethnic minority voters and the very poor, and in the university towns where there's a large student and academic vote that breaks strongly left. They're presently doing pretty crap everywhere else.
The moth-eaten Labour core in London - chewed around the edges by Tory territory, the little Lib Dem redoubt in the south-west notwithstanding - is merely part of the more general pattern. To the extent that "London" does get bashed it's as a shorthand for a stereotypical community of left-liberal political and media activists whose instincts re: European integration, historical revisionism and open border immigration run contrary to those of the majority of the population overall, and certainly to those of the new governing alliance of shire Tories and provincial Leave voters.
Tech CEO's should never be allowed to hide behind algorithms, they need to explain themselves in public and be held accountable for the actions of their organisations.
I normally agree with you, but surely the algorithm absolutely can be the explanation?
If the explanation is that images go missing during updates sometimes and this is all automated and what has happened here then what more of an explanation do you expect than that?
They've said too they'll look into it. What more can be said at this time realistically?
What I'm saying is that the big tech companies act as if the 'algorithm' is something not in their control, and for which they should not be held accountable.
A company who last year made $89bn income and $47bn EBITDA from $161bn turnover, should be able to employ enough people to sort out these complaints within seconds rather than days. The point is that they don't want to be accountable, and no-one is yet really trying to make them so. https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/goog/financials
I disagree. Firstly they've already sorted out the complaint - they've already given the answer as to what has happened.
Secondly in order for the technology to work it takes days for their systems to update. The system isn't live in the way people imagine and updates can take days to filter through to all servers.
I've worked with Google in a business setting in the past, one thing they're always clear about is that updates take days to get through to all servers, even if you pay them to update something. I don't think their technology could work any other way.
The Churchill image is still missing (from a different computer with a different browser and a different IP address). They haven't come close to sorting out the complaint.
That these things take days is entirely their problem. They don't want people to think it's their problem, in fact they go out of their way to say it's not their problem and due to some infrastructure or algorithm - but it's very much their problem.
The image is missing because it is missing, it will be back in a few hours to days time when the update resolves itself. As happens with all updates. There is no grand conspiracy and if you want to see an image of Churchill you easily can.
What's the big deal?
It's not about Churchill's image, it's about tech company accountability.
Google have proven themselves to be able to both upload and remove content worldwide within seconds, but somehow it takes days to restore something and the world just has to live with that?
If one of my customers reported such an error to me it would be resolved instantly. That Google's replication and shadow-DNS systems apparently take days - by design - is still Google's problem, and Google should be held accountable for it.
Google and their employees are trying their best to make out that their own infrastructure and algorithms somehow aren't their responsibility.
Bolded emphasis: Have they? When?
I've never known them to be able to do that. As far as I know that's not the way they work.
Google are a billion dollar industry precisely because they do everything automated not manually. We can hold Google accountable by using a better search engine if there is one - I'm curious if you can name one that's better.
Google are the best precisely because everything is automated, not despite it.
I was thinking of user-uploaded content to Google platforms such as Youtube, and their responses to court orders such as those from the EU about the 'right to be forgotten' legislation.
Again, if Google says these things take days to resolve, that is the result of Google's infrastructure and algorithms, for which they should be held accountable. They can't hide, and shouldn't be allowed to hide, behind "automation" as excuses for mistakes.
A company that makes a billion dollars a week in profits should be able to have a 24/7 UK moderation team that can fix issues like Churchill's picture, even on a Sunday morning. That they clearly can't is entirely their company's problem.
User uploaded content is automated - I certainly don't believe a newly uploaded video on YouTube will be found by Google's search algorithm within seconds - and as far as I'm aware their response to court orders doesn't take place within seconds either. So your claim that things can be changed within seconds doesn't seem to hold water.
Absolutely Google's infrastructure is designed to be robust and distributed so it can be accessed by billions of people worldwide and give instantaneous results - not be instantaneously changed. That is a deliberate design they're happy to be accountable for to their consumers.
If consumers want a less robust search engine that can be more immediately fiddled with by the search engines staff then they can choose that.
We will agree to disagree, but my point is that Google’s methodologies and infrastructure are the responsibility of that company.
They have to take corporate responsibility as a company for their infrastructure and algorithms, and cannot simply hide behind excuses that their computer screwed up.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
I agree with you on the uselessness of Trident, but I think it should be spent on defence (which we spend comparatively little on). We should have well-equipped conventional forces, and cruise missiles that can deliver a small nuclear warhead if required.
Cruise missiles do not have the range but that is not the problem of scrapping Trident. Sir Humphrey was wrong when he told Jim Hacker the MoD would spend the money on conventional forces instead. The government would have spaffed the money away on tax cuts or benefits. Look at the way Conservative governments have hacked away at the armed services from the 1980s onwards.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
Your point makes no sense. If a million people turned up on a march in London and 0.1% were violent it would be open warfare on the streets and there is no way it would be described as 'largely peaceful'. There was violence at both demos and both should be condemned equally. Everything else is just seeking to justify your own bias.
I agree, but there is an objective problem with the way the media (and indeed popular interest) work: if you want attention, you need to do something illegal - pull down a statue, start a fight, start a fire, etc. There was a large, completely silent BLM march this week in Brighton, which got almost zero publicity. So protestors draw the sadly correct conclusion that if they behave themselves they will be ignored.
I think it would be helpful if fringe groups who cause trouble got minimal attention apart from the police dealing with them. Likewise terrorists, for that matter. Publicity for evil attention-seekers simply rewards them. Obviously there comes a point that so much havoc is caused that one can't ignore it. But a few thousand people shouting a lot and throwing beer cans? We don't need to know.
What people managed to live in london on less than £90k a year... can't be much fun.
You probably cannot live on less than £90k a year in central London, unless you are in social housing or shared accomodation, however it is certainly possible to live on far less than than in areas in the outer London suburbs like Newham, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Enfield, Redbridge etc
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
He had a bladder full of lager and he thought he could piss wherever he liked. There is no way he did it deliberately by the memorial to PC Palmer, but he certainly did it openly in the street and did not give it a second thought. It's a minor infraction, but it is perfect in its symbolism. He was there to protect traditional British values.
And as we all know, peeing in the street where ever you like is the sort of thing the French do.
Beeb reports that 'A man has been arrested on suspicion of urinating on the Westminster memorial dedicated to PC Keith Palmer.'
I'll bet he wishes he'd kept it in his trousers!
Edit. Apparently he had the good grace to 'present himself at a police station'
Interesting the elision between “on” and “next to”.
The man seems an idiot, but I would be surprised if what he did was deliberate. I suspect he didn’t see the memorial.
If he was trying to urinate on it he had remarkably bad aim.
He had a bladder full of lager and he thought he could piss wherever he liked. There is no way he did it deliberately by the memorial to PC Palmer, but he certainly did it openly in the street and did not give it a second thought. It's a minor infraction, but it is perfect in its symbolism. He was there to protect traditional British values.
Presumably rather a lot of people have been urinating in the streets, as there aren't any public toilets open.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
If we gave up Trident only France would be left to defend western Europe with nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed Russia and
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
'Shortly there will be an election, at which I will be humiliated by a shop manager...'
I may have missed it, but on the plan(s) to reopen schools, nobody seems to have commented much on the main obstacle: Gavin Williamson. Whether it is the failed plan for June 1st, or thinking ahead to September, he is responsible.
In a weak cabinet, he is the weakest of the weak, and couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
Aside from Mr Trump, I can't think of anybody more over-promoted than Mr Williamson. He is an idiot child.
What people managed to live in london on less than £90k a year... can't be much fun.
You probably cannot live on less than £90k a year in central London, unless you are in social housing or shared accomodation, however it is certainly possible to live on far less than than in areas in the outer London suburbs like Newham, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Enfield, Redbridge etc
Sounds horrid*....
Post corona and with more WFH will be interesting to see how many people decide that relocating outside of London, where get a bigger house etc for their money and instead do 1-2 days a week longer commute.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
I'm not at all sure that hypothesis holds water. The broad pattern in England and Wales is that Labour still does well in built-up places that contain big concentrations of ethnic minority voters and the very poor, and in the university towns where there's a large student and academic vote that breaks strongly left. They're presently doing pretty crap everywhere else.
The moth-eaten Labour core in London - chewed around the edges by Tory territory, the little Lib Dem redoubt in the south-west notwithstanding - is merely part of the more general pattern. To the extent that "London" does get bashed it's as a shorthand for a stereotypical community of left-liberal political and media activists whose instincts re: European integration, historical revisionism and open border immigration run contrary to those of the majority of the population overall, and certainly to those of the new governing alliance of shire Tories and provincial Leave voters.
Yep - London is portrayed as enemy territory, populated by ethnic minorities and liberal metropolitans who hate the UK. As Labour has discovered, you don't often win in places that you hold in contempt.
Your point makes no sense. If a million people turned up on a march in London and 0.1% were violent it would be open warfare on the streets and there is no way it would be described as 'largely peaceful'. There was violence at both demos and both should be condemned equally. Everything else is just seeking to justify your own bias.
I agree, but there is an objective problem with the way the media (and indeed popular interest) work: if you want attention, you need to do something illegal - pull down a statue, start a fight, start a fire, etc. There was a large, completely silent BLM march this week in Brighton, which got almost zero publicity. So protestors draw the sadly correct conclusion that if they behave themselves they will be ignored.
I think it would be helpful if fringe groups who cause trouble got minimal attention apart from the police dealing with them. Likewise terrorists, for that matter. Publicity for evil attention-seekers simply rewards them. Obviously there comes a point that so much havoc is caused that one can't ignore it. But a few thousand people shouting a lot and throwing beer cans? We don't need to know.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
An excellent post.
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
So who are the potential 'London Bill Gates' ?
As I remember Cameron initially wanted Greg Dyke to be the anti-Ken candidate in 2008.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
If we gave up Trident only France would be left to defend western Europe with nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed Russia and
Why do you assume giving up Trident means giving up nuclear weapons? Tactical nuclear weapons are a lot less predictable and therefore at least as great a deterrent to a land invasion if not more.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside a few seats mostly in the suburbs.
Indeed despite a UK wide majority of 80 the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Yes, I think there is an element of kicking against Britain's maudlin obsession with poppyism.
The English obsession with WW2 is truly baffling to me. The only other country that comes close in this regard in my experience is Russia.
Those who actually were in the war always seemed to be very reluctant to celebrate or discuss it. Those born afterwards who missed out on the "excitement" (aka the horror of war) seem to be the ones for whom it is Patriotism-Max. A childhood of war movies and commando comics probably did not help either.
Not all of them. I was taught by someone whose ship had been torpedoed in the war, and if you didn’t feel like working that lesson you could ask him about it.
What people managed to live in london on less than £90k a year... can't be much fun.
You probably cannot live on less than £90k a year in central London, unless you are in social housing or shared accomodation, however it is certainly possible to live on far less than than in areas in the outer London suburbs like Newham, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Enfield, Redbridge etc
Eh? I have the odd good year but generally earn less than that and have lived here over 20 years in zones 1 and 2. £50k as a single person would still give a good lifestyle here, or £75k between a couple. Having kids certainly is trickier with space at an extreme premium but £90k would be sufficient to bring up a family here as well.
I do hope one conclusion of the public inquiry is that a new model of pandemic growth is built from scratch with no one from the UCL team anywhere near the work.
Imperial? Anyway what surprised me was that once the code quality issues were known, HMG did not immediately commission several firms to clean up the code (not rewrite it in another language, which is most programmers' response to any request in my experience).
Didn't Imperial tell the Guardian that up to 200m people could die from bird flu in 2005, when only a couple of hundred did. And that 50k people could die from BSE when only a couple of hundred did.
The question is, why does anybody still listen to those publicity-seeking clowns?
Do you not understand the meaning of the word “could”?
Absolutely. But the might as well have said that nobody could die from it, or everybody in the world could. It would have been about as useful.
They love getting headlines. They get headlines from scaremongering. And policy makers fall for it. While more sober and rigorous predictions are ignored.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside some marginal seats in the suburbs.
Indeed the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Yep, the Tories have given up on London as a place in which they can win.
I may have missed it, but on the plan(s) to reopen schools, nobody seems to have commented much on the main obstacle: Gavin Williamson. Whether it is the failed plan for June 1st, or thinking ahead to September, he is responsible.
In a weak cabinet, he is the weakest of the weak, and couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
Aside from Mr Trump, I can't think of anybody more over-promoted than Mr Williamson. He is an idiot child.
And yet oddly, very popular with his constituents. His majorities have been smashing all records (and Patrick Cormack was hardly a drag on the ticket - he was a good MP).
I live just on the border of Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire - it literally runs outside my front door. When I talk to people about politics in South Staffs (which I don't do very often) they tend to say, unprompted, how wonderful he is.
I agree that he's rubbish, but that's a different problem.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside some marginal seats in the suburbs.
Indeed the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Yep, the Tories have given up on London as a place in which they can win.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside a few seats mostly in the suburbs.
Indeed despite a UK wide majority of 80 the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Safer than Liverpool? Or do you not count that as a region?
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
I agree with you on the uselessness of Trident, but I think it should be spent on defence (which we spend comparatively little on). We should have well-equipped conventional forces, and cruise missiles that can deliver a small nuclear warhead if required.
Cruise missiles do not have the range but that is not the problem of scrapping Trident. Sir Humphrey was wrong when he told Jim Hacker the MoD would spend the money on conventional forces instead. The government would have spaffed the money away on tax cuts or benefits. Look at the way Conservative governments have hacked away at the armed services from the 1980s onwards.
The countries that we would use a nuclear deterrent on are few in number. We can ensure we have delivery systems in place to cover those individual threats.
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Yes, I think there is an element of kicking against Britain's maudlin obsession with poppyism.
The English obsession with WW2 is truly baffling to me. The only other country that comes close in this regard in my experience is Russia.
NA BERLIN!!!!
England has a lot in common with Russia, and indeed Turkey. Removed from the European mainstream, increasingly in thrall to nostalgic nationalism, can't admit to crimes committed during its imperial era, leader playing on nationalist grievances, educated middle class increasingly isolated and accused of lacking sufficient patriotism.
No we are more like Switzerland or Norway, seeking to play a part in Europe without being subsumed into a half-baked superstate.
As for admitting the crimes of our Imperial era, our record glows in comparison to France's.
This Swiss/Norway option sounds fantastic. Why aren't we having it after December 31st?
The EU wouldn't offer us the Swiss option. They hate it.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
It would not make a lot of difference.
Even if you take some of the most pessimistic estimates of the cost from CND you are talking about £5 billion per year for the Dreadnought programme over its lifetime. That's about 0.25% of GDP. The UK spends around £220 billion on health and social care each year.
I'm fairly sure that the NHS could swallow another £5 billion a year and have essentially nothing to show for it in the end.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
I may have missed it, but on the plan(s) to reopen schools, nobody seems to have commented much on the main obstacle: Gavin Williamson. Whether it is the failed plan for June 1st, or thinking ahead to September, he is responsible.
In a weak cabinet, he is the weakest of the weak, and couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
Aside from Mr Trump, I can't think of anybody more over-promoted than Mr Williamson. He is an idiot child.
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Nuclear weapons forced a fortified Japanese mainland to surrender within days, and the experience of being attacked with nuclear weapons turned Japan from an imperialist power to a pacifist one that has maintained its constitution for 75 years.
Conclusion: nuclear weapons are totally useless...
'The Japanese constitution is still shaped by it, and their psyche is still moulded by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Quelle surprise.
This is why Trident is, and always has been, totally useless.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Which would all be useless if having given up Trident Putin decided to invade us and we could do little to stop him.
If we gave up Trident only France would be left to defend western Europe with nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed Russia and
Why do you assume giving up Trident means giving up nuclear weapons? Tactical nuclear weapons are a lot less predictable and therefore at least as great a deterrent to a land invasion if not more.
Against a land invasion, sure, but they can't deter an intercontinental attack, which is how an aggressive nuclear power - Russia, China, Iran (one day), North Korea, Pakistan or whoever - would choose to strike us.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
An excellent post.
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
All in favour of reducing workloads, surely we can pick out the best of what is working in home teaching this summer and adapt it to create a few hours "automated" teaching each week for future years?
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
Until 1997 the Tories needed to win London as, along with the Midlands, it was the key swing region in the country, almost always voting for the party which won the general election.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside a few seats mostly in the suburbs.
Indeed despite a UK wide majority of 80 the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
Safer than Liverpool? Or do you not count that as a region?
The North West is a region, Liverpool is not.
The Tories did better in the North West at the last general election than they did in London
I may have missed it, but on the plan(s) to reopen schools, nobody seems to have commented much on the main obstacle: Gavin Williamson. Whether it is the failed plan for June 1st, or thinking ahead to September, he is responsible.
In a weak cabinet, he is the weakest of the weak, and couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
Aside from Mr Trump, I can't think of anybody more over-promoted than Mr Williamson. He is an idiot child.
And yet oddly, very popular with his constituents. His majorities have been smashing all records (and Patrick Cormack was hardly a drag on the ticket - he was a good MP).
I live just on the border of Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire - it literally runs outside my front door. When I talk to people about politics in South Staffs (which I don't do very often) they tend to say, unprompted, how wonderful he is.
I agree that he's rubbish, but that's a different problem.
I'm in no position to argue with that. But good MPs are not necessarily good Ministers. As an educationalist yourself, do you reckon he knows the first thing about education? I don't.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
Eldest Grandson reckons he'll be 'asked' to work longer hours.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
People aren't protesting against Churchill because of he was bros with Mussolini, or that he gassed Kurds or had the army shoot Welsh miners it's because he's a conspicuous symbol of the British establishment and what Mao called, The Four Olds. It's just the vibe rather than anything he did in particular.
Yes, I think there is an element of kicking against Britain's maudlin obsession with poppyism.
The English obsession with WW2 is truly baffling to me. The only other country that comes close in this regard in my experience is Russia.
NA BERLIN!!!!
England has a lot in common with Russia, and indeed Turkey. Removed from the European mainstream, increasingly in thrall to nostalgic nationalism, can't admit to crimes committed during its imperial era, leader playing on nationalist grievances, educated middle class increasingly isolated and accused of lacking sufficient patriotism.
No we are more like Switzerland or Norway, seeking to play a part in Europe without being subsumed into a half-baked superstate.
As for admitting the crimes of our Imperial era, our record glows in comparison to France's.
This Swiss/Norway option sounds fantastic. Why aren't we having it after December 31st?
The EU wouldn't offer us the Swiss option. They hate it.
Yes they did and it was a mistake as many pointed out at the time. For balance, the leave leaders rejected it too. The pragmatists who supported it have generally been kicked out of public life. Sad.
Sadiq Khan is an uninspiring mayor. I don't think he has done anything much to deserve a second term, but neither has he done anything particularly catastrophic. He doesn't have the power to. My guess is that he will win whoever the Tories put up against him because right now London does not like the Conservative party very much.
Why should we like them? They don't like us, except for our money.
Absolutely. The Tories have decided that one of the ways to remain in power is to paint London as one of the many enemies this country has. A lot of people in London have noticed that.
I'm not at all sure that hypothesis holds water. The broad pattern in England and Wales is that Labour still does well in built-up places that contain big concentrations of ethnic minority voters and the very poor, and in the university towns where there's a large student and academic vote that breaks strongly left. They're presently doing pretty crap everywhere else.
The moth-eaten Labour core in London - chewed around the edges by Tory territory, the little Lib Dem redoubt in the south-west notwithstanding - is merely part of the more general pattern. To the extent that "London" does get bashed it's as a shorthand for a stereotypical community of left-liberal political and media activists whose instincts re: European integration, historical revisionism and open border immigration run contrary to those of the majority of the population overall, and certainly to those of the new governing alliance of shire Tories and provincial Leave voters.
"shorthand for a stereotypical community".
It's OK but I recommend "shorthand for the stereotyping OF a community" to demonstrate that you yourself have no truck with the stereotyping in question.
I don't think it's likely that the Tories win London no matter the candidate. This being the case, Sean Bailey should get full support, the Tories should fight tooth and nail for every vote, and just use it as a learning exercise.
Shaun Bailey is not a basket case just yet. There have been five London Mayoral elections. Labour won two of them. Just two. Not even half. CCHQ needs to grow a pair and stop this endless whinging that "the system" is biased against them in Scotland, Wales, London, the north.
Indeed. If the Tories presented an attractive platform, and were fronted by likeable, competent, normal people, they would perform well electorally among Londoners, Scots, Welsh and northern English.
“The system” is heavily in their favour, so their lack of success must be down to their ugly agenda, their repulsive character, their gross and increasingly obvious incompetence, and the fact that most of their high profile figures are complete weirdos.
Winning elections is not rocket science. You just need to be reasonably ok, not the best on the planet. That’s why all Johnson’s guff about his “world-beating” policies backfires. It is so self-evidently untrue. Johnson is not the best person in the building, let alone the planet.
Just wait till the Brexit post cognitive dissonance kicks in. Then we’ll see how “the system” affects the Tory vote in the English Midlands and South.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
An excellent post.
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
All in favour of reducing workloads, surely we can pick out the best of what is working in home teaching this summer and adapt it to create a few hours "automated" teaching each week for future years?
I'm already planning to record some lectures!
But teaching, unfortunately, is an interactive and fluid process. That's one reason why so much work is involved. What works with one group won't with another, and what's covered one year may not be needed the following year. Moreover, marking can't be done automatically and if you do it properly it's a long process (or at least, it is in my subjects. In others, it's a bit different).
In any case, as I said, I'm finding automated teaching is more work, not less. A quick way to reduce my workload would be to get us back to school.
Yay, more people interested in bashing the government rather than getting schools open.
We can't get schools open. 2m distancing means a best case scenario of 2 days a week schooling for the duration. 1m social distancing gets you 2.5 days. Either way, the government say it's unsafe for schools to fully reopen and then government shills complain that people are bashing the government for quoting their own published guidelines
My 10 year old grandson has been back at school for two weeks now. He is finding it very difficult to deal with because of the social distancing rules and because a lot of the parents have not sent their kids back. Right now, he is not doing much learning. It is a total mess.
It is. Some schools locally are seeing about one in three kids who should be coming in actually turning up.
So, you have, for example, an infants' school that's letting the youngest children back in. Half of them come to class and the other half are kept home by the parents (presumably, other than in a few special cases where there are serious health concerns, because mummies and daddies are both paranoid about the utterly minuscule probability of the child falling seriously ill, and were either stay-at-home parents before this all kicked off or are privileged enough to be able to work from home and babysit simultaneously.) What do you do about it?
(a) muddle along as is and let the parents who want to keep the kids home do so
(b) force the parents who are keeping the kids at home to send them to school, unless they have a genuinely good reason to send them in, e.g. a family member at home with a serious underlying health condition
(c) say that, because some parents won't send the kids back, we're not going to let the ones who will do so (because it's too much trouble to organise and it was much easier for us when we only had to put up with the key workers doing it,) and instead we are going to force the parents who are sending their kids to school to take them back again
The current situation, (a), is arguably the least worst option. Mass fining of paranoid parents will go down like a cup of cold sick, and the teaching unions will just start screaming that they can't cope if all the kiddies in the relevant age groups start going back. And forcibly expelling the ones who have already returned would just amount to an unjust punishment for the non-paranoid parents and their children.
Beyond that, if the schools are struggling to provide education for the children who've come back then let them use this period before the holidays to work out how to make things better, so that they can get some experience before all the kids return in September. It looks like we're going to end up with all families in the UK having to put up with a second-rate "blended" education system of the kind described by the First Minister of Scotland; the practical experience afforded by the partial return of the primaries could at least be used to try to help make this form of schooling a little bit less rubbish, could it not?
What people managed to live in london on less than £90k a year... can't be much fun.
You probably cannot live on less than £90k a year in central London, unless you are in social housing or shared accomodation, however it is certainly possible to live on far less than than in areas in the outer London suburbs like Newham, Bexley, Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Enfield, Redbridge etc
Eh? I have the odd good year but generally earn less than that and have lived here over 20 years in zones 1 and 2. £50k as a single person would still give a good lifestyle here, or £75k between a couple. Having kids certainly is trickier with space at an extreme premium but £90k would be sufficient to bring up a family here as well.
£50k as a single person would put you in the top 10% of earners nationally, £90k with a family would be the minimum we said you could live on in central London anyway
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
An excellent post.
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
All in favour of reducing workloads, surely we can pick out the best of what is working in home teaching this summer and adapt it to create a few hours "automated" teaching each week for future years?
I'm already planning to record some lectures!
But teaching, unfortunately, is an interactive and fluid process. That's one reason why so much work is involved. What works with one group won't with another, and what's covered one year may not be needed the following year. Moreover, marking can't be done automatically and if you do it properly it's a long process (or at least, it is in my subjects. In others, it's a bit different).
In any case, as I said, I'm finding automated teaching is more work, not less. A quick way to reduce my workload would be to get us back to school.
Change is nearly always more work - at least to start with. Hope everyone can get back to school asap. For clarity I definitely wouldnt want stale automated teaching to be the norm, but really dont see why it cant be used for a few hours each week if teachers are under workload pressure.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
An excellent post.
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
The underlying problem is that the UK has been for decades a country which lives beyond its means but is now using up several years of borrowing in one go and is also likely to see its wealth creating means reduce.
As I first wrote over a decade ago how will the UK compete against countries which are as intelligent and educated as we are and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and under fewer restrictions.
Perhaps the PB teachers could ask their pupils that one.
Because its their pupils who will need to find answers in the real world.
Why is Shaun Bailey regarded as ineffective by some?
Just speaking for myself - I find him intellectually lightweight and also shallow and shifty.
Lightweight is the term that first comes to mind whenever I hear him. IanB2 (I think) provides a précis of his career achievements to date down thread. Precis of the précis: sweet FA.
Having said that - and given what a hopeless gig this would be for any Tory - I’d say he’s the ideal candidate for them. What you don’t want is a potentially stronger candidate losing any political capital they already have from the inevitably humiliating defeat. Let Shaun take this one for the team.
You say that - and yes it's probably right - but imo Khan is far from a political giant and is beatable if the Cons could find a really strong candidate. Being in any sense a Conservative is a no no, therefore if I were them I would be looking for a charismatic independent to run primarily as themselves with the Con badge just peeping out from under the lapel very occasionally and only in safe spaces.
Rory Stewart?
He would be a better Con candidate but would still lose imo. He's known as a Tory which I think is fatal in London.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Sugar would be a complete disaster as a candidate. He is far too thin-skinned.
God yes. Just the thought is absurd. No, they need to find an anti-Sugar. An entrepreneur who is free of reactionary views and is animated by a spirit of public service (having now made their money) rather than ego and spotlight. Bill Gates springs to mind as a template. A "London Bill Gates" would beat Sadiq Khan imo.
That is what the Tories did with West Midlands mayor, Andy Street was John Lewis big bod...but he was up against PB favourite fortune teller, Sion Simon, so not exactly Premier League political battle.
Good call, a Londoner version of Andy Street. Is Charlie Mullins from Pimlico Plumbers still a Tory member?
No...he hates them now, because of Brexit. I believe he is Lib Dem these days.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
Oh, damn. Who else have we got, need to find a successful businessman known favourably to most of London?
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
Because its possible to build double the number of schools in a few weeks.
Yeah.
But they don't even appear to be trying. They could be commandeering other buildings, planning temporary structures on public land, portacabins in school grounds, recruiting extra teachers and TAs. But there don't seem to have been any efforts made. What is the plan? Are they simply assuming that it will be possible to go back as usual in September? This should be their number one priority right now. It's incredible to me that they seem to have made no effort.
If its not possible to return to normal then the whole education system will need reviewing.
That includes pay cuts for teachers.
Serious question in spite of the troll like statement.
Why would you cut pay when in all likelihood you are going to be increasing the workload?
If we end up with more teachers each teaching fewer pupils then current pay rates cannot be justified.
But as you well know we are not going to end up with more teachers - at least not to the levels needed.
In which case either teachers will have the same number of pupils for the same period of time or the same number of pupils for a reduced period of time.
If its the latter then current pay rates cannot be justified.
The bottom line is that people cannot do less work for the same pay.
Especially if it comes at a cost, in this case parental time, to others.
This might become an unfortunate reality in many jobs.
They would still be doing the same hours teaching two different classes acweek
Teaching two classes with half the pupils in each ?
That's a big drop in productivity.
If that's what's actually done. We don't know yet how the other half are going to be taught. Will they be accessing lessons streamed online, for instance?
But I agree with @Fysics_Teacher, teachers' salaries in key subjects are already at more or less the bottom of what we can hope for to recruit. Why would you become a physics teacher for less than £30,000 a year when you can earn treble that in industry or finance? Even the pension doesn't really make up for it.
With respect, I've not met many teachers who would be capable of £90k in other jobs.
With respect, how many teachers do you know?
How many people do you know who earn £90k ?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
Fortunate to have been born in the first world into a middle class family for the first time in human history when the following have become true:
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip) You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
An excellent post.
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
The underlying problem is that the UK has been for decades a country which lives beyond its means but is now using up several years of borrowing in one go and is also likely to see its wealth creating means reduce.
As I first wrote over a decade ago how will the UK compete against countries which are as intelligent and educated as we are and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and under fewer restrictions.
Perhaps the PB teachers could ask their pupils that one.
Because its their pupils who will need to find answers in the real world.
Well, I can tell you one thing. Don't look for China on that front (harder work for less pay). Look to Vietnam.
Comments
But I hope he gets at the very least a big fine.
https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Degree=Bachelor_of_Science_(BS_/_BSc),_Physics/Salary
The problem with the authentically wealthy is that they are somewhat difficult to lay financial hands on - which is one reason why I support shifting the taxation burden from work to property.
As a member of the comfortable white collar middle classes I do know how fortunate some are, how little value some add and how much at risk some are.
And most of the working class I know do pretty well for themselves.
As I've said before it looks like many middle class jobs will receive the globalisation effects that much of manufacturing received from the 1970s onwards.
Attempts to stop this will be in the guise of 'maintaining standards'
Attempts to turn WW2's achievements into something darker (such as the BNP's absurd spitfire image), have always failed totally.
Sadly people just assume when these warnings come out it is crying wolf. It isn't, it is preparation.
The key word is 'could'.
Similarly, in the USA, although the latest police killing is another example of the excessive use of lethal force, it's a less clear case than Floyd since the guy was pointing a weapon and it was a decision of the moment rather than four minutes of strangulation.
I think there's a genuine problem for black people in Britain and the US which has been played down for too long, and the disorders have raised attention. We now need to focus on what can be done to improve it, rather than mess around with statues.
Also note that 'Demonetisation' doesn't mean they don't run ads against the content, merely that Google collect all the ad revenue for themselves and don't share it with the content creator.
I think that Joe Rogan leaving the platform has started to get them looking at these issues, but they're still more likely to deal with it on a user-by-user basis than change their protocols.
Ignore scientists; Build bunker; Protect Cummings.
I more meant an Alan Sugar type who is the very antithesis of Alan Sugar - if they can find such a person.
Of my class in 2013, eight - so just under a third - began their teaching career in London. One is still there. He was a mature entrant, who had made a fortune in banking and already owned a large house in Kensington. The others had all moved out within five years.
I think five of them have quit teaching - which is well below average. But then, we were quite a talented cohort though I say so myself. Three of us were running departments before we finished our NQT year and one has since gone on to SLT.
But now we have allowed the mob to do something and people are copying this lead.
Absolutely Google's infrastructure is designed to be robust and distributed so it can be accessed by billions of people worldwide and give instantaneous results - not be instantaneously changed. That is a deliberate design they're happy to be accountable for to their consumers.
If consumers want a less robust search engine that can be more immediately fiddled with by the search engines staff then they can choose that.
Imagine if all that wasted Polaris and Trident money had been spent on a quality care home system, healthcare and disease and disaster preparation. And decent conventional forces of course.
Most schools, even really good ones, struggle to recruit for maths and physics, except during the depths of recessions. That implies that the pay:hassle ratio is out of synch.
That doesn't mean that all teachers are idiots. For quite a lot of people, the relative security, the fact that there are jobs everywhere, the convenience of not having to worry about holiday childcare for your own children and the fact that teaching can be the most tremendous fun are enough to outweigh the fact that you will never be rich. But that pool of people isn't enough to fully staff schools with warm bodies, let alone with all the people we might want.
It baffles me that those on the right who claim to understand the free market develop blind spots about supply and demand.
C'mon, Richard, of course this makes sense. I sense your eagerness to show you are not biased is biasing your appreciation of my (imo rather cute) contribution on this matter.
Which is odd because actually the news resource of choice for teachers is the Daily Mail.
Conclusion: nuclear weapons are totally useless...
The Tories have political control of England, but have lost cultural control. I expect that will tell against them in the future.
That mayor too laid into Trump (and rightly):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4EAc0QFubs
Obviously, there are caveats. The TPS is not what it was ten years ago, but it remains excellent compared to anything in the private sector. Sick pay is also (usually) much better. And the promotion prospects at JLR are probably less impressive than in schools. Plus job security is reduced.
But - realistically - which one would graduates choose, given the choice?
And why do so many of the ones who choose teaching vote with their feet after a few years?
With respect, we all like to believe we're top stuff who are performing nobly on behalf of our employer and society in general.
In reality we're not as good as we think we are and have been fortunate to be born in a first world country and usually among PBers into nice middle class families.
I can certainly believe you consider your final statement applies to you, but please do not project your inferiority complex on to others.
The moth-eaten Labour core in London - chewed around the edges by Tory territory, the little Lib Dem redoubt in the south-west notwithstanding - is merely part of the more general pattern. To the extent that "London" does get bashed it's as a shorthand for a stereotypical community of left-liberal political and media activists whose instincts re: European integration, historical revisionism and open border immigration run contrary to those of the majority of the population overall, and certainly to those of the new governing alliance of shire Tories and provincial Leave voters.
They have to take corporate responsibility as a company for their infrastructure and algorithms, and cannot simply hide behind excuses that their computer screwed up.
I think it would be helpful if fringe groups who cause trouble got minimal attention apart from the police dealing with them. Likewise terrorists, for that matter. Publicity for evil attention-seekers simply rewards them. Obviously there comes a point that so much havoc is caused that one can't ignore it. But a few thousand people shouting a lot and throwing beer cans? We don't need to know.
You are more likely to die of too much food than too little
You are more likely to die from old age than infectious diseases (even with a covid blip)
You are more likely to die from suicide than be killed by another human
Compared to those before us, we really are extremely fortunate and privileged human beings and that includes not just the middle class but the vast majority of the first world.
If we gave up Trident only France would be left to defend western Europe with nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed Russia and
In a weak cabinet, he is the weakest of the weak, and couldn't organise the proverbial in a brewery.
Aside from Mr Trump, I can't think of anybody more over-promoted than Mr Williamson. He is an idiot child.
Post corona and with more WFH will be interesting to see how many people decide that relocating outside of London, where get a bigger house etc for their money and instead do 1-2 days a week longer commute.
(*For avoidance of doubt, I am of course joking)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/13/st-albans-has-never-seen-anything-like-this-britain-rallies-for-black-lives-matter
But entirely separate from the question of teachers' salaries.
Speaking purely for myself, I wouldn't be too concerned about the level of my salary if my working hours were reduced. One of the reasons it goes up each year and jumps so dramatically (30%) up to middle management level is because of the workload.
But if it's cut too far, there will be recruitment issues. There are many grubs in the teaching rose apart from the hours worked.
And at this moment, my workload has increased because I am having to replan all my lessons for online work and answer hundreds of emails from students who can't just stick their hand in the air and ask.
As I remember Cameron initially wanted Greg Dyke to be the anti-Ken candidate in 2008.
Now however London is the safest Labour region in the UK, as 2019 showed even less of a prospect for the Tories than the North of England and Wales, so the Tories do not need to win London to win a general election outside a few seats mostly in the suburbs.
Indeed despite a UK wide majority of 80 the Tories now only hold 3 seats in the whole of inner London, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea and Fulham and 2/3 of those are marginal seats
They love getting headlines. They get headlines from scaremongering. And policy makers fall for it. While more sober and rigorous predictions are ignored.
I live just on the border of Cannock Chase and South Staffordshire - it literally runs outside my front door. When I talk to people about politics in South Staffs (which I don't do very often) they tend to say, unprompted, how wonderful he is.
I agree that he's rubbish, but that's a different problem.
Even if you take some of the most pessimistic estimates of the cost from CND you are talking about £5 billion per year for the Dreadnought programme over its lifetime. That's about 0.25% of GDP. The UK spends around £220 billion on health and social care each year.
I'm fairly sure that the NHS could swallow another £5 billion a year and have essentially nothing to show for it in the end.
But I agree with your general point.
Not to mention the French
The Tories did better in the North West at the last general election than they did in London
As an educationalist yourself, do you reckon he knows the first thing about education? I don't.
He was one of the people funding Mr Stop Brexit to shout all day over the tv reporters.
It's OK but I recommend "shorthand for the stereotyping OF a community" to demonstrate that you yourself have no truck with the stereotyping in question.
“The system” is heavily in their favour, so their lack of success must be down to their ugly agenda, their repulsive character, their gross and increasingly obvious incompetence, and the fact that most of their high profile figures are complete weirdos.
Winning elections is not rocket science. You just need to be reasonably ok, not the best on the planet. That’s why all Johnson’s guff about his “world-beating” policies backfires. It is so self-evidently untrue. Johnson is not the best person in the building, let alone the planet.
Just wait till the Brexit post cognitive dissonance kicks in. Then we’ll see how “the system” affects the Tory vote in the English Midlands and South.
But teaching, unfortunately, is an interactive and fluid process. That's one reason why so much work is involved. What works with one group won't with another, and what's covered one year may not be needed the following year. Moreover, marking can't be done automatically and if you do it properly it's a long process (or at least, it is in my subjects. In others, it's a bit different).
In any case, as I said, I'm finding automated teaching is more work, not less. A quick way to reduce my workload would be to get us back to school.
(a) muddle along as is and let the parents who want to keep the kids home do so
(b) force the parents who are keeping the kids at home to send them to school, unless they have a genuinely good reason to send them in, e.g. a family member at home with a serious underlying health condition
(c) say that, because some parents won't send the kids back, we're not going to let the ones who will do so (because it's too much trouble to organise and it was much easier for us when we only had to put up with the key workers doing it,) and instead we are going to force the parents who are sending their kids to school to take them back again
The current situation, (a), is arguably the least worst option. Mass fining of paranoid parents will go down like a cup of cold sick, and the teaching unions will just start screaming that they can't cope if all the kiddies in the relevant age groups start going back. And forcibly expelling the ones who have already returned would just amount to an unjust punishment for the non-paranoid parents and their children.
Beyond that, if the schools are struggling to provide education for the children who've come back then let them use this period before the holidays to work out how to make things better, so that they can get some experience before all the kids return in September. It looks like we're going to end up with all families in the UK having to put up with a second-rate "blended" education system of the kind described by the First Minister of Scotland; the practical experience afforded by the partial return of the primaries could at least be used to try to help make this form of schooling a little bit less rubbish, could it not?
As I first wrote over a decade ago how will the UK compete against countries which are as intelligent and educated as we are and who are willing to work harder for lower pay and under fewer restrictions.
Perhaps the PB teachers could ask their pupils that one.
Because its their pupils who will need to find answers in the real world.